[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7492-7497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-837]


Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether 
Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On October 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping 
duty order on large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, 
whether assembled or unassembled, from Japan (64 FR 55243). These 
reviews cover Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Tokyo Kikai 
Seisakusho, Ltd., manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to 
the United States. The periods of review for Mitsubishi Heavy 
Industries, Ltd. are September 5, 1996, through August 31, 1997, and 
September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998. The period of review for 
Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho is September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998. 
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary 
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and the 
correction of certain data, the final results differ from the 
preliminary results. The final results for Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. 
are listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section of this 
notice. For the reasons stated in the ``Partial Rescission of Reviews'' 
section of this notice, we have rescinded these reviews with respect to 
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2000.

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 (202) 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references 
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

[[Page 7493]]

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 19 CFR part 351 
(1998).

Background

    On October 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the first 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on large newspaper 
printing presses and components thereof, whether assembled or 
unassembled, from Japan (LNPPs) (64 FR 55243) (Preliminary Results).
    On December 27, 1999, we published in the Federal Register the 
final results of a changed-circumstances antidumping duty 
administrative review of this order, which resulted in the partial 
revocation of the order with respect to certain merchandise specified 
in the ``Scope of Reviews'' section of this notice. This merchandise 
was under review for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) at the time of 
the Preliminary Results. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses 
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order, In part, 64 FR 72315, 
(Changed Circumstances Review).
    On December 10, 1999, the respondent Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. 
(TKS) submitted comments on the Preliminary Results. The Department has 
now completed its administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews are large newspaper printing 
presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, 
whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that 
are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more 
than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page 
in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of 
the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of 
type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper.
    In addition to press systems, the scope of these reviews includes 
the five press system components. They are: (1) A printing unit, which 
is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process 
(full) color; (2) a reel tension paster, which is any component that 
feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width 
into a subject printing unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or 
combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering 
the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than 
two pages in width into a newspaper format; (4) conveyance and access 
apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two 
newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and 
which provides structural support and access; and (5) a computerized 
control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software 
designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the 
functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press 
components.
    A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the 
press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate 
such components into an existing press system.
    Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, 
press additions, and press components are typically shipped either 
partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are 
assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation 
process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection 
of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large 
newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, 
regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-
subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope 
of these reviews. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP 
system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at 
least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major 
LNPP components of which they are a part.
    For purposes of these reviews, the following definitions apply 
irrespective of any different definition that may be found in Customs 
rulings, U.S. Customs law or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS): the term ``unassembled'' means fully or 
partially unassembled or disassembled; and (2) the term ``incomplete'' 
means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to 
be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition 
or component.
    This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or 
replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not 
integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are 
separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not 
shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the 
scope of these reviews. Used presses are also not subject to this 
scope. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an 
arm's-length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce 
newspapers in the ordinary course of business.
    Also excluded from the scope, in accordance with the Department's 
determination in the Changed Circumstances Review, are elements and 
components of LNPP systems, and additions thereto, which feature a 22 
inch cut-off, 50 inch web width and a rated speed no greater than 
75,000 copies per hour. In addition to the specifications set out in 
this paragraph, all of which must be met in order for the product to be 
excluded from the scope of the order, the product must also meet all of 
the specifications detailed in the five numbered sections following 
this paragraph. If one or more of these criteria is not fulfilled, the 
product is not excluded from the scope of the order.
    1. Printing Unit: A printing unit which is a color keyless blanket-
to-blanket tower unit with a fixed gain infeed and fixed gain outfeed, 
with a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour, which 
includes the following features:
     Each tower consisting of four levels, one or more of which 
must be populated.
     Plate cylinders which contain slot lock-ups and blanket 
cylinders which contain reel rod lock-ups both of which are of solid 
carbon steel with nickel plating and with bearers at both ends which 
are configured in-line with bearers of other cylinders.
     Keyless inking system which consists of a passive feed ink 
delivery system, an eight roller ink train, and a non-anilox and non-
porous metering roller.
     The dampener system which consists of a two nozzle per 
page spraybar and two roller dampener with one chrome drum and one form 
roller.
     The equipment contained in the color keyless ink delivery 
system is designed to achieve a constant, uniform feed of ink film 
across the cylinder without ink keys. This system requires use of 
keyless ink which accepts greater water content.
    2. Folder: A module which is a double 3:2 rotary folder with 160 
pages collect capability and double (over and under)

[[Page 7494]]

delivery, with a cut-off length of 22 inches. The upper section 
consists of three-high double formers (total of 6) with six sets of 
nipping rollers.
    3. RTP: A component which is of the two-arm design with core drives 
and core brakes, designed for 50 inch diameter rolls; and arranged in 
the press line in the back-to-back configuration (left and right hand 
load pairs).
    4. Conveyance and Access Apparatus: Conveyance and access apparatus 
capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper 
broadsheets across through the production process, and a drive system 
which is of conventional shafted design.
    5. Computerized Control System: A computerized control system, 
which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically 
to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and 
operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components.
    These reviews cover all current and future printing technologies 
capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited to, 
lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress systems. 
The products covered by these reviews are imported into the United 
States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 
8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper 
printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 
8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems 
may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 
8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of these reviews is dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews

    On December 27, 1999, we published in the Federal Register the 
final results of a changed circumstances antidumping duty 
administrative review of this order, in which we determined to revoke 
from the order elements and components of LNPP systems, and additions 
thereto, imported to fulfill a contract for one or more complete LNPP 
systems that meet a specific set of criteria, as described in the 
petitioner's May 28, 1999, request for a changed circumstances review. 
See Changed Circumstances Review and the ``Scope of the Reviews'' 
section of this notice. As a result of this partial revocation, which 
applies to all entries of LNPP systems and additions thereto from Japan 
as described above, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after September 4, 1996, and which covers all of the 
LNPP merchandise that MHI exported to the United States during the 
above-specified administrative review periods, we have determined that 
MHI had no shipments of subject merchandise during these administrative 
review periods. Therefore, we are rescinding these reviews with respect 
to MHI.

Duty Absorption

    On November 17, 1998, and on January 21, 1999, the petitioner 
requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had 
been absorbed during the periods of review (POR). Section 751(a)(4) of 
the Act provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during 
an administrative review initiated two or four years after the 
publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed 
by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold 
in the United States through an affiliated importer. In this case, TKS 
sold to the United States through an importer that is affiliated within 
the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
    Section 351.213(j)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that 
during any administrative review covering all or part of a period 
falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of 
the publication of an antidumping order, the Department will conduct a 
duty absorption review, if requested. Because these reviews were 
initiated two years after the publication of the order, we are making a 
duty absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding.
    The Department's February 5, 1999, antidumping questionnaire 
requested proof that unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the 
antidumping duties to be assessed on entries during the review periods. 
Although TKS did not respond to this request, we find that there is no 
duty absorption, because we have determined that there is no dumping 
margin with respect to TKS's U.S. sales.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: CEP Profit Calculation
    TKS argues that the Department overstated the amount of constructed 
export price (CEP) profit in its preliminary margin calculations by 
failing to account for an amount for installation expenses incurred on 
the home market sales in the CEP profit calculation. TKS argues that, 
according to section 772(f)(2) of the Act, the Department is required 
to consider the ``total expenses'' incurred when calculating CEP 
profit. TKS points out that the Department has included installation 
expenses in the calculation of home market profit for purposes of 
determining constructed value (CV), and argues that the Department 
should revise its preliminary calculations to include installation 
costs in the CEP profit calculation as well.

The Department's Position

    We agree with TKS that installation expenses should have been 
accounted for in the calculation of CEP profit. When calculating CEP 
profit, we use the respondent's ``total actual profit'' for all sales 
of the subject merchandise and the foreign like product. Thus, the 
calculation includes all revenues and expenses resulting from the 
respondent's export price and home market sales. See section 
772(f)(2)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, we have included home market 
installation expenses in the CEP profit calculation for the final 
results.
Comment 2: Home Market Profit Calculation
    TKS argues that the Department has overstated home market profit in 
its preliminary margin calculation by failing to properly account for 
direct and indirect selling expenses.

The Department's Position

    To determine a respondent's CV profit, we typically calculate a 
profit rate using the respondent's actual profit on home market sales 
made in the ordinary course of trade (see Comment 3 for more details). 
In determining the actual profit, we take into account direct and 
indirect selling expenses. See section 773(e) of the Act. Accordingly, 
we have included direct and indirect selling expenses in the CV profit 
calculation for the final results. For further discussion of the 
calculation and application of this rate see the Calculation Memorandum 
dated February 9, 2000.
Comment 3: Foreign Like Product
    TKS contends that the Department has not sufficiently demonstrated 
that the LNPP additions sold in the home market during the POR 
constitute ``the foreign like product,'' as defined in section 771(16) 
of the Act. Therefore, TKS objects to the Department's preliminary 
calculation of CV profit based on above-cost home market sales in 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    TKS states that the Department apparently has based its foreign 
like product determination on section

[[Page 7495]]

771(16)(C), which defines the foreign like product as merchandise (1) 
produced in the same country and by the same person and of the same 
general class or kind as the merchandise which is the subject of the 
investigation; (2) like the subject merchandise in the purpose for 
which used; and (3) which the administering authority determines may 
reasonably be compared with the subject merchandise. TKS asserts that, 
since there is no record evidence to support this finding, the 
Department should determine that no foreign like product exists in the 
home market and base its CV profit calculation on section 773(e)(2)(B) 
of the Act.
    TKS argues that the Department's analysis of this issue, expressed 
in its September 30, 1999, Normal Value (NV) Memorandum does not 
support the Department's conclusion that LNPPs sold in the home market 
were ``foreign like product'' within the meaning of section 771(16). 
First, TKS states, the Department did not find that home market LNPPs 
were identical to those sold to the United States. Rather, TKS asserts, 
the Department found ``great'' physical differences in sub-component 
specifications. Thus, TKS concludes, the Department's foreign like 
product determination must have relied on section 771(16)(C). Although 
the Department concludes in its NV Memorandum that ``the general 
product characteristics of LNPP systems are comparable enough for them 
to be considered foreign like product,'' TKS complains that the 
Department does not reveal what ``general product characteristics'' it 
considered in making its determination. Furthermore, TKS argues, this 
conclusion conflicts with the Department's statement in the NV 
Memorandum that there are ``great'' physical differences between home 
market and U.S. LNPPs. TKS points out that the Department's methodology 
with respect to this issue is similar to that used in the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Furthermore, the United States Court 
of International Trade (CIT) has twice remanded to the Department this 
issue over the course of on-going litigation involving this case. TKS 
complains that, as in the court case, the Department has failed to 
point to any specific record evidence in support of its determination 
that home market LNPPs are ``reasonably comparable'' to LNPPs sold to 
the United States during the POR. Rather, the only analysis in the 
Department's memorandum supports the opposite conclusion--that the two 
are not reasonably comparable.
    TKS further argues that the Department incorrectly relied on its 
home market viability determination as the basis for its foreign like 
product determination. TKS asserts that, in discussing home market 
viability in its NV Memorandum, the Department appears to consider the 
terms ``foreign like product'' and ``general category of merchandise'' 
to be interchangeable. TKS asserts that it is the Department's 
longstanding practice to make home market viability determinations 
based on the ``class or kind of merchandise'' rather than on the more 
narrow category of ``foreign like product,'' and cites to the Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) at 821-822 (``the viability of a market 
will be assessed based on sales of all merchandise subject to an 
antidumping proceeding''). Therefore, the Department's reference to 
``foreign like product'' in the memorandum is not credible, and does 
not alter the fact that there is no foreign like product. TKS claims 
that the Department's home market viability analysis was in fact based 
on ``the same general class or kind of merchandise,'' as it took into 
consideration all reported home market sales.
    Finally, TKS argues that, since there is no basis for finding that 
the reported home market sales of LNPPs constitute foreign like product 
under section 771(16) of the Act, the Department should utilize an 
alternative methodology for calculating CV profit, as provided in 
section 773(e)(2)(B)(i). In so doing, it would not be necessary to 
exclude any below-cost home market sales as being outside the ordinary 
course of trade, in accordance with the SAA at 841, which states that 
cost tests are not applicable to a ``general category of merchandise.''

The Department's Position

    We disagree with TKS's assertion that its home market sales of 
LNPPs are not ``foreign like product'' within the meaning of section 
771(16)(C) of the Act. First, it is uncontested that TKS's home market 
LNPPs are produced in the same country (Japan) and by the same person 
(TKS) and are of the same general class or kind as the merchandise 
which is subject to investigation. Second, it is uncontested that TKS's 
home market LNPPs are like the subject merchandise in the purpose for 
which used (to produce newspapers). Third, the Department has 
determined that TKS's home market sales of LNPPs ``may reasonably be 
compared'' with the subject merchandise for purposes of calculating CV 
profit. As the Department explained in its September 30, 1999 Analysis 
Memorandum, ``the general product characteristics of LNPP systems are 
comparable enough for them to be considered foreign like product.'' 
Memorandum at 7. Contrary to TKS's claim, that same memorandum details 
the degree to which both respondents' home market and U.S. sales of 
LNPPs share the same general product characteristics. Id. at 5, 7. 
Reflecting TKS's own submissions, press configurations are described in 
comparable terms (e.g., roll width, cut-off length) and each unit is 
described using the same product characteristics (i.e., printing units, 
reel tension pasters, folders, conveyance and access apparatus and 
computerized control equipment). This finding is consistent with the 
Department's determination in the original investigation that these 
common press characteristics provided substantial evidence that TKS's 
home market LNPPs could reasonably be compared for purposed of 
calculating CV profit. As the Department explained on remand,

[w]hile the sheer number of characteristics--and the fact that each 
completed custom-made LNPP model reflected a different mix of these 
common characteristics--led to ITA's determination that price-to-price 
comparisons were not practicable, the fact that both respondents' LNPP 
(whether sold in Japan or the United States) shared these detailed 
characteristics constitutes substantial evidence that home market LNPP 
could reasonably serve as the basis for CV profit.

Second Remand Determination: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. v. 
United States, Court No. 96-10-02292 at 12 (August 23, 1999) (``Second 
Remand Determination'').\1\ Similarly, in the instant review, 
substantial evidence--in the form of TKS's own submissions describing 
the merchandise sold in the home market--caused the Department to 
conclude that TKS's home market LNPP sales satisfied the ``reasonably 
comparable'' prong of the foreign like product definition in section 
771(16)(C). See, e.g., TKS's January 7, 1999, Section A response to the 
Department's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department also noted that product brochures examined 
during the initial investigation demonstrated that TKS offered the 
``Spectrum'' model for sale in both the United States and Japan and 
that the brochures were identical in their description of product 
characteristics. Second Remand Determination at Attachment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding TKS's claim that the Department incorrectly relied on its 
home market viability determination as the basis for its foreign like 
product determination, TKS's point is unclear. TKS is incorrect that 
the Department used the terms ``foreign like product'' and ``general 
category of merchandise''

[[Page 7496]]

interchangeably in the NV memorandum. TKS apparently misread the 
Department's reference to the ``general product characteristics'' 
shared by TKS's home market and U.S. LNPPs which supported the finding 
that home market LNPPs satisfied the foreign like product definition. 
TKS has also read the SAA at 821-822 out of context. The full sentence 
that TKS quotes reads: ``The viability of a market will be assessed 
based on sales of all merchandise subject to an antidumping proceeding, 
not on a product-by-product or model-by-model basis.'' The point of 
this statement is not to trump the statutory directive that viability 
be assessed on the basis of the foreign like product, but rather to 
emphasize that viability will be determined based on aggregate sales of 
the foreign like product, not on a segmented basis. See, also, 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27358 (May 19, 1997).
    Nor do we believe there is any basis for TKS's claim that CV profit 
should be calculated pursuant to the alternative profit calculation 
methodology provided in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The 
methodology employed by the Department--pursuant to section 
773(e)(2)(A)--is the preferred method for calculating CV profit. The 
language of the Act supports the Department's conclusion that the 
alternative provisions for determining CV profit are available only 
``if actual data are not available with respect to the amounts 
described in'' section 773(e)(2)(A). See, also, Floral Trade Council v. 
United States, 41 F. Supp. 2d 319, 326 (CIT 1999). Here, the actual 
profit data for TKS's home market LNPP sales were available. Thus, the 
Department properly followed the statutory directive that the actual 
data for TKS's home market LNPP sales be used to calculate CV profit 
rather than TKS's alternative suggestion. The Department has previously 
explained that TKS's proposed application of an alternative profit 
methodology to its home market LNPP sales `` which TKS describes as the 
``general category of merchandise''--is flawed. See Second Remand 
Determination at 13-15. The statutory term ``general category of 
products'' has consistently been interpreted to encompass a group of 
products that is broader than the subject merchandise. See, e.g., 
Antifriction Bearings (AFBs)(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof from France et al.: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590, 35611 (1999) (``general category 
of products'' for AFBs would include non-subject merchandise such as 
tapered roller bearings). TKS fails to adequately justify why the 
Department should deviate from the preferred methodology, and its 
proposed implementation of an alternative methodology (including TKS's 
below cost sales) is inconsistent with Department practice. As a 
result, the Department has continued to calculate CV profit in the 
manner used in the preliminary results.

Comment 4: Check-Out Testing

    TKS argues that check-out testing should be treated as movement 
expenses rather than as further manufacturing expenses, as the 
Department treated it in the preliminary results. TKS refers to its 
August 16, 1999 comments, in which it argued that the testing conducted 
for purposes of the Dallas Morning News (DMN) contract involved no 
manufacturing activities such as machining, forging, cutting, welding, 
or electronic assembly. TKS considers check-out testing to be the final 
stage of transporting the equipment to the ultimate customer, and must 
necessarily be done at the customer's installation site because the 
equipment must be dismantled for transportation due to its size. TKS 
points out that it did not provide the equipment installation services, 
a further indication that check-out testing should be treated as moving 
expenses for the DMN sale.

The Department's Position

    We disagree with TKS. We have continued to classify testing and 
technical service expenses as part of further manufacturing because the 
U.S. installation process (including check-out testing) involves 
extensive technical activities on the part of engineers and 
installation supervisors. See Mitsubishi Heavy Industries v. United 
States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 807, 815-16 (CIT 1998).

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists for TKS for the period September 1, 1997, through August 
31, 1998:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Margin
                  Manufacturer/exporter                                     Period                    (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TKS.....................................................  9/1/97-8/31/98...........................         0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
For entries of subject merchandise from TKS during the POR, we have 
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all examined sales and dividing by the 
entered value of those sales. This rate will be assessed uniformly on 
all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs 
Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries 
of the subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-
specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 
percent).
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from Japan that are 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 rate for TKS 
will be the rate established above in the ``Final Results of the 
Review'' section; (2) for previously 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, or the original investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash

[[Page 7497]]

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 of this merchandise will 
continue to be 58.69 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.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221.

    Dated: February 9, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-3558 Filed 2-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P