[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60766-60771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-557-805]


Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner and three 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. This review covers four 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States 
(Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd., Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd, 
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd., and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd.). The period of review is 
October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by three of the four companies subject to this review. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments

[[Page 60767]]

in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A 
statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Office 
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1776 
or (202) 482-0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on extruded 
rubber thread from Malaysia (63 FR 54440).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on October 9, 1998, the 
petitioner, North American Rubber Thread, requested an administrative 
review of the antidumping order covering the period October 1, 1997, 
through September 30, 1998, for the following producers and exporters 
of extruded rubber thread: Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd. (Filati), Heveafil 
Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. 
(Rubberflex), and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd. (Rubfil). On October 27, 1998, 
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubfil also requested an administrative review.
    On November 30, 1998, the Department initiated an administrative 
review for Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil (63 FR 65748 (Nov. 
30, 1998)) and issued questionnaires to each of these companies on 
December 9, 1998.
    In February and March 1999, we received responses from Filati, 
Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received no response from Rubfil. Because 
Rubfil did not respond to the questionnaire, we have assigned a margin 
to Rubfil based on facts available. For further discussion, see the 
``Facts Available'' section, below.
    In June and July 1999, we issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in September 1999.
    In October 1999, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires 
to the three respondents. We received responses to these questionnaires 
in October 1999.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is extruded rubber thread. 
Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained 
by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any 
cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 
140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. 
Extruded rubber thread is currently classifiable under subheading 
4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is October 1, 1997, through September 
30, 1998.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 (1998).

Facts Available

A. Use of Facts Available for Rubfil

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is appropriate 
as the basis for Rubfil's dumping margin. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides that if an interested party: (1) Withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, 
subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (3) significantly 
impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or (4) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department 
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination. Specifically, 
Rubfil failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, issued in 
December 1998. Because Rubfil did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we must use facts otherwise available to determine 
Rubfil's dumping margin.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used with respect to a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 
316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (SAA). The failure of Rubfil to reply to 
the Department's questionnaire demonstrates that it has failed to act 
to the best of its ability in this review and, therefore, an adverse 
inference is warranted.
    As adverse facts available for Rubfil, we have used the highest 
rate for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. This rate is 
52.89 percent. We find that the rate of 52.89 percent, which was 
assigned in a prior administrative review, is sufficiently high as to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule (see Extruded Rubber 
Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 12752 (Mar. 16, 1998) (Thread Fourth Review)).

B. Corroboration of Secondary Information

    As facts available in this case, the Department has used 
information derived from a prior administrative review, which 
constitutes secondary information within the meaning of the SAA. See 
SAA at 870. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information 
from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides 
that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 
870.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a 
calculated dumping margin from the same or a prior segment of this 
proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the 
margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, however, the Department will consider information 
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that 
would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that 
the selected margin may not be appropriate, the Department will attempt 
to find a more appropriate basis for facts available. See, e.g., Fresh 
Cut Flowers

[[Page 60768]]

from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse best information 
available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin).
    For Rubfil, we examined the rate applicable to extruded rubber 
thread from Malaysia throughout the course of the proceeding. With 
regard to its probative value, the rate specified above is reliable and 
relevant because it is a calculated rate from the 1995-1996 
administrative review. There is no information on the record that 
demonstrates that the rate selected is not an appropriate total adverse 
facts available rate for Rubfil. Thus, the Department considers this 
rate to be appropriate adverse facts available.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia 
to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we 
compared the export price (EP) to the NV for Heveafil and Rubberflex, 
as specified in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. We compared the 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for Filati, Heveafil, and 
Rubberflex, as also specified in those sections.
    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in 
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. 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, 
based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our 
antidumping questionnaire.

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 as EP or CEP. The NV level of trade 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 expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level of 
trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually 
from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the 
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP sales, 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 level of trade 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 level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).
    Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex claimed that they made home market 
sales at only one level of trade (i.e., sales to original equipment 
manufacturers). Based on the information on the record, no level of 
trade adjustment was warranted for any respondent. Although Filati 
claimed that the home market level was different, and more remote, than 
the level of trade of the CEP, we have found the levels of trade to be 
the same.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a level of 
trade which constituted a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
level of trade of the CEP, we compared the selling functions performed 
for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP 
transaction, which excludes economic activities occurring in the United 
States. We found that Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex performed 
essentially the same selling functions in their sales offices in 
Malaysia for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, the 
respondents' sales in Malaysia were not at a more advanced stage of 
marketing and distribution than the constructed U.S. level of trade, 
which represents an F.O.B. foreign port price after the deduction of 
expenses associated with U.S. selling activities. Because we find that 
no difference in level of trade exists between markets, we have not 
granted a CEP offset to any of the respondents. For a detailed 
explanation of this analysis, see the concurrence memorandum issued for 
the preliminary results of this review, dated November 1, 1999.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For Heveafil and Rubberflex, we based the U.S. price on EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, when the subject merchandise 
was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise 
indicated.
    In addition, for all companies, we based the U.S. price on CEP 
where sales to the unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation 
into the United States, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. 
We also based U.S. price on CEP for Filati and Heveafil where the 
merchandise was shipped directly to certain unaffiliated customers 
because we found that the extent of the affiliates' activities 
performed in the United States in connection with those sales was 
significant.

A. Filati

    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import 
duties in Malaysia. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for rebates. In addition, where appropriate, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. 
brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. 
warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
commissions, credit expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, 
including U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act. We disallowed an offset claimed by Filati 
relating to imputed costs associated with financing antidumping and 
countervailing duty deposits, in accordance with the Department's 
practice. See Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 12967, 12968 (Mar. 16, 
1999) (Thread Fifth Review); Thread Fourth Review, 63 FR at 12754; and 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom; Final Results

[[Page 60769]]

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043, 54075 (Oct. 
17, 1997).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Filati and its affiliate on their sales of the 
subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product 
in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

B. Heveafil

    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. In accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import 
duties in Malaysia. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for rebates. We also made deductions for foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 
U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. inventory 
carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Heveafil and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

C. Rubberflex

    We based EP or CEP, as appropriate, on the starting price to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions 
from the starting price, where appropriate, for rebates. We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
customs duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. inventory 
carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. 
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Rubberflex and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Filati, Heveafil, and 
Rubberflex had made home market sales at prices below their costs of 
production (COPs) in this review because the Department had disregarded 
sales below the COP for these companies in the most recent 
administrative review. See Thread Fifth Review, 64 FR at 12969. As a 
result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether 
the respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices below 
their respective COPs.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act.
    We compared the COP figures to home market prices of the foreign 
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On 
a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, 
less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a 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 a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that 
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product 
were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.
    We found that, for certain models of extruded rubber thread, more 
than 20 percent of each respondent's home market sales within an 
extended period of time were at prices less than COP. Further, the 
prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used 
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of extruded rubber 
thread for which there were no comparable home market sales in the 
ordinary course of trade, we compared CEP to CV, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts 
incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
    Company-specific calculations are discussed below.

A. Filati

    In all instances, NV for Filati was based on home market sales. 
Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated 
customers. For all price-to-price comparisons, we made deductions from 
the starting price

[[Page 60770]]

for rebates, where appropriate. We also made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses and bank 
charges. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we 
offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the 
amount of home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying 
costs, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where 
appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

B. Heveafil

    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts. We also made deductions for foreign 
inland freight and foreign inland insurance, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) if the 
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where 
appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
    For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses, in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

C. Rubberflex

    In all instances, NV for Rubberflex was based on home market sales. 
Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated 
customers. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    For home market price-to-EP comparisons, we made circumstance of 
sale adjustments for differences in credit expenses, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) if the Act. For home market price-to-CEP 
comparisons, we made deductions for home market credit expenses.
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to 
account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank.
    Section 773A of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's 
practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is 
defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. 
When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the 
benchmark for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period October 1, 1997, through 
September 30, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd.....................................         0.47
Heveafil Sdn. Bhd..........................................  ...........
Filmax Sdn. Bhd............................................         0.17
Rubberflex Sdn Bhd.........................................         6.35
Rubfil Sdn. Bhd............................................        52.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will 
publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such case briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales, where available. Where the entered value was not 
available, we estimated the entered value by subtracting international 
and U.S. movement expenses from the gross sales value. These rates will 
be assessed uniformly on all entries of particular importers made 
during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the 
Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all 
entries for any importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.50) percent. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided 
for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for 
Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil will be the rates established 
in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 
0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (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 this review, a 
prior review, or the 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 15.16 percent, the all others rate established in the 
LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice 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 this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement

[[Page 60771]]

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 are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: November 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-29198 Filed 11-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P