[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35892-35896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-605]


Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and one producer/
exporter of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
frozen concentrated orange juice from Brazil. This review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, 
Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda. The period of review is May 1, 1998, 
through April 30, 1999.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by the company subject to this review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2000.

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

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations are to the Department's regulations 
at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 19, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on frozen 
concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil (64 FR 27235).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on May 27, 1999, the 
petitioners, Florida Citrus Mutual, Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 
Citrus Belle, Citrus World, Inc., Orange-Co of Florida, Inc., Peace 
River Citrus Products, Inc., and Southern Gardens Citrus Processors 
Corp., requested an administrative review of the antidumping order 
covering the period

[[Page 35893]]

May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999, for two producers and exporters of 
FCOJ: CTM Citrus S.A. (CTM) and Sucorrico S.A. (Sucorrico). In 
addition, on May 28, 1999, and June 1, 1999, respectively, two 
producers and exporters of FCOJ, Branco Peres Citrus S.A. (Branco 
Peres) and Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda. (Citrovita), also requested 
an administrative review. On June 15, 1999, the Department issued 
questionnaires to Branco Peres, Citrovita, CTM, and Sucorrico.
    On June 21, 1999, the Department initiated an administrative review 
for Citrovita (64 FR 35124 (June 30, 1999)); the initiation notice 
mistakenly omitted Branco Peres, CTM, and Sucorrico. However, on June 
30, 1999, Branco Peres withdrew its request for an administrative 
review. In addition, in August 1999, CTM and Sucorrico informed the 
Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise into the 
United States during the period of review (POR). We have confirmed 
CTM's and Sucorrico's assertions using information from the Customs 
Service. See the memorandum to the file from Jerry Surowiec on this 
topic, dated May 30, 2000.
    In September 1999, we received a response to the Department's 
questionnaire from Citrovita. In October and November 1999, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Citrovita. We received responses to 
these questionnaires in November and December 1999.
    In December 1999, we conducted verification of Citrovita's U.S. 
sales responses at its offices in Delaware.
    In January 2000, we requested additional information related to 
Citrovita's cost of production (COP), as well as the COP of an 
affiliated producer of FCOJ. We received a response to this 
questionnaire in February 2000.
    Also in February 2000, we conducted verification of Citrovita's 
home market sales and cost responses, as well as the sales and cost 
responses of the affiliated FCOJ producer.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is frozen concentrated 
orange juice from Brazil. The merchandise is currently classifiable 
under item 2009.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS). The HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and 
for customs purposes. The Department's written description of the scope 
of this proceeding remains dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.

Affiliated Producers

    During the POR, a sister company to Citrovita's parent company 
purchased another Brazilian producer of FCOJ and that producer's 
affiliated trading company (i.e., Cambuhy MC Industrial Ltda. (Cambuhy) 
and Cambuhy Citrus Comercial e Exportadora S.A. (Cambuhy Exportadora), 
respectively). Because Citrovita became affiliated with these companies 
during the POR (i.e., beginning in September 1998), we analyzed whether 
it would be appropriate to treat Citrovita and these affiliated parties 
as a single entity using the criteria outlined in 19 CFR 351.401(f). 
Our analysis showed that the parties have production facilities for 
similar or identical products which would not require substantial 
retooling in order to restructure manufacturing priorities. Moreover, 
the preponderance of evidence on the record indicates a significant 
potential for the manipulation of prices or production between 
Citrovita and its affiliates because of the degree of common ownership, 
the positions held by the owners of the parent company on the 
affiliates' boards of directors, and the extent to which operations 
were intertwined during the POR. Accordingly, we have collapsed 
Citrovita, Cambuhy, and Cambuhy Exportadora for purposes of the 
preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f). However, 
because there is no evidence that the companies were affiliated prior 
to September 1998, we have used only the sales and cost data reported 
for Cambuhy and Cambuhy Exportadora from September 1998 through the end 
of the POR. For further discussion, see the memorandum to Richard W. 
Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, 
entitled ``Treatment of Data Reported by Affiliated Parties in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Frozen Concentrated Orange 
Juice from Brazil,'' dated May 30, 2000 (the Affiliated Party issues 
memo).

Comparison Methodology

    To determine whether sales of FCOJ from Brazil to the United States 
were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared the constructed 
export price (CEP) to the NV for Citrovita, as specified in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice that were in the 
ordinary course of trade. For those U.S. sales of FCOJ for which there 
were no comparable foreign market sales in the ordinary course of 
trade, we compared CEP to constructed value (CV), in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as CEP. The NV level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on 
CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For CEP, it is the level of 
the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether any 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).
    We note that the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has held 
that the Department's practice of determining levels of trade for CEP 
transactions after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. 
Supp. 2d 1221, 1241-42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The Department believes, 
however, that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On 
June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgement in Borden on the level of 
trade issue. See Borden Inc. v. United

[[Page 35894]]

States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The 
government has filed an appeal of Borden which is pending before the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the 
Department has continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting CEP 
under section 772(d) prior to starting a level of trade analysis, as 
articulated by the Department's regulations at section 351.412.
    Citrovita claimed that it made home market sales at only one level 
of trade (i.e., sales to end users). Because Citrovita performed the 
same selling activities for sales to all customers in the home market, 
we determined that no level of trade adjustment is possible for 
Citrovita.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a level of 
trade which constituted a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
level of trade of the CEP, we compared the selling functions performed 
for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP 
transaction, which excludes economic activities occurring in the United 
States. We found that Citrovita performed most of the selling functions 
and services related to U.S. sales at its sales office in the United 
States. These selling functions are associated with those expenses 
which we deduct from the CEP starting price, as specified in section 
772(d) of the Act. We found that Citrovita performed the same selling 
functions for home market sales in Brazil. Therefore, we find that 
Citrovita's sales in the home market were at a more advanced stage of 
marketing and distribution (i.e., more remote from the factory) than 
the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents an F.O.B. foreign 
port price after the deduction of expenses associated with U.S. selling 
activities. However, because we find that Citrovita sells at only one 
level of trade in the foreign market, the difference in the level of 
trade cannot be quantified. Further, we do not have information which 
would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on the respondent's 
sales of other products, and there are no other respondents or other 
record information on which such an analysis could be based. 
Accordingly, because the data available do not form an appropriate 
basis for making a level of trade adjustment, but the level of trade in 
the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
level of trade of the CEP, we have granted a CEP offset to Citrovita. 
For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum issued for the 
preliminary results of this review, dated May 30, 2000 (the concurrence 
memo).

Constructed Export Price

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

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of Citrovita's home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b). Based on this comparison, we 
determined that Citrovita had a viable home market during the POR. 
Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Citrovita had made home 
market sales at prices below their COPs in this review because the 
Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test for Citrovita in 
the most recently completed administrative review. See Frozen 
Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 43650, 
43652 (Aug. 11, 1999) (FCOJ from Brazil). As a result, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether Citrovita made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below their COP.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of Citrovita's and the 
affiliated producers' costs of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses and financing expenses, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) 
of the Act.
    We used the reported COP amounts to compute a weighted-average COP 
during the POR, except in the following instances in which the costs 
were not appropriately quantified or valued:
    1. We treated fresh orange juice as a co-product, rather than a by-
product as reported, because this product was not an unintentional 
consequence of production. For further discussion, see the concurrence 
memo;
    2. We recalculated the claimed by-product credit to (1) correct 
certain errors discovered during verification; and (2) state all sales 
of by-products to affiliated parties on an arm's-length basis. For 
further discussion, see the concurrence memo;
    3. We valued the cost of fruit provided by an affiliated party 
using the affiliate's cost of production, in accordance with sections 
773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act. For further discussion, see the 
concurrence memo and the Affiliated Party issues memo;
    4. We treated Cambuhy Exportadora as the producer of certain FCOJ 
manufactured during the POR. We based the value of the fruit used in 
the production of this FCOJ on facts available, because Citrovita did 
not report this information. As facts available, we used the cost of 
production noted in item 3, above. For further discussion, see the 
Affiliated Party issues memo;
    5. We made no addition to the COP for ICMS and IPI taxes because we 
found at verification that the respondent completely recovered these 
taxes during the POR;
    6. We included the freight costs on certain shipments of oranges 
which had been excluded from the reported costs;
    7. We revised the calculation of G&A expenses to include certain of 
Citrovita's non-operating expenses; and
    8. We amortized certain foreign exchange losses incurred by Cambuhy 
on long-term U.S. dollar-denominated debt over the remaining life of 
the loans. For further discussion, see the Affiliated Party issues 
memo.
    We compared the COP to home market prices of the foreign like

[[Page 35895]]

product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On 
a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, 
less any applicable movement charges, selling expenses, and packing 
costs.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Citrovita's sales of a given product were made at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.''
    Where 20 percent or more of Citrovita's sales of a given product 
were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model were 
made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, 
as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In such cases, 
we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales in determining NV.
    We found that more than 20 percent of Citrovita's home market sales 
within an extended period of time were made at prices less than the 
COP. Further, the prices did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We, therefore, disregarded the 
below-cost sales and, where available, used the remaining above-cost 
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of FCOJ for which there were 
no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade (i.e., 
sales within the contemporaneous window which were made at prices above 
the COP), we compared CEP to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) 
of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A (including financing expenses), profit, and U.S. packing costs, 
adjusted as noted above. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we based SG&A (including financing expenses), and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by Citrovita in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the 
starting price for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses (offset by 
interest revenue). We recalculated home market credit expenses on the 
basis of home market price net of Brazilian taxes, in accordance with 
our practice. See, e.g., Ferrosilicon from Brazil; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 59407, 59410 (Nov. 22, 
1996); and FCOJ from Brazil, 64 FR at 43653.
    We disallowed a claim made for foreign exchange losses on one home 
market sale because this sale was denominated in, and paid for, in 
Brazilian reais. Consequently, because this transaction did not involve 
the conversion of currency, there was no foreign exchange loss 
associated with the sale. For further discussion, see the concurrence 
memo.
    We deducted home market indirect selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, up to the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Where applicable, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a 
U.S. sale by reducing the NV by home market indirect selling expenses 
remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the amount of 
the U.S. commission.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless 
the daily rate involves a fluctuation. The Department considers a 
``fluctuation'' to exist when the daily exchange rate differs from the 
benchmark rate by 2.25 percent or more. The benchmark is defined as the 
moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determine a fluctuation to have existed, we generally substitute the 
benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established 
practice. (For an explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: 
Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (Mar. 8, 1996).)
    Our preliminary analysis of dollar-real exchange rates shows that 
the real declined rapidly in early 1999, losing over 40 percent of its 
value in January 1999, when the Brazilian government ended its exchange 
rate restrictions. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many 
times more severe than any change in the dollar-real exchange rate 
during recent years, and it did not rebound significantly in a short 
time. As such, we preliminarily determine that the decline in the real 
during January 1999 was of such magnitude that the dollar-real exchange 
rate cannot reasonably be viewed as having simply fluctuated at that 
time, i.e., as having experienced only a momentary drop in value 
relative to the normal benchmark. We preliminarily find that there was 
a large, precipitous drop in the value of the real in relation to the 
U.S. dollar in January 1999.
    We recognize that, following a large and precipitous decline in the 
value of a currency, a period may exist wherein it is unclear whether 
further declines are a continuation of the large and precipitous 
decline or merely fluctuations. Under the circumstances of this case, 
such uncertainty may have existed following the large, precipitous drop 
in January 1999. Thus, we devised a methodology for identifying the 
point following a precipitous drop at which it is reasonable to presume 
that rates were merely fluctuating. Beginning on January 13, 1999, we 
used only daily rates until the daily rates were not more than 2.25 
percent below the average of the 20 previous daily rates for five 
consecutive days. At that point, we determined that the pattern of 
daily rates no longer reasonably precluded the possibility that they 
were merely ``fluctuating.'' (Using a 20-day average for this purpose 
provides a reasonable indication that it is no longer necessary to 
refrain from using the normal methodology, while avoiding the use of 
daily rates exclusively for an excessive period of time.) Accordingly, 
from the first of these five days, we resumed classifying daily rates 
as ``fluctuating'' or ``normal'' in accordance with our standard 
practice, except that we began with a 20-day benchmark and on each 
succeeding day added a daily rate to the average until the normal 40-
day average was restored as the benchmark. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 
5563-64 (Feb. 4, 2000); and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Welded

[[Page 35896]]

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 64 FR 56759, 56763 (Oct. 
21, 1999).
    Applying this methodology in the instant case, we used daily rates 
from January 13, 1999, through March 4, 1999. We then resumed the use 
of a benchmark, starting with a benchmark based on the average of the 
20 reported daily rates on March 5, 1999. We resumed the use of the 
normal 40-day benchmark starting on April 3, 1999, through the close of 
the review period.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period May 1, 1998, through April 30, 
1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda/Cambuhy MC Industrial Ltda/         26.27
 Cambuhy Citrus Comercial e Exportadora....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held seven days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will 
publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such case briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales, as appropriate. These rates will be assessed uniformly on 
all entries of particular importers made during the POR. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties all entries for any importer for 
whom the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 
The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the 
Customs Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of FCOJ from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of 
the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for Citrovita, Cambuhy, and Cambuhy 
Exportadora will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review; except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be 
zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 1.96 percent, the 
all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement 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(i)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 30, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-14205 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P