[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18296-18300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8698]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-811]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Steel Wire Rope 
From the Republic of Korea

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Committee of 
Domestic Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable Manufacturers, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea. The 
review covers 14 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. 
The period of review is March 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999.
    We have preliminarily found that, for certain producers/exporters, 
sales of subject merchandise have been made below normal value (NV). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price 
(EP) and the NV. Also, if these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of this administrative review, we intend to revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to Kumho Wire Rope Manufacturing 
Company (Kumho), based on three years of sales at not less than NV. See 
Intent to Revoke section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kemp, at (202) 482-1276, or 
Abdelali Elouaradia, at (202) 482-0498, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations 
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Case History

    On March 9, 1999, the Department published a notice providing an 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping 
duty order for the period March 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999 
(POR). See 64 FR 11439. On March 31, 1999, the petitioner requested an 
administrative review of Boo Kook Corporation (Boo Kook), Dae Heung 
Industrial Company (Dae Heung), Dae Kyung Metal (Dae Kyung), Dong Il 
Steel Manufacturing Company (Dong Il), Dong Young, Hanboo Wire Rope 
Inc. (Hanboo), Jinyang Wire Rope Inc. (Jinyang), Korea Sangsa Company 
(Korea Sangsa), Kumho, Kwangshin Rope, Myung Jin Company, Seo Hae 
Industrial (Seo Hae), Sungsan Special Steel Processing (Sungsan) and 
Yeonsin Metal (Yeonsin). On March 31, 1999, Kumho requested a review 
and revocation of the order with respect to its sales of subject 
merchandise. On April 22, 1999, we initiated an administrative review 
of all 14 companies. See 64 FR 23269.
    In early May 1999, in response to our inquiry, the Department was 
advised by the U.S. Embassy in Seoul that Boo Kook, Hanboo, Kwangshin 
Rope, and Seo Hae were out of business. We determined, based on data 
obtained from the Customs Service, that these companies had not 
exported subject merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, we did not 
issue antidumping questionnaires to these companies. We issued 
antidumping questionnaires to the remaining ten respondents. See 
Partial Rescission section of this notice.
    On June 11, 1999, we received a letter from Dae Kyung stating that 
it had not exported subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR. However, Customs Service data indicated that the company had 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See Facts Available 
section of this notice.
    On June 21, 1999, we received a letter from Dae Heung stating that 
it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR. See Partial Rescission section of this notice.
    On June 23, 1999, the Department received a response to the 
antidumping questionnaire from Kumho. This was the only response filed 
within the original deadline for the questionnaire. However, on 
September 8, 1999, Jinyang requested permission to submit a response to 
the questionnaire. While acknowledging that the deadline for submission 
of a response had elapsed, Jinyang cited extenuating factors, namely 
that it had moved its offices and did not receive the questionnaire 
until

[[Page 18297]]

August 1999. The petitioners objected to Jinyang's request. However, in 
view of the extenuating factors cited by Jinyang, the fact that there 
was still sufficient time in the proceeding to conduct a proper review 
and the availability of personnel to examine Jinyang's data, the 
Department agreed to accept Jinyang's response. See Memorandum from 
Steven Presing and Jim Kemp to Bernard Carreau, dated October 7, 1999, 
and on file with the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-
099 of the main Department building. Jinyang filed its response on 
November 12, 1999.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to both respondents, and 
received timely responses.
    On November 2, 1999, we extended the deadline for issuance of the 
preliminary results until March 30, 2000. See Decision Memorandum from 
Bernard T. Carreau to Robert S. LaRussa, dated November 2, 1999, on 
file in the Department's CRU. See also 64 FR 61276.
    We verified the information submitted by Kumho and Jinyang during 
the weeks of January 31, and February 7, 2000, in Pusan, Korea.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is steel wire rope. Steel wire 
rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel, 
other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into 
articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of these 
products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 
7312.10.9090. Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope, 
i.e., ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded wire, of stainless 
steel, not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, which is 
classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7312.10.6000. Although HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and the Customs Service 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission

    As noted above, the Department has determined that Boo Kook, 
Hanboo, Kwangshin Rope and Seo Hae closed their operations prior to the 
POR, and we have confirmed that none of these companies had shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, 
in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's 
regulations, we are rescinding our review with respect to Boo Kook, 
Hanboo, Kwangshin Rope and Seo Hae. This decision is consistent with 
the Department's practice. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe 
and Tube from Turkey: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998) 
and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 
53288 (October 14, 1997).
    We are also rescinding our review with respect to Dae Heung. 
Pursuant to the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope issued after 
the completion of the investigation, merchandise produced by Dae Heung 
and sold through Young Heung Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (YHC) is excluded 
from the order. See 58 FR 16397, 16397 (March 26, 1993). Dae Heung has 
stated on the record that it did not ship subject merchandise directly 
to the United States during the POR; rather, its production for export 
was sold through YHC. We have confirmed, based on Customs Service 
information, that Dae Heung had no shipments of subject merchandise 
during the POR.

Facts Available

    We preliminarily find, in accordance with section 776(a) of the 
Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for Dong Il, Dong 
Young, Korea Sangsa, Myung Jin Company, Sungsan and Yeonsin, since they 
did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire. We confirmed that 
theses companies received, but failed to respond to, the Department's 
questionnaire. Since these companies have not cooperated in providing 
necessary information for our review, the use of facts available is 
appropriate.
    We also find that the use of facts available is appropriate for Dae 
Kyung. Although the company responded to our response with a statement 
that it had no shipments during the POR, we requested additional 
information on September 28, 1999, because Customs Service data 
indicated that Dae Kyung did have shipments of subject merchandise. Dae 
Kyung responded on October 4, 1999, claiming that it only produced 
stainless steel aircraft cables (i.e. non-subject merchandise). To 
support this claim, Dae Kyung included sales documents with its letter 
and argued that the prices on the invoice for the entry in question 
indicate that the merchandise is stainless steel. However, the 
documentation does not conclusively establish that the sales were only 
for stainless products, and we can not infer from price alone that the 
products were stainless. Because we found that this documentation was 
inconclusive, on November 3, 1999, and February 18, 2000, we sent two 
more letters to Dae Kyung requesting additional clarification. We 
received no response to either of these letters. Dae Kyung has failed, 
despite repeated requests, to provide additional support for its claim 
that it only sold non-subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, since 
we were unable to confirm that Dae Kyung shipped only stainless steel 
aircraft cables to the United States, and, as such, did not have 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we preliminarily find 
that the use of facts available is appropriate for Dae Kyung.
    Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires the Department to resort 
to facts available if necessary information is not available on the 
record or when an interested party or any other person ``fails to 
provide [requested] information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782.'' As provided in section 782(c)(1) of 
the Act, if an interested party ``promptly after receiving a request 
from [the Department] for information, notifies [the Department] that 
such party is unable to submit the information requested in the 
requested form and manner,'' the Department may modify the requirements 
to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Because Dong 
Il, Dong Young, Korea Sangsa, Myung Jin Company, Sungsan and Yeonsin 
did not provide any notification or information to the Department, and 
Dae Kyung did not address adequately the issue of its U.S. shipments, 
nor did it respond to our requests for additional clarification, they 
have failed to comply with section 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we find preliminarily, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate 
for Dong Il, Dong Young, Korea Sangsa, Myung Jin Company, Sungsan, 
Yeonsin and Dae Kyung.
    Where the Department must resort to facts available because a 
respondent failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the 
interests of that respondent in selecting from among the facts 
available. The failure of Dong Il, Dong Young, Korea Sangsa, Myung Jin 
Company, Sungsan and Yeonsin to respond to our antidumping 
questionnaire, and the failure of Dae Kyung to respond to subsequent 
requests for information, demonstrate that these companies have not 
acted to

[[Page 18298]]

the best of their abilities to comply with the Department's review. 
Accordingly, we have preliminarily determined that an adverse inference 
with respect to these companies is warranted.
    Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the antidumping investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
We have preliminarily assigned these seven companies the rate of 136.72 
percent, which is the highest rate determined for any respondent in any 
segment of the proceeding and the rate currently applicable to several 
of these companies, as adverse facts available. We applied this rate to 
uncooperative companies in the previous administrative review. See 
Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17995, 17996 (April 13, 
1999).
    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 Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
has probative value. See H.R. Doc. 103-316, 870 (1994).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used.
    The adverse facts available rate being applied in this review is a 
simple average of all rates from the petition, which was applied to 
several companies in the prior review. As this rate is currently 
applicable to several companies and was corroborated to the extent 
possible in the previous review, we continue to find that it is 
reliable. To corroborate the EPs in the petition, we examined the 
Customs Service import statistics from 1991 for the HTSUS subheadings 
7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. We concluded that the 
Customs Service data were not comparable to the prices in the petition, 
because the Customs Service data encompass a wide range of steel wire 
rope products, while the sales in the petition consist of a small 
number of specific product types. With regard to the NVs used in the 
petition's margin calculation, we were provided with no useful 
information by interested parties, and are aware of no other 
independent sources of information, which would assist us in this 
aspect of the corroboration process. Notwithstanding the difficulties 
encountered in our attempts to corroborate the information from the 
petition, the Department has no evidence that suggests the petition 
does not continue to have probative value. Moreover, the fact that this 
margin is the rate currently applicable to several of these exporters/
producers, and the fact that these exporters/producers neither 
requested a review or cooperated in demonstrating that their actual 
margins were lower, indicates that the margin is reliable. If these 
companies could have demonstrated that their actual margins were lower, 
we presume that they would have done so.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 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 is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996). We are not aware of any 
circumstances that indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate 
as adverse facts available. Moreover, the rate used is the rate 
currently applicable to certain of these uncooperative companies. 
Assigning a lower rate to these firms would reward them for their 
failure to cooperate. Thus, these exporters' own current rate is 
relevant. Accordingly, we determine that the rate used is an 
appropriate basis for adverse facts available.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Kumho and Jinyang. We used standard verification 
procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial 
records. Our verification results are outlined in verification reports, 
dated March 3, 2000, which have been placed on the case file in the 
Department's CRU.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, the Department used EP as defined 
in section 772(a) of the Act for Kumho and Jinyang, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date 
of importation and the use of constructed export price was not 
otherwise indicated by the facts of record.
    We calculated EP based on packed, cost insurance and freight 
(c.i.f.) and cost and freight (c&f) prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, terminal handling charges, wharfage 
expenses, bill of lading issuing fees and container taxes in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on our findings at 
verification, for Jinyang, we made adjustments to brokerage, wharfage 
and international freight expenses. See Memorandum to the File: 
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Jinyang Wire Rope 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., March 30, 2000 (Jinyang Calculation Memo), 
which has been placed in the Department's CRU.
    The merchandise involved in certain U.S. and home market sales 
reported by Kumho was produced by an unaffiliated Korean supplier. We 
included these sales by Kumho in our analysis because we determined 
that for Kumho's U.S. sales the supplier did not know at the time of 
the sale that the subject merchandise was to be exported to the United 
States. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we compared these U.S. 
sales to the appropriate home market sales of merchandise produced by 
the same supplier and sold by Kumho.
    Kumho and Jinyang claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on a 
fixed rate amount per U.S. dollar exported. Consistent with our 
findings in previous reviews of steel wire rope from Korea, we did not 
allow the duty drawback adjustments claimed by Kumho and Jinyang 
because the companies did not demonstrate a connection between payment 
of import duties and receipt of duty drawback on exports of steel wire 
rope, and because they did not demonstrate that they had sufficient 
imports of raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on 
exports of the manufactured product. See Steel Wire Rope from the 
Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in 
Part, 62 FR 64354, 64357 (December 5, 1997).

Normal Value

    We determined that, for both respondents, the aggregate volume of 
home market sales of the foreign like product was five percent or more 
of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales. In accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we therefore based NV on home market sales.

[[Page 18299]]

    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales 
of the foreign like product. We compared EP sales to sales in the home 
market of identical merchandise.
    We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual 
commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same 
level of trade as the EP, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act. We increased home market price by the amount of U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, and reduced 
it by the amount of home market packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We note that for Jinyang we 
recalculated the reported home and U.S. market packing expense, as a 
result of the company's failure to fully support the reported packing 
expenses at verification. During verification, Jinyang was able to 
provide documentary support for the total packing expenses incurred 
during the POR. However, the company provided no documentary support 
for its allocation of packing costs to home market and U.S. sales. 
Company officials instead relied solely on allocation ratios. See the 
March 3, 2000, verification report on file in Department's CRU. Company 
officials claimed that the ratios utilized to calculate estimated costs 
were developed through business expertise and experience. However the 
officials could provide no documentation in support of the ratios. 
Therefore, we have not accepted Jinyang's packing cost allocations. As 
facts available, we have reallocated Jinyang's packing costs among U.S. 
and home market products to comport with the allocation ratios 
reflected in the data submitted by Kumho. For a more detailed 
discussion of the basis for this adjustment, which requires references 
to business proprietary information, See Memorandum to the File: 
Recalculation of Packing Expense for the Preliminary Results for 
Jinyang Wire Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd., March 30, 2000.
    We calculated NV based on delivered and ex-factory prices to 
unaffiliated customers. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for 
movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 
addition, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 
351.410 of the Department's regulations, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments to NV. Specifically, we deducted home market credit 
expenses and, where appropriate, added U.S. credit expenses, U.S. 
postage fees, U.S. letter of credit fees, delayed payment charges and 
document handling charges. Based on our findings at verification, for 
Jinyang, we made adjustments to U.S. letter of credit fees, U.S. 
postage fees, delayed payment charges and home market credit expenses, 
and, for Kumho, we adjusted delayed payment and document handling 
charges. See Jinyang Calculation Memo and Memorandum to the File: 
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Kumho Wire Rope 
Manufacturing Company, dated March 30, 2000, on file with the 
Department's CRU.
    For Jinyang, we also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market 
or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but 
not in the other (the ``commission offset''). See Jinyang Calculation 
Memo.

Intent To Revoke

    On March 31, 1999, Kumho submitted a letter to the Department 
requesting, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b), revocation of the order with 
respect to its sales of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.222(b)(2)(iii), Kumho provided with its letter a certification 
stating that the company: (1) Sold subject merchandise at not less than 
NV during the POR (and the preceding five reviews), and that in the 
future it would not sell such merchandise at less than NV; (2) sold the 
subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities 
during the POR and the last five reviews; and (3) agrees to its 
immediate reinstatement in the order, if the Department concludes that 
Kumho, subsequent to revocation, sold merchandise at less than NV.
    Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final 
results of the two preceding reviews, Kumho has preliminarily 
demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. See 
Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17995 (April 13, 1999) 
and Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 17986 (April 13, 1998). Additionally, we 
have determined that Kumho made sales of steel wire rope in commercial 
quantities during this review period and the previous two review 
periods. See Memorandum from Jim Kemp and Abdelali Elouaradia to Gary 
Taverman, dated March 30, 2000, on file in the Department's CRU.
    Given the results of the two preceding reviews, and the fact that 
Kumho continues to sell in commercial quantities, if the final results 
of this review demonstrate that Kumho sold the merchandise at prices 
not less than NV, and if we determine that the continued application of 
the antidumping duty order is no longer necessary to offset dumping, we 
intend to revoke the order with respect to merchandise produced and 
exported by Kumho. See 19 CFR 351.222(b) and Amended Regulation 
Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders, 64 FR 51236 (September 22, 1999).

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the 
exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales. Section 773A of the Act directs the Department to 
use a daily exchange rate in effect on the date of sale of subject 
merchandise in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, 
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with 
the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that 
a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a 
benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling 
average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that 
a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period March 1, 1998, through February 
28, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dae Kyung Metal Co., Ltd...................................      *136.72
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.......................      *136.72
Dong Young.................................................      *136.72
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc.....................................         2.96
Korea Sangsa Company.......................................      *136.72
Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd..............................         0.06
Myung Jin Company..........................................      *136.72
Sungsan Special Steel Processing...........................      *136.72
Yeonsin Metal..............................................     *136.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Adverse Facts Available Rate.


[[Page 18300]]

    The Department will disclose the calculations performed to parties 
to the proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A 
statement of the issues; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. The Department will issue a notice of the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at the 
hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary 
results.
    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. 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the 
determination. For Kumho and Jinyang, for duty assessment purposes, we 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and 
dividing this amount by the total entered value of total sales. In 
order to estimate the entered value, we subtracted international 
movement expenses from the gross sales value. The rate calculated for 
each importer will be used for the assessment of antidumping duties on 
the relevant entries of subject merchandise 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).
    As a result of a Sunset Review of steel wire rope from Korea, the 
Department has revoked the antidumping duty order for this case, 
effective January 1, 2000. See 65 FR 3205 (January 20, 2000). 
Therefore, we have instructed the Customs Service to terminate 
suspension of liquidation for all entries of subject merchandise made 
after January 1, 2000. We will issue additional instructions directing 
the Customs Service to liquidate all entries of steel wire rope made 
after January 1, 2000, without regard to antidumping duties.
    Entries of subject merchandise made prior to January 1, 2000, will 
continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping 
duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending 
reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of 
subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation 
in response to appropriately filed requests for review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could 
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 30, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8698 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P