[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6148-6153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-412-803]


Industrial Nitrocellulose From the United Kingdom; Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY:  On August 6, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on industrial nitrocellulose 
(``INC'') from the United Kingdom. This review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have changed the final results from those presented in the preliminary 
results. The final results are listed below in the section Final 
Results of the Review.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ron Trentham or Thomas Futtner, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-6320 or 482-3814, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round

[[Page 6149]]

Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 
(1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 6, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(64 FR 42908) the preliminary results of the administrative review of 
the antidumping order on industrial nitrocellulose (INC) from the 
United Kingdom, 55 FR 28270 (July 10, 1990). We gave interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. On September 7, 
1999, we received a case brief from Imperial Chemical Industries PLC 
(``ICI'') (``respondent''). On September 8, 1999, we received a case 
brief from Hercules Incorporated (``petitioner''). On September 14, 
1999, we received a rebuttal case brief from the respondent. Based on 
our analysis of the comments received, we changed the final results 
from those presented in the preliminary results as described below in 
``Changes from the Preliminary Results'' and ``Interested Party 
Comments'' sections of this notice. The Department has now completed 
this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the 
Act.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of INC from the United 
Kingdom. INC is a dry, white amorphous synthetic chemical with a 
nitrogen content between 10.8 and 12.2 percent, and is produced from 
the reaction of cellulose with nitric acid. INC is used as a film-
former in coatings, lacquers, furniture finishes, and printing inks. 
The scope of this order does not include explosive grade 
nitrocellulose, which has a nitrogen content of greater than 12.2 
percent.
    INC is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) 
subheading 3912.20.00. While the HTS item number is provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description remains 
dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

Changes From the Preliminary Results

    1. We corrected an error in the model match program with regard to 
the physical characteristic viscosity. See Comment 5.
    2. We corrected an error in the calculation of net interest expense 
used to determine the constructed export price (``CEP'') profit ratio. 
See Comment 4.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Categorization of U.S. Sales

    The petitioner states that in the 1996-1997 administrative review 
of the subject antidumping duty order, the Department determined that 
sales to the United States by ICI were CEP, and not export price 
(``EP'') transaction. See Industrial Nitrocellulose From the United 
Kingdom; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 6609 (Feburary 10, 1999) (``1996-1997 Final Results''). 
According to the petitioner, ICI has failed to show any changes in the 
manner in which its merchandise is sold in the United States that would 
lead the Department to change its categorization. Thus, the petitioner 
contends that the Department was correct in finding ICI's U.S.sales to 
be CEP in this review as well, and should not alter such finding. In 
addition, the petitioner notes that ICI reported all of its U.S. sales 
as CEP transactions in response to the Department's instructions in its 
February 17, 1999 supplemental questionnaire.
    In rebuttal ICI states that its action to acquiesce to the 
Department's determination that its U.S. sales in this review are CEP 
sales does not represent agreement with petitioner's comments and ``is 
without prejudice to its position involving sales in future reviews.''

Department's Position

    We agree with the petitioner and for these final results we have 
continued to treat ICI's U.S. sales as CEP sales.

Comment 2: CEP Offset

    The petitioner states that the Department incorrectly granted ICI a 
CEP offset. The petitioner contends that the Department's present 
methodology for determining the appropriateness of a CEP offset has 
been deemed ``contrary to law'' by recent Court of International Trade 
(``CIT'') decisions, Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 
1241 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998) (``Borden'') and Micron Technology v. 
United States, 40 F. Supp 2d 481, (Ct. Intl. Trade1999) (``Micron'').
    In rebuttal ICI states that the Department has filed notice of 
appeal of Borden and the Micron decision is on remand to the 
Department. According to ICI, Borden and Micron  are not final 
decisions because a decision of the CIT that has been appealed ``is not 
a ``final court decision'. . .'' See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 
F.2d 337, 339 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, ICI contends that the 
Department's position to continue to apply its current methodology of 
adjusting CEP, as articulated in section 351.412 of the Department's 
regulations, is correct since the issue has not been fully judicially 
determined.

Department's Position

    The Department has consistently stated that the statute and the 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') support analyzing the 
level of trade (``LOT'') of CEP sales at the constructed level, after 
expenses associated with economic activities in the United States have 
been deducted, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. In the preamble 
to our proposed regulations, we stated:

    With respect to the identification of levels of trade, some 
commentators argued that, consistent with past practice, the 
Department should base level of trade on the starting price for both 
export price EP and CEP sales ... The Department believes that this 
proposal is not supported by the SAA. If the starting price is used 
for all U.S. sales, the Department's ability to make meaningful 
comparisons at the same level of trade (or appropriate adjustments 
for differences in levels of trade) would be severely undermined in 
cases involving CEP sales. As noted by other commentators, using the 
starting price to determine the level of trade of both types of U.S. 
sales would result in a finding of different levels of trade for an 
EP sale and a CEP sale adjusted to a price that reflected the same 
selling functions. Accordingly, the regulations specify that the 
level of trade analyzed for EP sales is that of the starting price, 
and for CEP sales it is the constructed level of trade of the price 
after the deduction of U.S. selling expenses and profit.

See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308, 7347 (February 27, 
1996).
    Consistent with the above position, the Department evaluates the 
level of trade for CEP sales based on the price after adjustments are 
made under section 772(d) of the Act. See, e.g.,Large Newspaper 
Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, From Japan: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 61 FR 38139, 38143 (July 23, 1996). We note that, in 
every case decided under the revised antidumping statute, we have 
consistently adhered to this interpretation of the SAA and of the Act. 
See, e.g., Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide 
from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 15766, 15768 (April 9, 1996); Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France; Preliminary Result of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915, 8916 (March 6, 
1996); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

[[Page 6150]]

Bearings) and parts Thereof from France, et. al., Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 25713, 35718-23 (July 
8, 1996); and Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One 
Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke 
the Order in Part, 64 FR 69694 (December 14, 1999).
    In accordance with the above precedent, our instructions in the 
questionnaire issued to ICI for this case stated that constructed LOT 
should be used. ICI adequately documented the differences in selling 
functions in the home and in the U.S. markets. See Memorandum Regarding 
industrial Nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom-LOT Analysis-Imperial 
Chemical Industries, PLC, August 2, 1999 (``LOT Analysis Memo''). 
Therefore, the Department's decision to grant a CEP offset to ICI was 
consistent with the statute and the Department's practice, and was 
supported by substantial evidence on the record.
    We disagree with the petitioner's interpretation of Borden and of 
its impact on our current practice. In Borden, the court held that the 
Department's practice to base the LOT comparisons on CEP sales after 
CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of section 772(d) of 
the Act. See Borden, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 1236-38 ; see also Micron, 40 F. 
Supp. 2d at 485-86. The Department believes, however, that its practice 
is in full compliance with the statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT 
entered final judgement in Borden on the LOT issue. See Borden, Inc. v. 
United States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 (CIT June 4, 
1999). The government has filed an appeal of Borden which is pending 
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, 
the Department has continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting 
CEP under section 772(d) of the Act, prior to starting a LOT analysis, 
as articulated in the regulations at section 351.412. Accordingly, 
consistent with the preliminary results, we will continue to analyze 
the LOT based on adjusted CEP prices, rather than the starting CEP 
prices.

Comment 3: LOT Analysis

    Notwithstanding its argument above, the petitioner contends that 
the respondent is not entitled to a CEP offset even on the basis of the 
Department's LOT/CEP methodology. The petitioner states that in the 
1996-1997 Final Results, the Department denied a CEP offset to ICI 
using the same methodology as that used in the instant review. 
According to the petitioner, ``even after removing many of ICI's 
selling activities in the U.S. market, the Department nonetheless found 
that not only did significant selling functions remain in both the U.S. 
and home markets, but that these functions were ``essentially 
identical'' in both markets.''
    The petitioner argues that in the present review, as in the prior 
segment, ICI is not entitled to the CEP offset. First, the channels of 
distribution are the same in both markets. Second, significant parallel 
selling functions ``remain in both the U. S. and home markets'' even 
after adjusting for selling functions occurring in the United States 
pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
    The petitioner notes that in its LOT analysis the Department 
concludes that ``the home market LOT includes significantly more 
selling functions and greater selling expenses than the CEP LOT.'' See 
LOT Analysis Memo. However, the petitioner claims that in this review, 
as in the preceding one, significant selling functions continue to be 
carried out at the CEP LOT. Moreover, the petitioner contends that 
certain of the ``selling functions'' listed in the chart in the LOT 
Analysis Memo in order to differentiate ICI's home market and CEP sales 
are distinctions without a difference.
    According to the petitioner, the category ``Technical Support 
Services'' is insignificant for both home market and CEP sales. The 
petitioner argues that the Department has compared a ``may-
occasionally-answer-a-technical-question'' in the home market with a 
``no-expense-incurred'' answer regarding CEP sales. Moreover, the 
petitioner maintains that as one of only five categories of selling 
activities designed to show differences between home market and CEP 
sales significant enough to warrant a CEP offset, this item carries a 
full 20 percent of the ``conceptual totality'' of home market to CEP 
sales differences.
    The petitioner contends that, in this manner, the Department has 
elevated an item of virtual non-difference to a level whereby it may 
significantly impact the CEP offset determination, and thus, 
ultimately, the dumping margin.
    The petitioner notes that for the second of the chart's five 
categories, ``Sales Activities'', there is a ``Yes'' for home market 
sales and a ``No'' for sales CEP sales. However, the petitioner argues 
that despite the ``No'' grade, there are certain functions subsumed 
under the ``Sales Activities'' box on the chart with regard to CEP 
sales, such as order processing, issuing confirmations, etc..
    The fourth of the five categories on the chart, ``Sales Support'', 
shows a ``Yes'' for the home market and a ``No'' for CEP sales. With 
regard to this category, the petitioner alleges that the respondent has 
failed to disclose that ICI entertained numerous U.S. customers and 
potential customers in Scotland.
    According to the petitioner, it can be seen that the chart used in 
the LOT Analysis Memo to differentiate ICI's home-market and CEP 
selling functions gives the erroneous impression that major differences 
exist between the two. However, the petitioner argues that the 
differences in the functions are very few.
    In rebuttal, ICI states that the petitioner's argument that ICI is 
not entitled to a CEP offset in the present review because it was 
denied a CEP offset in the 1996-1997 review is legally flawed. ICI 
argues that each administrative review is a separate proceeding, 
conducted and based upon its own record. ICI maintains that as 
preliminarily determined by the Department, the record in this 
administrative review fully supports the allowance of a CEP offset. 
According to ICI, it is this record that is determinative and not the 
record from the previous review or for that matter the determination 
that was based on the prior record.
    ICI contends that virtually the entire argument submitted by the 
petitioner under its category ``sales support'' is based on assertions 
made at the time its case brief was filed. According to ICI, the 
Department should not accept this information into the record and 
should not consider it in its analysis. Further, ICI notes that 
throughout its factual analysis comments the petitioner attempts to 
assign a 20 percent numerical value to each of the five categories 
listed in the chart and attempts to find minor flaws with the 
Department's factual analysis in each category. ICI contends that this 
biased approach seems absurd on its face and that there is no basis to 
claim that each of the summary categories carries the same weight. 
Moreover, ICI claims that the petitioner's critiques are extremely 
selective and limited and, for the most part, do not address the record 
as a whole.
    ICI asserts that in its ``sales activities'' table the petitioner 
seems to criticize the Department for not taking into account ordering 
and freight functions in sales to the U.S. affiliate. However, ICI 
argues that these categories of activities were considered and analyzed 
by the

[[Page 6151]]

Department with regard to the sales administration and sales services 
section of the chart. Further, ICI notes that although the petitioner 
``pays lip service to the notion'' that selling functions for 
respondent's U.S. sales and related expenses associated with economic 
activity in the United States are removed from the analysis, its 
comments consistently seem to use such functions as support for its 
argument.

Department's Position:

    We disagree with the petitioner's claim that ICI is not entitled to 
a CEP offset in the present review because it was denied a CEP offset 
in a preceding segment of the proceeding. Each review is a separate 
segment of the proceeding with a separate and distinct factual record. 
See 1996-1997 Final Results, 64 FR at 6612.
    Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act provides for a LOT adjustment 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 sales on which normal value (NV) is based and 
comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. Section 
351.412(c)(2) of the Department's regulations states that the Secretary 
will determine that sales are made at different LOTs if they are made 
at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). To make this 
determination, the Department reviews such factors as selling 
functions, classes of customer, and the level of selling expenses for 
each type of sale. Different stages of marketing necessarily involve 
differences in selling functions, but differences in selling functions, 
even substantial ones, are not alone sufficient to establish a 
difference in the LOT.
    Similarly, while customer categories such as ``distributor'' and 
``wholesaler'' may be useful in identifying different LOTs, they are 
insufficient in themselves to establish that there is a difference in 
the LOT. In addition, the Department bases the LOT of CEP sales on the 
transaction to the affiliate in the United States after making CEP 
deductions under section 772(d) of the Act, as amended. See Gray 
Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 13148 (March 17,1999) (``Gray 
Portland Cement''); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 
62 FR 61631 (November 19, 1997); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 1997).
    Based upon our analysis of the record, we determine, as in the 
preliminary results of review, that ICI's home market sales occurred at 
a different and more advanced stage of distribution than ICI's sales to 
it U.S. affiliate. The record demonstrates that ICI performs sales 
activities, sales support, and technical service support for its sales 
in the home market but not for its CEP sales to the U.S. affiliate 
after deducting the expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. 
Thus, contrary to the petitioner's assertions, we find adequate basis 
on the record to conclude that ICI performs three of its five selling 
functions with respect to only its home market sales and not with 
respect to its CEP sales.
    In addition, based on our analysis of sales administration and 
sales services, we find that ICI performs these selling functions at a 
higher level of intensity for its home market sales than for its CEP 
sales. Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, selling functions do not 
carry the same weight. In the Department's questionnaire, respondents 
are asked to describe the degree to which each selling activity was 
performed on its reported sales. Thus, when we compare the CEP level of 
trade to the home market level of trade, we analyze selling functions 
on the basis of not only function but intensity, as well. See Gray 
Portland Cement, 64 FR at 13161; Professional Electric Cutting Tools 
from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Review, 63 FR 
30706, 30708 (June 5, 1998).
    Thus, as the record demonstrates, ICI performs the majority of its 
selling functions with respect to its home market sales and not with 
respect to its CEP sales. In addition, ICI does not perform any 
services for its CEP sales which it does not perform for its home 
market sales. Accordingly, we determine that ICI's home market sales 
occur at a different and more advanced stage of distribution than its 
CEP sales. We also determine that a LOT adjustment cannot be calculated 
because the data provided do not provide an appropriate basis upon 
which to determine a LOT adjustment. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate for these 
final results.
    Finally, we agree with ICI that the petitioner's assertions 
regarding the entertaining of U.S. market customers and potential 
customers by ICI in Scotland are unsubstantiated by factual information 
on the record and we have disregarded these assertions for the purposes 
of these final results.

Comment 4: CEP Profit Ratio

    The petitioner alleges that the Department has incorrectly 
calculated the CEP profit ratio by looking to ICI's net operating 
income as the numerator, instead of ICI's total U.S. expenses. 
According to the petitioner, under section 772(f) of the Act, CEP 
profit is determined by multiplying total actual profit by the 
applicable percentage, which is determined pursuant to section 
772(f)(2)(A) of the Act, by dividing total U.S. expenses by total 
expenses. The CEP profit ratio should be stated as ``[p]rofit on 
ordinary activities before taxation'' divided by operating costs plus 
net interest payable.
    In rebuttal, ICI contends that the petitioner is confusing the 
terms ``applicable percentage'' and ``CEP profit ratio'' as having the 
same meaning. According to ICI, the ``applicable percentage'' consists 
of the ratio of U.S. total expenses divided by the total expenses, 
whereas, the ``CEP profit ratio'' is a percentage derived from a two-
step calculation: (1) calculation of a total actual profit by deducting 
total expenses from total revenue, and (2) dividing the total actual 
profit by the total expenses. This CEP ratio is then applied to the CEP 
selling expenses to derive an actual CEP profit for the CEP sales. ICI 
maintains that this is the formula used by the Department in its 
calculation of the CEP profit for the CEP sales.
    ICI argues that the numerator used by the petitioner in calculating 
the CEP profit ratio, i.e., profit on ordinary activities before 
taxation, is incorrect. According to ICI, the profit figure used by the 
petitioner does not consist of profit before ordinary activities ; 
rather, it takes into account profit realized on activities which have 
nothing to do with income derived from ICI's main core business.
    ICI maintains that the Department's calculation of the total actual 
profit and CEP ratio is correct because it deducts the total revenue 
derived from operations from the total expenses. According to ICI, this 
methodology reflects the actual profit earned by ICI from the 
operations of its main core business.

Department's Position

    We agree with respondent that the correct methodology was used in 
the calculation of CEP profit in our preliminary results and thus, we 
have used the same methodology for calculating CEP profit in these 
final results.

[[Page 6152]]

    Section 772(d)(3) of the Act provides that CEP shall be reduced by 
the profit allocable to selling, distribution, and further 
manufacturing activities in the United States.
    Section 772(f) of the Act provides three alternative methods for 
determining total expenses for purposes of computing CEP profit. These 
alternatives form a hierarchy where the use of any one of the methods 
depends on the data available to the Department from the case record. 
We were unable to apply the first alternative (section 772(f)(2)(C)(i)) 
because the Department is not conducting a sales below cost 
investigation and, therefore, ICI did not report COP or CV information 
for the home market and U.S. products. In addition, we were unable to 
apply the second alternative (section 772 (f)(2)(C)(ii)) because the 
financial statements of ICI are not specific to the production costs 
and sales information of merchandise sold only in the U.S. and home 
market. Therefore, we calculated CEP profit using alternative three 
(section 772(f)(2)(C)(iii)). Under this alternative, we calculated the 
profit percentage based on ICI's financial statement of 1997 for 
merchandise produced and sold by the respondent in all countries.
    Pursuant to the Department's policy as embodied in Policy Bulletin 
97.1, ``Calculation of Profit for Constructed Export Price 
Transactions,'' we determined the CEP profit ratio by using ICI's 
income before taxes which we calculated by subtracting total expenses 
(cost of sales, distribution costs, research and development, 
administrative expenses and net interest expense) from net sales 
revenue. We then divided income before taxes by total expenses to 
arrive at a CEP profit ratio which we then multiplied by CEP selling 
expenses to arrive at CEP profit.
    During the course of our analysis, we discovered that an incorrect 
amount for net interest expense was used in the calculation of the CEP 
profit ratio. Therefore, for these final results, we have recalculated 
the CEP profit ratio to include the correct net interest expense. See 
Calculation Memorandum of the Final Results for the 1997-1998 
Administrative Review of Imperial Chemical Industries, February 2, 2000 
(``Final Calculation Memo'').

Comment 5: Clerical Error in Model Match Program

    ICI states that the Department should correct a clerical error in 
its model match program that resulted in the failure of the program to 
match certain U.S. sales transactions with the most similar home market 
sales. According to ICI, the Department's model match computer program 
was based on six physical characteristics reported in both the U.S. and 
home market sales files. With regard to the physical characteristic 
viscosity, the Department ranked the viscosity ranges for each U.S. and 
home market control number (CONNUM) by assigning a code. ICI contends 
that the Department's program contains a computer programming error in 
the ranking of the viscosity codes for both home market and U.S. 
products. ICI argues that this error resulted in matching one U.S. 
product with a home market product that is not the most similar match 
in terms of physical characteristics to the U.S. product. No comments 
were submitted by the petitioner on this issue.

Department's Position

    We agree with ICI and have made the appropriate modifications to 
the Department's model match program for these final results. See Final 
Calculation Memo.

Comment 6: Error in Preliminary Results

    ICI noted that in the preliminary determination the Department 
states that ``* * * all sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser took 
place after importation.'' See 64 FR at 42909. ICI alleges that based 
on the factual record and the Department's own analysis this statement 
appears to be in error and should be corrected. No comments were 
submitted by the petitioner on this issue.

Department's Position

    We agree with ICI. In our preliminary determination we stated that 
in calculating price to the United States for ICI, we used CEP, as 
defined in section 772(b) of the Act because all sales to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States took place after 
importation. This statement was incorrect. In the instant review, as in 
the previous segment of this proceeding, we determined that ICI's U.S. 
sales were CEP transactions even though the sales took place before 
importation because ICI's U.S. selling agent was substantially involved 
in the sales process in the United States on behalf of or for the 
account of ICI. See 1996-1997 Final Results, 64 FR at 6611-12.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists for the period of July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Chemical Industries PLC...........................        18.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    For assessment purposes, we have calculated an importer-specific 
duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the same sales. The rate will be assessed uniformly on 
all entries made by the relevant importer during the POR.
    The following deposit requirements shall be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of review for all shipments 
of industrial nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above; 
(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 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) for all other producers and/or 
exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 11.13 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation(55 FR 21058, May 22, 1990). These deposit requirements 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

[[Page 6153]]

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with Sections 351.305 and 351.306 of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of 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.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 2, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2850 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P