[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39350-39354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14376]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by seven companies and an 
importer of the subject merchandise, on June 19, 2001, the Department 
of Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber 
from Korea with respect to those seven companies (66 FR 32934). The 
period of review is November 8, 1999, through April 30, 2001.
    We preliminarily find that sales have been made below normal value. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  June 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Cynthia Thirumalai, Office 1, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group I, Import Administration-Room B099, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

Background

    On May 25, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain 
polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Korea (65 FR 33807).
    The Department published a notice advising of the opportunity to 
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on May 
1, 2001 (66 FR 21740). In response to timely requests by Stein Fibers, 
an importer of the subject merchandise, and certain manufacturer/
exporters (i.e., Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. (Daeyang), Estal Industry 
Co., Ltd. (Estal), Huvis Corporation (Huvis), Keon Baek Co., Ltd. (Keon 
Baek), Mijung Ind., Co., Ltd. (Mijung), Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd. 
(SamYoung) and Sunglim Co., Ltd. (Sunglim)), the Department published a 
notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to these 
same companies (66 FR 32934, June 19, 2001).
    On September 4, 2001, the Department extended the time limit for 
the preliminary results in this review until May 31, 2002 (66 FR 
46260).
    On October 9, 2001, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the above-mentioned respondent companies. We received 
responses from all seven respondents in November and December, 2001.
    On December 28, 2001, the Department received allegations from the 
petitioners\1\ that Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Keon Baek, Mijung, and 
Sunglim sold certain PSF in Korea at prices below the cost of 
production (COP). The Department initiated cost investigations of these 
companies' home-market sales of PSF on January 30, 2002. (See 
Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production (company-
specific memoranda), dated January 30, 2002.) In accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, Sam Young was requested to provide 
complete COP information at the time the questionnaire was issued, 
based on having made sales below cost in the original investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc.; Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l., 
d/b/a KoSa; Wellman, Inc.; Intercontinental Polymers, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We issued supplemental questionnaires and received responses from 
all of the respondents in March through May, 2002. Certain supplemental 
responses were not received in sufficient time to be analyzed fully by 
the Department prior to the issuance of these preliminary results. 
While we are using the data in the supplemental responses as the bases 
for our preliminary results, adjusted as described below, we may 
request additional information from respondent companies prior to 
issuing our final results.

Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain 
polyester staple fiber (PSF). PSF is defined as synthetic staple 
fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of 
polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in 
diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 
mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may 
be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF 
is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski 
jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of 
less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable under 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from this order. Also 
specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 
to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in 
the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded 
from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with 
an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than 
its inner core.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.40 and 5503.20.00.60. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PSF by the respondents to the United 
States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared export 
price (EP), as appropriate, to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.Pursuant to section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export prices of individual U.S. 
transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product 
where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as 
discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the

[[Page 39351]]

Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home 
market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each 
respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to 
the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further 
details, see the ``Normal Value'' section below.)
    We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the appropriate comparison 
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from 
three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison 
market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales 
of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of 
trade in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). In making product comparisons, 
consistent with our final determination in the investigation, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by the respondents in the following order: 1) composition; 2) 
type; 3) grade; 4) cross section; 5) finish; and 6) denier (see Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 16880, 16881, 
March 30, 2000 (Investigation Final)).

Export Price

    We used export price methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act, because all respondents sold the subject merchandise to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation and 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise indicated. We 
based export price on packed, FOB, C&F, CIF, ex-port/warehouse, ex-dock 
duty paid and delivered prices, as appropriate, to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States.
    We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for 
movement expenses including foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 
and handling (e.g., terminal handling charges, wharfage, bill of lading 
charges, container taxes), international freight, marine insurance, 
U.S. duty, and U.S. Customs fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(1) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). For Keon Baek, we adjusted the 
reported movement expenses for foreign brokerage and handling, 
container tax, bill of lading charge, and terminal handling charges to 
account for a rounding error. In addition, for Keon Baek's U.S. sales 
where the invoice date was after the reported shipment date, consistent 
with Department practice, we used shipment date as the date of sale 
(see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams from Luxembourg, 67 FR 35888 (May 20, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Brazil, 67 FR 31200, 31202 (May 9, 2002)). For 
Estal, we made adjustments to gross price and certain reported expenses 
to account for differences between actual and theoretical weights. 
Also, for both Estal and Sunglim, we recalculated the short-term 
interest rate, based on published Federal Reserve rates, to reflect 
more accurately the POR.
    We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance 
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Respondents in this review claim 
to have received duty drawback under the two systems in place in Korea: 
either the individual rate system or the fixed rate system (i.e., the 
simplified fixed drawback system).
    In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the Department 
has examined the individual rate system and found that the government 
controls in place ensure that the Department's criteria for receiving a 
duty drawback adjustment are met (i.e., that 1) the rebates received 
were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the 
manufacture of the subject merchandise, and 2) there were sufficient 
imports to account for the rebates received). See Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the 
Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574, 55577 (October 27, 1997). Daeyang, 
Huvis, and Sunglim have each provided documentation for the record 
demonstrating that they received duty drawback under the individual 
rate system. Accordingly, we are allowing the full drawback adjustment 
on all U.S. sales by Daeyang and Huvis and on those U.S. sales by 
Sunglim on which the duty drawback was received under the individual 
rate system.
    For the remaining U.S. sales by Sunglim and all sales by Estal, 
Keon Baek, Mijung, and Sam Young, duty drawback was received under the 
fixed rate system. The Department has found that the Korean fixed rate 
duty drawback system does not sufficiently link import duties paid to 
rebates received upon export. Therefore, the fixed rate system does 
not, in and of itself, meet the Department's criteria, i.e., that the 
rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs 
used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and that there were 
sufficient imports to account for the rebates received. See id. In this 
case, none of the respondents have demonstrated successfully that duty 
drawback which it received under the fixed rates system met the 
Department's criteria for a duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, for 
purposes of these preliminary results, we are not granting duty 
drawback adjustments claimed under the fixed rate system.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability
    As stated above in the ``Product Comparisons'' section of this 
notice, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume 
of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    Aggregate home market sales volumes of the foreign like product for 
Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Keon Baek, Mijung and Sunglim, respectively, 
were greater than five percent of their aggregate volumes of U.S. sales 
of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that the home 
market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for these companies.
    Sam Young reported that its home market sales of PSF during the POR 
were less than five percent of its sales in the United States. 
Therefore, Sam Young did not have a viable home market for purposes of 
calculating NV. Sam Young reported that the People's Republic of China 
(PRC) was its largest viable third-country market and, consequently, 
submitted its sales to the PRC for purposes of calculating NV.
B. Level of Trade
    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs 
if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). 
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in

[[Page 39352]]

selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\2\ including selling 
functions,\3\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the 
final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two 
may have many or few links, and the respondents[quot] sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of this preliminary determination, 
we have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services. Other selling functions unique to specific companies were 
considered, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either home market or third country prices\4\), we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, et. al., 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 
(affirming this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the 
EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different 
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference 
in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Daeyang sold to end users only in both the home market and in the 
United States. Estal and Huvis reported that they sold to distributors 
and end users in both the home market and in the United States. Keon 
Baek and Mijung sold to end users in the home market and to 
distributors in the United States. Sam Young sold only to distributors 
in the United States and to distributors and end users in the PRC. 
Sunglim sold to distributors and end users in the home market and to 
distributors and wholesalers in the United States.
    Each respondent has reported a single channel of distribution and a 
single level of trade in each market, and has not requested a level of 
trade adjustment. We examined the information reported by each 
respondent regarding its marketing process for making the reported 
comparison market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of 
selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we 
considered the extent to which sales process, freight services, 
warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with 
respect to the different customer categories (i.e., distributors, 
wholesalers, and end users) within each market and across the markets. 
Based on our analyses, we found a single level of trade in the United 
States, and a single, identical level of trade in the comparison market 
for all respondents. Thus, it was unnecessary to make a LOT adjustment 
for any of the respondents in comparing EP and comparison market 
prices.
C. Sales to Affiliated Customers
    Huvis made sales in the home market to affiliated customers. To 
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the 
starting prices of sales to affiliated customers to those of 
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and 
indirect selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to an 
affiliated customer was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to 
Huvis' unaffiliated customers, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated customer were at arm's length and included those sales in 
our calculation of NV pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where prices to 
Huvis' affiliated customers were, on average, less than 99.5 percent of 
the prices to unaffiliated customers, we determined that these sales 
were not at arm's length and excluded them from our analysis.
    No other respondent made comparison market sales to affiliated 
customers.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
    As discussed in the case history section above, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that each respondent made 
sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices 
below the cost of production (``COP'') in accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act.
1. Calculation of COP
    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of the respondents' costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign 
like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, including interest expenses, and the costs of all 
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition 
packed ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act.
    We relied on COP information submitted by the respondents except 
for the following adjustments. For Huvis, we revised the calculation of 
the G&A expense ratios to include additional non-operating income and 
expense items in the numerator of the calculation, and to exclude 
packing expenses that were included in the cost of manufacture in the 
denominator of the calculation. We made the same adjustment to the 
denominator of the interest expense calculation. These adjustments 
resulted in small changes to the reported G&A and interest expense 
amounts (see Huvis Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated 
May 31, 2002).
    We also disallowed certain offsets to Daeyang's and Mijung's 
reported G&A expenses See Daeyang Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum and Mijung Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated 
May 31, 2002.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    For each respondent, on a product-specific basis, we compared the 
adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to the comparison 
market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made 
at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the 
COP, consisting of the cost of manufacturing, G&A and interest 
expenses, to the comparison market prices, less any applicable movement 
charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses. 
In determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at 
prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's

[[Page 39353]]

sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not 
disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine 
that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine 
that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities'' within 
an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made 
at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of 
the Act.
    We found that for Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Mijung, and Sam Young, for 
certain specific products, more than 20 percent of the comparison 
market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost 
sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not 
provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 
We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, 
as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1).
    Keon Baek made no home market below-cost sales during the POR. 
Sunglim did not make below-cost sales within an extended period of time 
in substantial quantities during the POR. Therefore, we have not 
excluded any home market sales by Keon Baek or Sunglim from our 
calculation of NV.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first 
sold for consumption in the comparison market, in the usual commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as 
the export price, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We 
calculated NV based on ex-factory, delivered, FOB and CIF prices to 
affiliated end users and unaffiliated customers, where appropriate. We 
made deductions for movement expenses including, where appropriate, 
domestic inland freight, domestic brokerage, wharfage, container taxes, 
terminal handling fees and international freight under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale 
including imputed credit expenses, bank charges and letter of credit 
fees, where appropriate. For Huvis, we recalculated home market imputed 
credit to account for the imputed revenue received for payments made 
prior to shipment. In addition, for home market sales made in U.S. 
dollars, we recalculated imputed credit expenses using the U.S. dollar 
interest rate in the calculation.
    We adjusted Keon Baek's reported selling expenses for bank charges 
and letter of credit fees to account for a rounding error.
    Finally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 
sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find that the weighted-average dumping margins for 
the period November 8, 1999 through April 30, 2001, are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                    Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd..........................               1.39
Estal Industry Co., Ltd..............................  0.20 (de minimis)
Huvis Corporation....................................               3.37
Keon Baek Co., Ltd...................................  0.31 (de minimis)
Mijung Ind., Co., Ltd................................               1.00
Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd........................               0.75
Sunglim Co., Ltd.....................................               0.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be 
scheduled upon determination of the briefing schedule.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and 
rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case 
briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be determined 
by the Department. All interested parties will be notified of the 
briefing schedule once it has been established. Parties who submit case 
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary 
of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of 
the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service. The final results of this 
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on 
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and 
for future deposits of estimated duties. For assessment purposes, we 
intend to calculate importer/customer-specific assessment rates for the 
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for 
all U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
of those sales.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the 
cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or 
exporters will continue to be 11.35 percent, the ``All Others'' rate 
made effective by the LTFV investigation.

[[Page 39354]]

 These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: May 31, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-14376 Filed 6-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S