[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