[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21634-21638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner and two producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey. This review covers 
three manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. This is the fourth period of review, covering April 1, 2000, 
through March 31, 2001.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by certain of the companies subject to this review. In 
addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with 
respect to Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir 
Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S., and ICDAS 
Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. because these companies had 
no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
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: May 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Elizabeth Eastwood, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0656 or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

Applicable Statue 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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

Background

    On April 2, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Turkey (66 FR 17523).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), in April 2001, the 
Department received requests from HABAS Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) and ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim 
Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS) to conduct an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1), on April 30, 2001, the Department also received a 
request for an administrative review from the petitioner, AmeriSteel, 
for the following four producers/exporters of rebar: Colakoglu 
Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret 
A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret 
A.S. (collectively ``Diler''); Ekinciler Holding, A.S. and Ekinciler 
Demir Celik A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler''); and ICDAS.
    In May 2001, the Department initiated an administrative review for 
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and ICDAS (66 FR 28421 (May 17, 
2001)) and issued questionnaires to them.
    In May 2001, Diler informed the Department that it had no shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review 
(POR). We reviewed Customs Service data to confirm that Diler had no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, 
we are preliminarily rescinding our review for Diler. For further 
discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this 
notice, below.

[[Page 21635]]

    In August and September, 2001, we received responses to sections A 
through C of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections regarding sales to 
the home market and the United States) and a response to Section D of 
the questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding cost of production (COP) 
and constructed value (CV)) from Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and 
ICDAS.
    Regarding ICDAS, in its Section A response, this company informed 
the Department that it had a single sale of subject merchandise that 
entered the United States after the POR. Accordingly, ICDAS requested 
that the Department extend the POR to capture this sale. We have 
determined that it is not appropriate to expand the POR to capture this 
one sale and we are rescinding the review with respect to ICDAS because 
it did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. For 
further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of 
this notice, below.
    In September 2001, we issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding 
sections A through C to Habas. We received a response to this 
questionnaire in October 2001.
    In November and December 2001, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires regarding sections A through C to Colakoglu and sections 
A through D to Ekinciler.
    On November 29, 2001, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than April 30, 2002. See Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Notice of Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 63218 (Dec. 5, 2001).
    In January and February 2002, we issued section D supplemental 
questionnaires to Colakoglu and Habas. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in February and March 2002.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is all stock deformed steel 
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This 
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail 
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round 
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, 
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Diler informed the Department that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
We have confirmed this with the Customs Service. Additionally, as noted 
above, ICDAS did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR 
and requested that the Department extend the POR to capture one sale of 
subject merchandise that entered the United States after the POR. 
However, we have determined that it is not appropriate to expand the 
POR to capture this sale. For further discussion, see the memorandum 
entitled ``Status of Review for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim 
Sanayi A.S. in the 2000-2001 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated August 28, 
2001. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent 
with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our 
review with respect to Diler and ICDAS. (See e.g., Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 
(June 29, 1998); and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53287 (Oct. 14, 1997).)

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade as export price (EP). 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 EP, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. 
customer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP 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.
    Colakoglu claimed that it made home market sales at more than one 
level of trade, while the remaining respondents claimed that they made 
home market sales at only one level of trade. We analyzed the 
information on the record for each company and found that each 
respondent, including Colakoglu, performed essentially the same 
marketing functions in selling to all of its home market and U.S. 
customers, regardless of customer category (e.g., end user, 
distributor). Therefore, we determine that these sales are at the same 
level of trade. We further determine that no level-of-trade adjustment 
is warranted for any of the respondents. For a detailed explanation of 
this analysis, see the memorandum entitled ``Concurrence Memorandum for 
the Preliminary Results of the 2000-2001 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Turkey,'' dated April 25, 2002 (the ``concurrence memo'').

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the 
United States at less than normal value, we compared the EP to the NV. 
Because Turkey's economy experienced significant inflation during the 
POR, as is Department practice, we limited our comparisons to home 
market sales made during the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred 
and did not apply our ``90/60'' contemporaneity rule (see, e.g., 
Certain Porcelain on Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (Aug. 7, 
1997)). This methodology minimizes the extent to which calculated 
dumping margins are overstated or understated due solely to price 
inflation that occurred in the intervening time period between the U.S. 
and home market sales.
    In all previous segments of this proceeding, we compared products 
sold in the United States to products sold in the home market in the 
ordinary course of trade that were identical with respect to the 
following characteristics: grade, size, ASTM specification, and form. 
In this segment, however, we have reconsidered this hierarchy and are 
now treating form as the most important physical characteristic, based 
on

[[Page 21636]]

comments received by one of the respondents in this review. Where there 
were no home market sales of merchandise that was identical in these 
respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. 
products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market 
based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. 
For further discussion, see the concurrence memo. In making the above 
change, we considered comments filed by all interested parties. We 
invite interested parties to comment on our revision of the matching 
hierarchy in their case briefs.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales we used EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based 
on the facts of record.

A. Colakoglu

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for ocean freight expenses, 
marine insurance expenses, inspection fees, lashing and loading 
expenses, demurrage expenses, and exporter association fees (offset by 
freight commission revenue, wharfage revenue, despatch revenue, 
demurrage commission revenue, agency fee revenue, attendance fee 
revenue, and other freight-related revenue), where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Ekinciler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for inspection expenses, exporter 
association fees, surveying expenses, dunnage expenses, brokerage and 
handling expenses, marine insurance, international freight expenses, 
and customs clearance fees, where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

C. Habas

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, exporter association fees, surveying expenses, brokerage and 
handling expenses, and international freight expenses, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

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 five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded 
home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our 
preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the 
home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United 
States during the POR. (See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993).) For further 
discussion, see the concurrence memo.
    Colakoglu and Ekinciler made sales of rebar to affiliated parties 
in the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales 
to ensure that they were made at ``arm's-length'' prices, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To conduct this test, we compared the unit 
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where prices to 
the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price 
to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that these sales were made 
at arm's length (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27355 (May 19, 1997) (``Preamble'')). In accordance 
with the Department's practice, we only included in our margin analysis 
those sales to the affiliated party that were made at arm's length.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu, 
Ekinciler, and Habas there were reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that these respondents had made home market sales at prices 
below their COPs in this review because the Department had disregarded 
sales that failed the cost test for these companies in the most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which these companies 
participated (i.e., the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation for 
Habas and Colakoglu and the 1996-1998 administrative review for 
Ekinciler). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether these companies had made home market sales during the 
POR at prices below their COP. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
from Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9740 (Mar. 4, 1997). See also Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 49150 (Sept. 
10, 1999).
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for general and administrative and financing expenses, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, except as follows. For Habas, we 
increased the reported materials costs for all products to account for 
yield loss related to certain billet production because the reported 
costs did not include an amount for this loss. We based the amount of 
the adjustment on non-adverse facts available. As facts available, we 
used the yield loss percentage reported by Habas in its supplemental 
questionnaire response. For further discussion, see the memorandum 
entitled ``Calculations Performed for Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. for the Preliminary Results in the 2000-2001 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars from Turkey,'' dated April 25, 2002. We have requested further 
information regarding the company's actual yield loss, and we will 
consider this information for purposes of the final results.
    As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced 
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the 
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, 
we requested that each respondent submit the product-specific cost of 
manufacturing (COM) incurred during each month of the reporting period. 
We calculated a period-average COM for each product after indexing the 
reported monthly costs during the reporting period to an equivalent 
currency level using the Turkish Wholesale Price Index from the 
International Financial Statistics published by the International 
Monetary Fund. We then restated the period-average COMs in the currency 
values of each respective month.

[[Page 21637]]

    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices 
of the foreign like 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 charge, selling expenses, 
and packing expenses.
    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 sections 
773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent'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 we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent'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) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 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, for 
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost 
sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where all sales of a 
specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales 
of that product.

A. Colakoglu

    We based NV on ex-factory or delivered prices to home market 
customers. For those home market sales which were negotiated in U.S. 
dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the Turkish lira 
(TL) price adjusted for kur farki (i.e., an adjustment to the TL 
invoice price to account for the difference between the estimated and 
actual TL value on the date of payment), because the only price agreed 
upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price remained unchanged; the 
buyer merely paid the TL-equivalent amount at the time of payment. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank charges, and exporter 
association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the 
POR, as described above.

B. Ekinciler

    We based NV on ex-factory, ex-warehouse or delivered prices to home 
market customers, adjusted for billing errors. We excluded from our 
analysis home market re-sales by Ekinciler of merchandise produced by 
unaffiliated companies. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for foreign inland freight (offset by freight revenue) 
and warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for bank charges 
and exporter association fees. 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, up to the 
amount of the U.S. commission.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using period-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of 
the reporting period, as described above.

C. Habas

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. 
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), 
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses and 
exporter association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the 
POR, as described above.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
respondents during the period April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S....................................         6.74
Ekinciler Holding A.S./Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S...........         0.00
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S........         0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases 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 issue the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.

[[Page 21638]]

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Habas, 
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. Regarding 
Colakoglu and Ekinciler, for assessment purposes, we do not have the 
information to calculate entered value because these companies are not 
the importers of record for the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we 
have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise 
in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
of those sales. The assessment rate will be assessed uniformly on all 
entries of that particular importer 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 any of Habas's entries for which 
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 rebar from Turkey 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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously 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, or the 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 16.06 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)(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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 25, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-10769 Filed 4-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P