[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57379-57383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-802]


Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and rescission in part of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2002.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. 
The review covers exports of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001, and one firm, 
CEMEX, S.A. de C.V., and its affiliate, GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. We 
have preliminarily determined that sales were made below normal value 
during the period of review. With respect to Apasco, S.A. de C.V., we 
are rescinding the antidumping duty administrative review of this 
company.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Brian Ellman, Office 
of AD/CVD Enforcement 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3477, (202) 482-4852, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 57380]]

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Background

    On August 1, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review concerning 
the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from 
Mexico (66 FR 39729). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, the 
petitioner, the Southern Tier Cement Committee (STCC), requested a 
review of CEMEX, S.A. de C.V. (CEMEX), CEMEX's affiliate, GCC Cemento, 
S.A. de C.V. (GCCC), and Apasco, S.A. de C.V. (Apasco). In addition, 
CEMEX and GCCC requested reviews of their own sales during the period 
of review. On October 1, 2001, we published the Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews (66 FR 
49924) initiating this review. The period of review is August 1, 2000, 
through July 31, 2001. Our review of Customs Service import data 
indicated that there were no entries of subject merchandise made by 
Apasco during the period of review. See Memorandum from Analyst to the 
File, dated August 6, 2002. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the review with respect to this 
manufacturer/exporter. We are now conducting a review of CEMEX and GCCC 
pursuant to section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review include gray portland cement 
and clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary 
component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product 
produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being 
ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 2523.29 
and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 
2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTS item 
number 2523.90 as ``other hydraulic cements.'' The HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes only. Our written 
description of the scope of the proceeding is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales 
information provided by CEMEX using standard verification procedures, 
including an examination of relevant sales and financial records, and 
selection of original documentation containing relevant information. 
Our verification results are outlined in public versions of the 
verification reports.

Collapsing

    Section 771(33) of the Act defines when two or more parties will be 
considered affiliated for purposes of an antidumping analysis. 
Moreover, 19 CFR 351.401(f) describes when the Department will treat 
two or more affiliated producers as a single entity (i.e., ``collapse'' 
the firms) for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. In six 
previous administrative reviews of this order, we analyzed and 
determined to collapse CEMEX and GCCC in accordance with our 
regulations. See, e.g., Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 12518 
(March 19, 2002).
    The regulations state that we will treat two or more affiliated 
producers as a single entity where those producers have production 
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities and we conclude that there is a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price or production. In identifying a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production, the 
factors we may consider include the following: (i) The level of common 
ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board 
members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated 
firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the 
sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing 
decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant 
transactions between the affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).
    Having reviewed the current record, we find that the factual 
information underlying our decision to collapse these two entities has 
not changed from previous administrative reviews. CEMEX's indirect 
ownership of GCCC exceeds five percent; therefore, these two companies 
are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act. In addition, 
both CEMEX and GCCC satisfy the criteria for treatment of affiliated 
parties as a single entity described at 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1): both 
producers have production facilities for similar and identical products 
such that substantial retooling of their production facilities would 
not be necessary to restructure manufacturing priorities. Consequently, 
any minor retooling required could be accomplished swiftly and with 
relative ease.
    We also find that there exists a significant potential for 
manipulation of prices and production as outlined under 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2). CEMEX indirectly owns a substantial percentage of GCCC. 
Also, CEMEX's managers or directors sit on the board of directors of 
GCCC and its affiliated companies. Accordingly, the percentage of 
ownership and interlocking boards of directors give rise to a 
significant potential for affecting GCCC's pricing and production 
decisions. See the Department's memorandum from Analyst to File, 
Collapsing CEMEX, S.A. de C.V. and GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. for the 
Current Administrative Review, dated July 31, 2002.\1\ Therefore, we 
have collapsed CEMEX and GCCC into one entity and calculated a single 
weighted-average margin using information provided by CEMEX and GCCC in 
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Our decision to collapse both companies and treat them as a 
single entity is consistent with our decisions in earlier segments 
of this proceeding. See, e.g., Preliminary Results and Rescission in 
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement 
and Clinker From Mexico, 66 FR 47632, 47633 (September 13, 2001). No 
changes were made in the final results of review (see Gray Portland 
Cement and Clinker From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Review, 67 FR 12518 (March 19, 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructed Export Price

    Both CEMEX and GCCC reported constructed export price (CEP) sales. 
We calculated CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers 
in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we 
made adjustments to the starting price for discounts and billing 
adjustments. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses, including inventory 
carrying costs, that were associated with commercial activities in the 
United States and relate to the sale to an unaffiliated purchaser. We 
also made deductions for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland 
freight, U.S. inland freight and insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, 
U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties, pursuant to section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit 
in accordance

[[Page 57381]]

with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. No other adjustments to CEP were 
claimed or allowed.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers (i.e., 
cement that was imported and further-processed into finished concrete 
by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters), we preliminarily determine 
that the special rule under section 772(e) of the Act for merchandise 
with value added after importation is applicable.
    Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject 
merchandise is imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or 
producer and the value added in the United States by the affiliated 
person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise, we will determine the CEP for such merchandise using the 
price of identical or other subject merchandise if there is a 
sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. 
The regulations at 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2) provide that normally we will 
determine that the value added in the United States by the affiliated 
person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise if we estimate the value added to be at least 65 percent of 
the price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the 
merchandise as sold in the United States. Normally we will estimate the 
value added based on the difference between the price charged to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United 
States and the price paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated 
person. We will base this determination normally on averages of the 
prices and the value added to the subject merchandise. If there is not 
a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine that using the 
price of identical or other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we 
may use any other reasonable basis to determine the CEP. See section 
772(e) of the Act.
    During the course of this administrative review, the respondent 
submitted information which allowed us to determine whether, in 
accordance with section 772(e) of the Act, the value added in the 
United States by its U.S. affiliates is likely to exceed substantially 
the value of the subject merchandise. To determine whether the value 
added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the difference 
between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States and the 
averages of the prices paid for subject merchandise by the affiliate. 
Based on this analysis, we estimate that the value added was at least 
65 percent of the price the respondent charged to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United 
States. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the value added is 
likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. 
Also, the record indicates that there is a sufficient quantity of 
subject merchandise to provide a reasonable and appropriate basis for 
comparison. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins 
for the further-manufactured sales, we will apply the preliminary 
weighted-average margin reflecting the rate calculated for sales of 
identical or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated purchasers.

Normal Value

A. Comparisons

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
normal value (NV), we compared the respondent's volume of home-market 
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Since the respondent's aggregate volume of home-market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home-market 
sales.
    During the period of review, the respondent sold Type II LA and 
Type V LA cement in the United States. The statute expresses a 
preference for matching U.S. sales to identical merchandise in the home 
market. The respondent sold cement produced as Type III, CPC 30 R, CPC 
40, and CPO 40 cement in the home market. We have attempted to match 
the subject merchandise to identical merchandise in the home market. In 
situations where identical product types cannot be matched, we have 
attempted to match the subject merchandise to sales of similar 
merchandise in the home market. See sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 771(16) 
of the Act.
    We were able to find identical and similar models to which we could 
match sales of Type II LA and Type V LA cement sold in the U.S. market. 
In the 1999/2000 administrative review of this proceeding, we 
determined that CPO 40 cement produced and sold in the home market is 
the identical match to Type V LA cement sold in the United States. See 
Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 12518 (March 19, 2002), 
and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 7. We 
have reviewed the information on the record and have determined that 
CPO 40 cement produced and sold in the home market is the identical 
match to Type V LA cement sold in the United States during this review 
period.
    If we could not find an identical match to the cement types sold in 
the United States in the same month in which the U.S. sale was made or 
during the contemporaneous period, we based NV on similar merchandise. 
During the review period, GCCC had sales of Type II LA in the United 
States but did not have any sales of this type in the home market. 
Based on information on the record, we find that the chemical and 
physical characteristics of type CPO 40 cement produced and sold in 
Mexico are most similar to Type II LA cement sold in the United States. 
See, e.g., GCCC's response to the supplemental questionnaire dated June 
28, 2002, at pages 30-31 and at Exhibit A56. Therefore, for this review 
period, we matched sales of CPO 40 cement produced and sold in Mexico 
to all sales of Type II LA sold in the United States.
    Furthermore, in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we 
find that both bulk and bagged cement are produced in the same country 
and by the same producer as the types sold in the United States, both 
bulk and bagged cement are like the types sold in the United States in 
component materials and in the purposes for which used, and both bulk 
and bagged cement are approximately equal in commercial value to the 
types sold in the United States. The questionnaire responses submitted 
by the respondent indicate that, with the exception of packaging, 
cement sold in bulk and cement sold in bags are physically identical 
and both are used in the production of concrete. Also, since there is 
no difference in the cost of production between cement sold in bulk or 
in bagged form (again with the exception of packaging), both are 
approximately equal in commercial value. See CEMEX's and GCCC's 
responses to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires.

B. Ordinary Course of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Department to base NV 
on ``the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or in 
the absence

[[Page 57382]]

of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country, 
in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of 
trade.'' Ordinary course of trade is defined as ``the conditions and 
practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the 
subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration 
with respect to merchandise of the same class or kind.'' See section 
771(15) of the Act.
    In this review, we analyzed home-market sales of cement produced as 
Type III cement. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based 
our examination on the totality of circumstances surrounding the 
respondent's sales in Mexico that are produced as Type III cement and, 
as in previous reviews of this order, we continue to find that the 
respondent's home-market sales of Type III cement are outside the 
ordinary course of trade. See Preliminary Results Analysis Memo of 
CEMEX S.A. de C.V. and its affiliate GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V., for the 
Eleventh Administrative Review of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from 
Mexico (August 30, 2002).

C. Arm's-Length Sales

    To test whether sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's 
length, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, 
discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was on 
average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, 
we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's 
length. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403, we included these sales in our 
analysis.

D. Cost of Production

    The petitioner alleged on January 9, 2002, that the respondent sold 
gray portland cement and clinker in the home market at prices below the 
cost of production (COP). After examining the allegation, we determined 
that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the 
respondent had sold the subject merchandise in the home market at 
prices below the COP. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, we initiated a COP investigation in order to determine whether the 
respondent made home-market sales during the period of review at below-
cost prices. See the memorandum from case analysts to Laurie Parkhill 
entitled Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Request to 
Initiate Cost Investigation in the 2000/2001 Review (April 24, 2002).
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market 
selling, and general and administrative (SG&A) expenses. We used the 
home-market sales data and COP information provided by the respondent 
in its questionnaire response.
    After calculating a weighted-average COP, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we tested whether the home-market sales 
of the respondent were made at prices below COP within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
compared type-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any 
applicable direct selling expenses, movement charges, discounts and 
rebates, indirect selling expenses, and commissions.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a certain type were at prices less 
than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. If 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a certain type during the period of review were 
at prices less than the COP, such below-cost sales were made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to 
sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act. Based on comparisons of 
home-market prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of review, 
we determined that below-cost sales of all types of cement were not 
made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and, 
therefore, we did not disregard any below-cost sales.

E. Adjustments to Normal Value

    Where appropriate, we adjusted home-market prices for discounts, 
rebates, packing, handling, interest revenue, and billing adjustments 
to the invoice price. In addition, we adjusted the starting price for 
inland freight, inland insurance, and warehousing expenses. We also 
deducted home-market direct selling expenses from the home-market price 
and home-market indirect selling expenses as a CEP-offset adjustment 
(see Level of Trade/CEP Offset section below). In addition, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    Section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act directs us to make an 
adjustment to NV to account for differences in the physical 
characteristics of merchandise where similar products are compared. The 
regulations at 19 CFR 351.411(b) direct us to consider differences in 
variable costs associated with the physical differences in the 
merchandise. Where we matched U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
similar models in the home market, we adjusted for differences in 
merchandise.

F. Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the 
same level of trade as the CEP. The NV level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on 
constructed value (CV), that of sales from which we derive SG&A 
expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions 
required under section 772(d) of the Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP-offset provision). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 
62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
    With respect to U.S. sales, we conclude that CEMEX's and GCCC's 
sales constituted two separate levels of trade, one CEMEX U.S. level of 
trade and one GCCC U.S. level of trade. We based our conclusion on our 
analysis of each company's reported selling functions and sales 
channels after making deductions for selling expenses under section 
772(d) of the Act. We found that CEMEX and GCCC performed different 
sales functions for sales to their respective U.S. affiliates. For

[[Page 57383]]

instance, CEMEX reported that it performed technical advice, 
solicitation of orders/customer visits, account receivable management, 
post-sale warehousing, and communication activities whereas GCCC 
reported that it did not perform any of these activities.
    Based on our analysis of the respondent's reported selling 
functions and sales channels, we conclude that the respondent's home-
market sales to various classes of customers which purchase both bulk 
and bagged cement constitute one level of trade. We found that, with 
some minor exceptions, CEMEX and GCCC performed the same selling 
functions to varying degrees in similar channels of distribution. We 
also concluded that the variations in the intensities of selling 
functions performed were not substantial when all selling expenses were 
considered as a whole. See the memorandum entitled Gray Portland Cement 
and Clinker from Mexico: Level-of-Trade Analysis for the 00/01 
Administrative Review, dated August 30, 2002 (Level-of-Trade Analysis 
memorandum).
    Furthermore, the respondent's home-market sales occur at a 
different and more advanced stage of distribution than its sales to the 
United States. For example, the CEMEX U.S. level of trade does not 
include activities such as market research, after-sales service/
warranties, advertising, and packing whereas the home-market level of 
trade includes these activities. Similarly, the GCCC U.S. level of 
trade does not include activities such as market research, technical 
advice, advertising, customer approval, solicitation of orders, 
computer/legal/accounting/business systems, sales promotion, sales 
forecasting, strategic and economic planning, personnel training/
exchange, and procurement and sourcing services whereas the home-market 
level of trade includes these activities.
    As a result of our level-of-trade analysis, we could not match U.S. 
sales at either of the two U.S. levels of trade to sales at the same 
level of trade in the home market because there are no home-market 
sales at the same level of trade. In addition, because we found only 
one home-market level of trade, we could not determine a level-of-trade 
adjustment based on the collapsed entity's home-market sales of 
merchandise under review. Therefore, we have determined that the data 
available do not provide an appropriate basis on which to calculate a 
level-of-trade adjustment. However, we determined that the level of 
trade of the home-market sales is more advanced than the levels of the 
U.S. sales. Thus, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act for the respondent's CEP sales. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 
offset as the smaller of the following: (1) the indirect selling 
expenses on the home-market sale, or (2) the indirect selling expenses 
deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP. See the Level-of-
Trade Analysis memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margin for the collapsed parties, CEMEX and GCCC, for the period August 
1, 2000, through July 31, 2001, to be 74.78 percent.
    We will disclose calculations performed in connection with these 
preliminary results to parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A 
hearing, if requested, will be held at the main Commerce Department 
building three business days after submission of rebuttal briefs.
    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties may be filed no later than 30 days after publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in case briefs, 
may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for filing 
case briefs.
    Parties who submit case 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 with an electronic version 
included.
    Upon completion of this review, the Department will determine, and 
the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an 
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for 
merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service 
within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will 
direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates 
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each 
of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.
    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 review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash-deposit rate for the respondent will be the rate 
determined in the final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not mentioned above, the cash-deposit rate 
will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most 
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, a prior review, or in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will be 61.35 percent, the all-others rate 
from 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 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 3, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-22996 Filed 9-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P