[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 175 (Friday, September 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54488-54493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-047]


Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of elemental sulphur from Canada.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an

[[Page 54489]]

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on elemental 
sulphur from Canada in response to a request from the petitioner, 
Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur, Inc. (``Freeport''). This review covers 
imports of subject merchandise from Husky Oil Limited (``Husky''), a 
producer, and Petrosul International (''Petrosul''), a reseller. The 
period of review (``POR'') for Husky and Petrosul is from December 1, 
1998 through December 31, 1999. The POR for all other entries is 
December 1, 1998 through November 30, 1999.
    We preliminarily determine that respondent Husky has sold subject 
merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during the POR. For the 
reasons provided in the ``Facts Available'' section of this notice, we 
preliminarily determine that respondent Petrosul's antidumping rate be 
based on total adverse facts available, and have applied the highest 
rate calculated for Petrosul in prior reviews. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, 
we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties 
on suspended entries for Petrosul and Husky.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 
should also submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Rick Johnson, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-3818, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 
1, 1999).

Background

    The antidumping dumping duty order for elemental sulphur from 
Canada was revoked, pursuant to the sunset procedures established by 
statute, effective January 1, 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping 
Finding: Elemental Sulphur From Canada, 64 FR 40553 (July 27, 1999). 
However, we are conducting this review to cover sales of the subject 
merchandise made in the United States made by Husky and Petrosul during 
the 13-month period from December 1, 1998 until the effective date of 
the revocation.
    On December 14, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
of the antidumping duty order on elemental sulphur from Canada (64 FR 
69693). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on December 30, 1999, 
the petitioner, Freeport, requested an administrative review of the 
antidumping order covering the period December 1, 1998, through 
November 30, 1999, for Husky and Petrosul. On January 26, 2000, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
administrative review of this order (65 FR 4228). On March 1, 2000, 
Husky requested that the Department extend the POR by one month to 
include sales from the end of the POR until the date that the 
revocation of the order was in effect. On April 11, 2000, the 
Department informed Husky and Petrosul that we were extending the POR 
for one month to include December 1999; thus, we would review all sales 
of the subject merchandise made by Husky and Petrosul in the United 
States between December 1, 1998 and the effective revocation date of 
the order.
    On February 14, 2000, the Department sent Petrosul a questionnaire 
(Sections A, B, C, and D). On March 6, 2000, the Department received a 
letter from Petrosul, stating that Petrosul did not produce or export 
sulphur to the United States during the POR. The Department reviewed 
record evidence that indicated Petrosul exported subject merchandise or 
had knowledge that its sales of subject merchandise in Canada were 
ultimately destined for the United States. The details of this 
information are proprietary. See Analysis for the Preliminary Results 
in the Administrative Review of Elemental Sulphur from Canada for the 
period December 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999 (``Preliminary 
Analysis Memo''), dated September 1, 2000. On April 12, 2000, the 
Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to Petrosul with 
additional questions regarding Petrosul's statement that it did not 
produce or export sulphur to the United States during the POR. On May 
3, 2000, Petrosul reported, via a telephone conversation, that it would 
not respond to the Department's April 12, 2000 supplemental 
questionnaire. See Memorandum for the file, dated May 3, 2000. Thus, 
Petrosul only submitted a letter to the Department stating that it did 
not produce or export sulphur to the United States during the POR and 
did not respond to either the Department's February 14, 2000, 
questionnaire or the April 12, 2000, supplemental questionnaire.
    On February 14, 2000, the Department sent Husky a questionnaire 
(Sections A, B, C, and D). On March 20, 2000, Husky provided its 
Section A questionnaire response and on April 20, 2000, Husky provided 
its Sections B, C, and D response. On May 17, 2000, we issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to Husky. On June 1, 2000, Husky provided 
its supplemental questionnaire response.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, from July 17, 2000 to 
July 20, 2000, we verified sales information provided by Husky, using 
standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant 
sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation 
containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined 
in the public version of the verification report and are on file in the 
Central Records Unit (``CRU'') located in room B-099 of the main 
Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of elemental sulphur 
from Canada. This merchandise is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') subheadings 2503.10.00, 2503.90.00, and 2802.00.00. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for U.S. 
Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of 
this order remains dispositive.

Facts Available

    In accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the 
Act, we preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is 
appropriate as the basis for Petrosul's dumping margin. Section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: (A) 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 
(C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information

[[Page 54490]]

but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject 
to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. In this case, section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies because Petrosul withheld information. 
Petrosul failed to respond to sections A, B, C, and D of the 
Department's February 14, 2000 questionnaire and to the Department's 
April 12, 2000 supplemental questionnaire regarding whether it had 
entries during the POR. Furthermore, subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of 
the Act cannot be applied in this case because Petrosul notified the 
Department that it would not participate in this review. Petrosul at no 
time notified the Department that it would be unable to submit 
requested information, nor did Petrosul provide any explanation or 
alternate form by which to submit the requested information. Section 
782(e) of the Act is likewise not applicable because Petrosul provided 
no information for the Department to consider.
    Because Petrosul failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine that, in accordance with 
sections 776(a) and 782(e) of the Act, Petrosul has not cooperated to 
the best of its ability, and the use of total facts available is 
therefore appropriate. See, e.g., Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical 
Steel from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 2655 (January 17, 1997).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used with respect to a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the URAA, 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870. Petrosul's failure to participate in 
this review, especially in light of evidence that it in fact sold 
subject merchandise into the United States, demonstrates that it has 
failed to act to the best of its ability and, therefore, an adverse 
inference is warranted. See, e.g., Extruded Rubber Thread from 
Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 
FR 12752 (March 16, 1998). Petrosul has demonstrated that it has the 
ability to provide sales information for administrative reviews in the 
past and it provided the Department with no plausible explanation of 
why it would not participate this time. See Elemental Sulphur from 
Canada; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
61 FR 45937, 45938. Thus, based on proprietary record evidence, see, 
e.g., the Preliminary Analysis Memo, we are making the adverse 
inference that had Petrosul cooperated and responded to the 
Department's questionnaire, Petrosul would have acknowledged its sales 
of elemental sulphur that were exported by Petrosul to the United 
States or acknowledged that its sales within Canada were ultimately 
destined for the United States. However, we must also reach a 
determination as to what the dumping margin on these sales would have 
been.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available secondary information, that is, information 
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
The SAA further provides that ``[i]n employing adverse inferences, one 
factor the [Department] will consider is the extent to which a party 
may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' SAA at 870. It is the 
Department's normal practice, in situations involving non-responding 
respondents such as Petrosul, to select as adverse facts available the 
highest margin from the current or any prior segment of the same 
proceeding. Therefore, as total adverse facts available, we have 
applied the rate of 40.38 percent, which was Husky's calculated final 
margin in the 1992/93 administrative review. See Final Elemental 
Sulphur from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews 62 FR 37970, 37990 (July 15, 1997). The Department previously 
applied this rate as a total adverse facts available rate for Petrosul 
and Husky in the 1997/98 administrative review. See Elemental Sulphur 
from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
65 FR 11980 (March 7, 2000).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information by reviewing 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value, that is, that it 
is both reliable and relevant. See SAA at 870. The 40.38 percent rate 
we selected meets these corroboration criteria.
    Regarding the reliability of the selected rate, because there are 
no independent sources for calculated dumping margins, unlike other 
types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, the only 
source for margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an 
administrative review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts 
available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the 
proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of that 
earlier calculated margin. See, e.g., Elemental Sulphur from Canada: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
971 (January 7, 1997); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 2081, 2088 (January 15, 1997); and Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and 
Strip from Germany, 64 FR 43342, 43343 (August 10, 1999). Thus, because 
we have selected a calculated margin from a prior administrative 
review, we do not need to question its reliability.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
inappropriate. 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) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin for use as adverse facts 
available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually high 
margin). Because we know that Petrosul has been supplied by Husky (see 
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of 
Elemental Sulphur from Canada--12/01/97 through 11/30/98, Comment 3, 
(see ia.ita.doc.gov/frn), which corresponds to Elemental Sulphur From 
Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 
11980 (March 7, 2000)), as facts available, we continue to operate 
under the presumption that Petrosul is being supplied by Husky in the 
absence of any other information. Thus, this rate is relevant for 
Petrosul because it was recently applied to Petrosul in the prior 
administrative review under the same circumstances, and we are not 
aware of any circumstances that would render this rate inappropriate.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV. 
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted-
average

[[Page 54491]]

prices for NV and compared these to individual EP transactions.

Transactions Reviewed

    We compared the aggregate volume of Husky's home market sales of 
the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to 
determine whether the volume of the foreign like product Husky sold in 
Canada was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to 
form a basis for NV. Because Husky's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act, we have based the determination of NV upon Husky's home market 
sales of the foreign like product. Moreover, there is no evidence on 
the record indicating a particular market situation in the exporting 
country that would not permit a proper comparison of home market and 
U.S. prices. See section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act. Thus, we based 
NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for 
consumption in Canada, in the usual commercial quantities, in the 
ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as the EP sales.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the Scope of the Review section above, which were 
produced and sold by the Husky in the home market during the extended 
POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. For all of Husky's U.S. 
sales, there were identical sales in the home market on which to base 
comparisons.

Export Price

    For calculation of the price to the United States, we used EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because Husky's subject 
merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser located in 
either Canada (shipped directly from the producer to the U.S. 
purchaser) or the United States prior to importation, and use of the 
CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on 
free on board (f.o.b.) plant or delivered prices to unrelated 
customers. We made deductions to the starting price for movement 
expenses (inland freight, brokerage and handling, and tank car leasing 
expenses) pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the Act. For a further 
explanation of how we calculated EP, see Preliminary Analysis Memo. We 
have used Husky's invoice date as the date of sale, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.401(i), except for shipments made prior to the invoice. 
Husky often invoices its customers after shipment and, therefore, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, we have used the shipment 
date as the date of sale in those instances.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections of this 
notice.

Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

    Because the Department determined that Husky made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise in 
its most recently completed administrative review (see, e.g., Elemental 
Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 65 FR 11980 (March 7, 2000)), the Department determined that 
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Husky made 
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise in this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As 
a result, the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry in this 
case on February 14, 2000, to determine whether Husky made home market 
sales during the POR at prices below their respective COPs within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Husky's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), interest expenses, and packing 
costs. We used home market sales and COP information provided by Husky 
in its questionnaire responses, with no cost adjustments.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the POR-long weighted-average COP for Husky, adjusted 
where appropriate (see above), to its home market sales of the foreign 
like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less 
than the COP, we examined whether: (1) within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such 
sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product within an extended 
period of time are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales are not 
made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the extended period are at 
prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have been made in 
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. The 
extended period of time for this analysis is the POR. See section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because each individual price was compared 
against the POR-long weighted average COP, any sales that were below 
cost were also at prices which did not permit cost recovery within a 
reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2)(D). We compared the 
COP for liquid sulphur to the reported home market prices less any 
applicable movement charges. Based on this test, we did not exclude any 
sales from our analysis because the volume of these sales represented 
less than 20 percent of the volume of sales under consideration for the 
determination of NV.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated 
Husky's CV based on the sum of Husky's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, interest expenses and profit. We calculated the COPs included in 
the calculation of CV as noted above in the ``Calculation of COP'' 
section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by 
Husky in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in Canada.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
(Husky made no sales to affiliated parties). Home market prices were 
based on ex-factory or delivered prices. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting

[[Page 54492]]

home market direct selling expenses (credit) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit).

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV 
if we are unable to find suitable home market sales of the foreign like 
product. Where applicable, we would make adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, we 
made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. We did not use CV for Husky 
for these preliminary results of review.

Level of Trade

    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 (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses 
and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it 
is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
affiliated importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 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 LOT, 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 LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales (which we note is not 
the case for Husky), if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affect 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 Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 
FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In the present review, Husky did not request a LOT adjustment or a 
CEP offset. To ensure that no such adjustment was necessary, in 
accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and 
Canadian markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, 
and selling expenses.
    In the home market, Husky reported that it sold through two sales 
channels: (1) to end-users; and (2) to resellers. See Husky's March 20, 
2000, Section A questionnaire response, at A-9. The selling functions 
associated with the sales to end-users are credit services. The selling 
functions associated with the sales to resellers are credit services, 
and, if requested, freight and delivery arrangements. Because these 
selling functions are similar for both sales channels, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    In the U.S. market, Husky reported two sales channels: (1) to end-
users; and (2) to resellers. See Husky's March 20, 2000, Section A 
questionnaire response, at A-9. We examined the selling functions 
performed for each of the two U.S. sales channels. Both sales channels 
involved freight and delivery arrangements and credit services. Based 
on the above information, we preliminarily determine that there is one 
LOT in the United States.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the home market and EP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily 
determine that there is not a significant difference in the selling 
functions performed in the U.S. and home markets and that these sales 
are made at the same LOT. Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not 
appropriate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period 
December 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/exporter/reseller                  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Husky Oil Limited...........................................        0.55
Petrosul International, Ltd.................................       40.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 
to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or 
comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting 
written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of 
those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In the event these preliminary 
results are made final, we will assess antidumping duties on all 
Petrosul entries at the same rate as the dumping margin (i.e., 40.38 
percent) since the margin is not a current calculated rate for the 
respondent, but a rate based upon total facts available pursuant to 
section 776(a) of the Act. Also, if these preliminary results are made 
final, we will assess importer-specific antidumping duties on all 
appropriate Husky entries. Upon completion of this review, the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service.

Cash Deposit

    Because the antidumping duty order on elemental sulphur from Canada 
has been revoked, effective January 1, 2000, no cash deposits are 
required for entries of elemental sulphur from Canada for entries on or 
after January 1, 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping Finding: Elemental 
Sulphur From Canada, 64 FR 40553 (July 27, 1999).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 54493]]


    Dated: August 31, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-23123 Filed 9-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P