[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 865-870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-435]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-808]


Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; 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.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Viraj Group, Limited (``Viraj 
Group''), respondent, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel wire rod (``SSWR'') from India. The period of review 
(``POR'') is December 1, 1999, through November 30, 2000.
    We have preliminarily determined that the Viraj Group has made 
sales below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will 
instruct the U.S.

[[Page 866]]

Customs Service to assess antidumping duties. We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit 
arguments in this segment of the proceeding are requested to submit 
with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD Enforcement 
Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3207.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 references to the Department's regulations are to the 
provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Background

    On October 20, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire rod 
from India (58 FR 54110). On December 20, 2000, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this antidumping duty order (65 FR 79802).
    On December 27, 2000, the Viraj Group requested an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire 
rods from India. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b), we published a 
notice of initiation of the review of the Viraj Group on January 31, 
2001 (66 FR 8378).
    On January 31, 2001, the Department issued a questionnaire to the 
Viraj Group. The Department initiated a cost of production inquiry and 
requested that the Viraj Group respond to section D of the 
questionnaire in addition to sections A, B and C. The Viraj Group 
submitted its Section A questionnaire response on February 28, 2001, 
and re-submitted it on March 6, 2001, in the correct format pursuant to 
the Department's request. On April 17, 2001, the Viraj Group submitted 
its Sections B, C and D questionnaire responses. The Department, 
however, considered the Section D response to be insufficient and 
requested that Viraj Group re-submit its Section D questionnaire 
response, which it did on August 13, 2001. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to the Viraj Group and received responses 
on June 20, 2001, July 9, 2001, August 24, 2001, November 13, 2001, 
November 28, 2001. Petitioners submitted comments on the record on May 
3, 2001, October 10, 2001, and November 28, 2001.
    On July 23, 2001, due to the reasons set forth in the Extension of 
Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India, 66 FR 38257, the 
Department extended the due date for the preliminary results. In 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 
extended the due date for the notice of preliminary results the maximum 
120 days allowable, from the original due date of September 2, 2001, to 
December 31, 2001. The Department is conducting this review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information provided by the Viraj Group from December 3-12, 2001, 
using standard verification procedures, including an examination of 
relevant sales, cost, 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 Department's Central Records Unit located in Room B-099 
of the main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Period of Review

    The period of review is December 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise under review is certain stainless steel wire rod 
(SSWR) which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled 
rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. SSWR are 
made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of 
carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other 
elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling and are 
normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The 
majority of SSWR sold in the United States are round in cross-section 
shape, annealed and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in 
diameter.
    The SSWR subject to this review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by 
the review.

Collapsing

    The Viraj Group is composed of the following four companies: Viraj 
Forgings, Ltd. (``VFL''); Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (``VAL''); Viraj Impoexpo, 
Ltd. (``VIL''); and Viraj USA, Inc. (``Viraj USA''), which was 
incorporated during the POR on May 22, 2000. The Department has 
preliminarily determined that these four companies are affiliated for 
the purposes of this administrative review, and that the three 
producing companies, VAL, VIL, and VFL, should be collapsed and 
considered one entity pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act and 
section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations. See Memorandum from 
Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini: 1999-2000 Administrative Review 
of Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Collapsing Memorandum of the 
Viraj Group, Limited, dated December 31, 2001.
    The Department has found the four companies affiliated based on the 
evidence on the record which states that Mr. Chhatwal and Mr. Kochhar 
are the directors for all four companies and they jointly run all four 
companies, and their decisions are made for the interest of the group 
as a whole. Furthermore, the stock of VAL, VFL and VIL is mainly held 
by Mr. Chhatwal, Mr. Kochhar, and their relatives. Collectively, this 
group holds more than 40% of the shares in VIL, VAL, and VFL. Also, VFL 
owns 100% of Viraj USA.
    We find that the three producing companies (VAL, VIL, and VFL) 
should be collapsed because the evidence on the record indicates that 
VAL, VFL and VIL each use production facilities for similar or 
identical merchandise that would not require substantial retooling of 
any facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities. For 
sales to the home market, VAL makes billets and then sends them to an 
unaffiliated subcontractor for rolling into wire rod. The subcontractor 
returns the black wire rod to VAL who sells it in the home market as 
subject merchandise. For sales to the U.S. market, VIL and VFL purchase 
the billets from VAL and send them to the same sub-contractor that VAL 
uses for rolling into wire rod. The subcontractor returns the black 
wire rod

[[Page 867]]

which is then annealed at VFL's facilities, pickled at VIL's 
facilities, packed and then exported. Consequently, VAL, VFL and VIL 
are all considered ``producers'' of this wire rod for purposes of this 
review. Given that VAL, VIL and VFL all produced wire rod during the 
POR, no substantial retooling would be needed to restructure priorities 
among the three companies. Moreover, the companies are under common 
control and ownership, they use the same production facilities for 
producing wire rod, and the operations of the companies are 
intertwined. Therefore, the companies are capable, through their sales 
and production operations, of manipulating prices or affecting 
production decisions.

Affiliation

    The Department has analyzed the issue of whether the Viraj Group 
was affiliated with its U.S. customer, Kurt Orban Partners (``KOP''), 
for a portion of the POR, May 22, 2000 through November 30, 2000. At 
the Department's request, KOP submitted information on the record of 
this proceeding on November 5, 2001, and November 28, 2001. The 
evidence on the record indicates that KOP's Vice President and later 
President, Matt Orban, was also the Vice President of Viraj USA. The 
record indicates that his duties as Viraj USA's Vice President were 
clerical in nature. Specifically his duties included signing customs 
documents with power of attorney and signing bank papers on behalf of 
Viraj USA. The record indicates Matt Orban also answered correspondence 
with customs brokers and shipping companies on behalf of Viraj USA. At 
KOP, Mr. Orban had primary responsibility for the general 
administration, sales, purchasing, supplier relations, and information 
technology. Both the Viraj Group and KOP deny that Matt Orban had any 
control over Viraj USA's sales and pricing decisions. See Viraj Group's 
June 20, 2001 submission at 6. There is no information on the record 
that indicates Matt Orban did have control over Viraj USA; therefore, 
the Department preliminarily determines that the Viraj Group and KOP 
are not affiliated for purposes of this administrative review.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the Viraj Group's sales of subject merchandise 
from India to the United States were made at less than normal value, we 
compared the export price (``EP'') and constructed export price 
(``CEP''), as appropriate, to the normal value (``NV''), as described 
in the ``Export Price/Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) 
of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and 
compared these to individual EP and CEP transactions.

Transactions Reviewed

    We compared the aggregate volume of the Viraj Group'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 
the Viraj Group sold in India was sufficient, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1) of the Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the Viraj Group'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 the Viraj Group's home market sales of the 
foreign like product. Thus, we based NV on the prices at which the 
foreign like product was first sold for consumption in India in the 
usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to 
the extent possible, at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP or 
EP sales, as appropriate.

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 Viraj Group in the home market during the POR, 
to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate 
comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis 
of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the 
Department's questionnaire.
    We have preliminarily determined to consider grade 304L and grade 
304LER as the same for purposes of the model match program. The Viraj 
Group submitted information on the record which claimed that these two 
grades should not be treated the same. However, after analyzing this 
data, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence on the record to 
support a determination that grades 304L and 304LER should be treated 
differently. Specifically, the evidence on the record is insufficient 
because the physical characteristics for each grade are not 
significantly different from one another. For example, in the grade 
specifications provided on the record by the Viraj Group, the grades 
304L and 304LER have the same specifications for carbon, silicon, 
magnesium, phosphorus, and sulfur. Additionally, the ranges for 
chromium and nickel for 304LER are a subset of the ranges of those 
elements for grade 304L. The Department preliminarily determines that 
the specifications for these grades do not differ significantly. It is 
the Department's practice not to create additional categories unless 
the physical characteristics are significantly different from an 
existing known category. See e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 781 (January 7, 1998). Therefore, we did 
not create an additional grade category for grade 304LER for purposes 
of these preliminary results.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, constructed export price CEP is the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).
    For purposes of this review, the Viraj Group has classified certain 
sales as EP sales and certain sales as CEP sales. Based on the 
information on the record, we are using export price as defined in 
section 772(a) of the Act for sales before May 22, 2000, and CEP for 
sales on or after May 22, 2000, because that is the date on which the 
U.S. re-seller, Viraj USA, was incorporated.
    The Viraj Group has classified those sales made by VIL and VFL to 
the unaffiliated U.S. customer as EP sales. The Viraj Group reported 
that these sales are shipped directly from the factory in India to the 
U.S. customer. The Department calculated EP for the appropriate sales 
based on packed, delivered prices to customers in the United States. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for 
following movement expenses:

[[Page 868]]

marine insurance, international freight, inland freight, U.S. customs 
duties, and brokerage and handling in accordance with section 772(c)(2) 
of the Act.
    The Viraj Group has classified those sales made by VIL and VFL 
through Viraj USA, an affiliated reseller that is 100% owned by VFL, as 
CEP sales. VIL and VFL make the shipment from India on a CIF basis to 
Viraj USA. Viraj USA clears the goods through customs and pays the 
customs duty. Then Viraj USA sells the good to the U.S. customer by 
issuing an invoice to the customer. The customer makes payment to Viraj 
USA.
    Based on the evidence on the record, the Department preliminarily 
determines that VIL and VFL's U.S. sales through Viraj USA were made 
``in the United States'' within the meaning of section 772(b) of the 
Act, and thus have been appropriately classified by the Viraj Group as 
CEP transactions.
    We calculated CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
based on the packed CIF prices to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, brokerage and handling, inland freight, international 
freight, U.S. customs duties, marine insurance, customs clearance and 
delivery arrangements. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, 
we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (bank 
charges and credit expenses) and indirect selling expenses. As 
explained in the ``Duty Drawback'' section below, we are not making any 
adjustments for duty drawback for EP or CEP sales.

Normal Value

1. Comparison Market Viability

    The Viraj Group reported the home market sales of VAL, as well as 
the largest third country market sales of VIL and VFL, who did not make 
any home market sales during the POR. Since we have preliminarily 
determined to collapse the companies of the Viraj Group, we used the 
home market sales of VAL as the basis of normal value.
    After testing home market viability, as discussed in the 
``Transactions Reviewed'' section, supra, and after determining whether 
home market sales were at below-cost prices, in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis,'' infra, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-
to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Constructed Value (``CV'') 
Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because the Department disregarded certain Viraj Group sales made 
in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding 
and excluded such sales from normal value, the Department determined 
that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the Viraj 
Group made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of 
producing the merchandise in this review. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 
FR 31302 (May 17, 2000), and section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a 
result, the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry in this 
case on January 31, 2001, to determine whether the Viraj Group made 
home market sales during the POR at prices below their respective COPs 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

3. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the Viraj Group's cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, 
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), including interest 
expenses, and packing costs. We used home market sales and COP 
information provided by the Viraj Group in its questionnaire responses.

4. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP for the POR to the Viraj 
Group's 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 such 
sales: (1) Were made within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities; and (2) were not made at prices which permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

5. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the Viraj Group's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the Viraj Group's sales of a 
given product were at prices less than the COP, we determined such 
sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' The extended 
period of time for this analysis is the POR. See section 773(b)(2)(B) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.406(b). Because each individual price was 
compared to the weighted-average COP for the cost reporting period, 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 subject merchandise to the 
reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges. Based 
on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales.

Calculation of Constructed Value

    We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act 
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
including interest expenses, and profit. We calculated the COP included 
in the calculation of CV as noted above, in the ``Calculation of COP'' 
section of the notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.405(b)(1), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts 
incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on the home market prices to the home market 
customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We calculated NV based on prices to 
unaffiliated home market customers. We made circumstances of sale 
adjustments for credit expenses, as appropriate.

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. For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

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 CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A 
expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level

[[Page 869]]

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. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1).
    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. Substantial differences in selling activities 
are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for determining that 
there is a difference in the stage of marketing. 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 
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 a 
LOT 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 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 home market, the Viraj Group reported one level of trade. 
The Viraj Group sold through one channel of distribution in the home 
market: directly to unaffiliated customers (trading companies and 
actual users). The Viraj Group claimed one level of trade in its U.S. 
market. The Viraj Group sold through two channels of distribution in 
the U.S. market: (1) directly to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States prior to May 22, 2000, the date of incorporation of Viraj USA; 
and (2) directly from the mill through Viraj USA to unaffiliated 
customers after May 22, 2000.
    For sales in the home market channel, the Viraj Group reported that 
all of its sales are sold ex-factory. The selling functions performed 
by the Viraj Group include business promotion (e.g., salesmen travel, 
entertainment, and product testing), extension of credit, price 
negotiation, and order processing. Because there is only one sales 
channel in the home market, and because identical selling functions are 
performed for all home market sales, we preliminarily determine that 
there is one LOT in the home market.
    We reviewed the selling functions and services performed by the 
Viraj Group in the U.S. market, as represented by the Viraj Group in 
its responses. The Viraj Group indicated that the selling functions 
performed by the Viraj Group were the same for EP sales and CEP sales 
(i.e., sales to Viraj USA). Viraj USA was incorporated on May 22, 2000, 
and after that time, Viraj USA handled customs clearance, but there was 
no change in the selling functions of the Viraj Group. We find that the 
differences in the degree of selling functions performed (i.e., price 
negotiation and provision of freight) to be minor. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    The selling functions of the Viraj Group are very minimal for both 
the home market and the U.S. market. The Viraj Group does not incur 
warranty expenses, technical service expenses, royalties, or 
advertising expenses for either market, and only provides freight 
services for EP transactions. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine 
that sales in the home market and in the U.S. market were made at the 
same LOT and have not made a LOT adjustment.

Duty Drawback

    In the previous administrative review (see Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 
FR 31302, (May 17, 2000)), the Department denied the Viraj Group's 
request for an upward adjustment to the U.S. starting price based on 
duty drawback because the reported duty drawback was not directly 
linked to the amount of duty paid on imports used in the production of 
merchandise for export as required by the Department's two-part test, 
which states there must be: (1) a sufficient link between the import 
duty and the rebate, and (2) a sufficient amount of raw materials 
imported and used in the production of the final exported product. See 
Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. U.S. (``Rajinder Pipes''), 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 
1358. The Court of International Trade upheld the Department's decision 
to deny respondent an adjustment for duty drawback because there was 
not substantial evidence on the record to establish that part one of 
the Department's test had been met. See Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United 
States of America and Carpenter Technology, Corp., et al., Slip Op. 01-
104 (CIT August 15, 2001).
    Similarly, in the current review, the Department finds that the 
Viraj Group has not provided substantial evidence on the record to 
establish the necessary link between the import duty and the reported 
rebate for duty drawback. The Viraj Group has reported that it received 
duty drawback in the form of duty entitlement certificates which are 
issued by the Government of India to neutralize the incidence of basic 
custom duty on the import of raw materials used in the production of 
subject merchandise, but has failed to establish the necessary link 
between the import duty paid and the rebate given by the Government of 
India. As in the previous review, the Viraj Group was not able to 
demonstrate that the import duty paid and the duty drawback rebate were 
directly linked. Therefore, the Department is denying a duty drawback 
credit for the preliminary results of this review.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the Viraj Group 
for the period December 1, 1999, through November 30, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Viraj Group, Limited...................................         0.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal 
briefs. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in 
the case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted 
not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register; rebuttal briefs may be submitted not later than 
five days thereafter. The Department will publish the final results of 
this administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in 
any written comments or at a hearing, not later than 120 days after the 
date of publication of this notice.
    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. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results, we will instruct the Customs Service not 
to assess antidumping duties on the merchandise subject to review. Upon 
completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b), if applicable, we

[[Page 870]]

will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total customs value of the sales used to 
calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all 
entries of that particular importer made during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the Viraj Group, a deposit equal to the 
above margin will be required; (2) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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 (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers 
or exporters will continue to be 48.80 percent, the ``All Others'' rate 
made effective by the original investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    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.

    Dated: December 31, 2001.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-435 Filed 1-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P