[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10690-10694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5299]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-803]


Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without 
Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Order on Bars and Wedges

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

ACTION: Preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the respondent, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on bars/wedges from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC). We preliminarily determine that Shandong Huarong Machinery 
Company (Huarong) sold bars/wedges in the United States at prices below 
normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR).
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Manning or Tom Martin, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
5253, (202) 482-3936, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002.

Background

    On February 19, 1991, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (56 FR 6622) four antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand 
tools (HFHTs) from the PRC. Imports covered by these orders comprise 
the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges 
with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); (2) bars over 
18 inches in length, track tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3) picks/
mattocks; and (4) axes/adzes. On February 1, 2002, the Department

[[Page 10691]]

published a notice of opportunity to request administrative reviews of 
the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC covering the period 
February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002 (67 FR 4945). On February 
28, 2002, Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (TMC), Shandong 
Machinery Import & Export Corporation (SMC), Liaoning Machinery Import 
& Export Corporation (LMC), and Huarong requested administrative 
reviews in the above-referenced proceedings. Specifically, TMC 
requested reviews of the hammers/sledges, bars/wedges, picks/mattocks 
and axes/adzes orders, SMC requested reviews of the hammers/sledges, 
bars/wedges, and picks/mattocks orders, LMC requested a review of the 
bars/wedges order, and Huarong requested a review of the bars/wedges 
order. Based on these requests, the Department initiated the current 
administrative reviews of TMC, SMC, LMC, and Huarong under the 
requested orders on March 20, 2002. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations 
in Part, 67 FR 14696 (March 27, 2002).
    On May 3, 2002, LMC withdrew its request for review of the bars/
wedges order. On May 10, 2002, TMC withdrew its requests for review of 
the hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks orders. On June 7, 2002, SMC 
withdrew its request for review under the picks/mattocks order. 
Additionally, on September 26, 2002, TMC withdrew its requests for 
review of the axes/adzes order and bars/wedges order, and SMC withdrew 
its requests for review of the bars/wedges and hammers/sledges orders. 
The Department rescinded these reviews on January 3, 2003. See Notice 
of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Heavy Forged 
Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 352 (January 3, 2003). 
The remaining review covers bars/wedges sold by Huarong.
    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the Department may extend the deadline for 
completion of the preliminary results of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete these preliminary 
results within the statutory time limit of 245 days. On October 22, 
2002, in accordance with the Act, the Department published its 
extension of the time limit for completing the preliminary results of 
this review. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 64869 (October 22, 2002).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are bars over 18 inches in 
length, track tools and wedges (bars/wedges), which may or may not be 
painted, may or may not be finished; assorted bar products and track 
tools including wrecking bars, digging bars and tampers; and steel wood 
splitting wedges. The subject merchandise is manufactured through a hot 
forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to 
forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment 
using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on 
the product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding, 
polishing and painting. Bars and wedges are currently provided for 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
subheading 8205.59.30. Specifically excluded from this review are bars 
18 inches in length and under. The HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

    To establish whether a company operating in a non-market economy 
(NME) is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (Sparklers), and the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, NME firms are 
entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can 
demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, 
with respect to their export activities. Evidence supporting, though 
not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over 
export activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. De facto absence of government control over exports is 
based on four factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export 
prices independent of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 
59 FR at 22587 and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    In the final results of the 2000-2001 administrative reviews of 
HFHTs from the PRC, the Department granted a separate rate to Huarong. 
See Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 67 FR 57789 (September 
12, 2002). It is the Department's policy to evaluate separate rates 
questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a separate rates 
claim, regardless of any separate rate the respondent received in the 
past. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China, Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 12441 (March 13, 1998).
    In the instant review, Huarong submitted a complete response to the 
separate rates section of the Department's questionnaire. The evidence 
submitted by Huarong includes government laws and regulations on 
corporate ownership, its business licence, and narrative information 
regarding its operations and selection of management. This evidence 
supports a finding of a de jure absence of government control over 
export activities: (1) There are no controls on exports of subject 
merchandise, such as export quotas applied to the subject merchandise 
and no export license is required for exports of the subject 
merchandise to the United States; and (2) the subject merchandise does 
not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or 
exporting licensing. Huarong has also shown de facto absence of 
government control over exports in its questionnaire response: (1) 
Huarong sets its own export prices independently of the government and 
without requiring the approval of a government authority; (2) Huarong 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) 
Huarong has a general manager and three vice general managers with the 
authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement;

[[Page 10692]]

(4) the general manager is selected by company employees, and the 
general manager appoints the manager of each department and (5) foreign 
currency is not required to be sold to the government. The Department 
preliminarily determines that Huarong has established that it qualifies 
for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide 
and Sparklers.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Huarong's sales of bars/wedges were made at 
prices less than normal value (NV), we compared the export price (EP) 
to NV, as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of 
this notice, below.
    In its February 4, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response, 
Huarong stated that it reported identical merchandise under multiple 
CONNUMs in both its U.S. sales and factors of production databases. To 
correct this error, we created new CONNUMs and assigned a single CONNUM 
to identical merchandise originally reported under multiple CONNUMs. 
See Memorandum from Thomas E. Martin, International Trade Compliance 
Specialist, to the File, ``Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of the Eleventh Administrative Reviews of Certain Heavy Forged 
Hand Tools (Bars/Wedges) From the People's Republic of China--February 
1, 2001, through January 31, 2002,'' dated February 28, 2003 
(Calculation Memorandum).

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated an EP for Huarong's sales to the United States because the 
first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of 
importation and the use of constructed export price (CEP) was not 
otherwise warranted. When appropriate, we made deductions from the 
selling price to unaffiliated parties for foreign inland freight, 
brokerage and handling, port charges, ocean freight, and marine 
insurance. Each of these services was either provided by a NME vendor 
or paid for using a NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction for 
these movement charges on surrogate values.
    We valued foreign inland freight using a truck rate obtained from 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk 
Aspirin from The People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000) 
(Bulk Aspirin). See Memorandum from Thomas E. Martin, International 
Trade Compliance Specialist, to the File, ``Surrogate Values Used for 
the Preliminary Results of the Eleventh Administrative Reviews of 
Certain Heavy Forged Hand Tools (Bars/Wedges) From the People's 
Republic of China--February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002,'' dated 
February 28, 2003 (Surrogate Value Memorandum). Since Huarong ships 
subject merchandise to the United States using NME carriers, we valued 
ocean freight using a rate calculated in Certain Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and 
New Shipper Reviews, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999) (India Wire Rod).
    We valued foreign brokerage and handling using a rate also reported 
in the questionnaire response in India Wire Rod. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum. We valued port charges using the charges for services 
rendered to containers and containerized cargo set by the Board of 
Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port, effective March 17, 1997. We valued 
marine insurance using the rate that was reported in the public version 
of the questionnaire response placed on the record in India Wire Rod. 
See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We adjusted all surrogate values, as appropriate, to account for 
inflation between the effective period of the surrogate value 
information and the POR. We calculated the inflation adjustments for 
the factor values, using the wholesale price index (WPI) for India 
obtained from International Financial Statistics, which is a 
publication of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). See Surrogate 
Value Memorandum.

Normal Value

    For exports from NMEs, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that 
the Department shall determine NV using a factors of production (FOP) 
methodology if (1) the subject merchandise is exported from a NME 
country, and (2) available information does not permit the calculation 
of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed 
value. Section 351.408 of the Department's regulations (2001) sets 
forth the Department's methodology for calculating the NV of 
merchandise from NME countries. In every case conducted by the 
Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME. Since 
none of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in 
this review, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act and section 351.408 of the Department's regulations.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOP utilized 
in producing bars and wedges include, but are not limited to: (A) Hours 
of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative 
capital costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the FOPs, to the extent 
possible, using the costs of the FOP in a market economy that is at a 
level of economic development comparable to the PRC and a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. We preliminarily determine that 
India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per-capita gross national 
product, the growth rate in per-capita income, and the national 
distribution of labor. Furthermore, India is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that 
India is the country most comparable to the PRC among the significant 
exporting countries of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from 
Jeffrey May, Director of the Office of Policy, to Thomas Martin, 
International Trade Compliance Specialist, ``Antidumping Administrative 
Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools (Bars/Wedges) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' 
dated January 17, 2003.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of 
calculating NV, we attempted to value FOP using Indian surrogate values 
that were in effect during the POR. Where contemporaneous data was not 
available to the Department, the most recent data was used, and 
adjusted to account for inflation between the effective period and the 
POR. As discussed in detail in the Surrogate Value Memorandum, we 
valued the FOP as follows:
    (1) We valued direct materials used to produce bars and wedges, 
packing materials, and coal used for energy using, where available, the 
rupee-per-kilogram value of imports that entered India during February 
2000 through January 2001, as published in Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports (Indian Import Statistics).
    (2) We valued labor using a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). This rate is identified on the 
Import Administration's Web site. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/corrected00wages/corrected00wages.htm.
    (3) We derived ratios for selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, factory overhead, and profit using information 
reported for 2000-2001, for 1,927 Public Limited Companies, in the 
Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for September 2002 (RBI Bulletin). From 
this information, we

[[Page 10693]]

were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of direct 
materials, labor, and energy expenses; SG&A expenses as a percentage of 
the total cost of manufacturing (TOTCOM); and profit as a percentage of 
the sum of the TOTCOM and SG&A expenses. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    Whenever possible, the Department has used producer-specific data 
to calculate financial ratios. Unlike industry-specific data, which 
tends to be broader in terms of merchandise included, product-specific 
data obtained from producer-specific information pertains directly to 
the subject merchandise. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from The 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. However, when 
the Department and the parties are unable to obtain surrogate 
information for valuing overhead, SG&A, and profit that pertains to 
manufacturers of identical or comparable merchandise, the Department 
must rely upon surrogate information derived from broader industry 
groupings. See Notice of Final Results of New Shipper Review: Petroleum 
Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 41395 (June 18, 
2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6.
    In the present review, neither the petitioner nor the respondent 
have placed any financial statements on the record. Moreover, the 
Department has been unable to locate financial statements specific to 
hand tools producers in India. Therefore, the Department is using 
broader financial data from the RBI Bulletin. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Non-Malleable 
Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 7765 
(February 18, 2003) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 4; Final Results of Antidumping New Shipper Review: 
Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 46775 
(September 7, 2001), and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 20; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke 
in Part: Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China, 
66 FR 48026 (September 17, 2001), and the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18; Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation: Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts From the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 37388, 37391 (May 29, 2002), and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6.
    (4) We valued electricity using 2000-2001 data from the Annual 
Report on The Working of State Electricity Boards & Electricity 
Departments, published in May, 2002, by the Power & Energy Division of 
the Planning Commission of the Government of India. We applied the 
average tariff rate for all industries, as in prior reviews.
    (5) We valued truck transportation expenses for direct materials, 
packing materials, and coal from the suppliers of the inputs to the 
factory producing subject merchandise utilizing the rate used by the 
Department in Bulk Aspirin.
    Huarong reported production ``caps'' for use in determining certain 
factor input amounts. A production ``cap'' is an estimate of the amount 
of factor input the company used to make the product in question. 
Huarong reported ``caps'' for steel billets, the steel scrap offset, 
unskilled labor, skilled labor, and unskilled packing labor.
    The Department has accepted ``caps'' in the past only when the 
``caps'' were found to reasonably reflect actual consumption, and has 
rejected them when found to be otherwise. See Natural Bristle 
Paintbrushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Review Results of Antidumping Review, 64 FR 27506 (May 20, 1999) 
(Natural Bristle Paintbrushes). In Natural Bristle Paintbrushes, at 
verification, the respondent attempted to duplicate reported ``cap'' 
figures, but did not succeed. The respondent asserted that the figures 
were derived from a standard cost system, but this system was not 
explained to the verifiers, and the Department finally rejected the 
``caps.'' See Natural Bristle Paintbrushes, 64 FR at 27514. Similarly, 
while the Department has found reported ``caps'' reasonable in past 
segments of this proceeding, the Department also found that there were 
discrepancies between the reported ``cap'' amounts and the figures 
presented at verification of the information submitted during the 1997-
1998 administrative review. Because the Department could not deduce how 
the information in the questionnaire response was derived, the 
Department did not consider the information verified. See Heavy Forged 
Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 43659, 43665-43666 
(August 11, 1999).
    For these preliminary review results the Department has accepted 
Huarong's reported ``caps'' for the purpose of calculating any dumping 
margins, except for the ``cap'' regarding scrap steel offset. The 
Department allows scrap offsets, but only for the amount of the scrap 
actually sold or reused. See Bulk Aspirin and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. It is also the Department's practice 
to grant offsets for recoveries/by-products which are re-entered into 
the production process. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from The People's Republic of China, 66 FR 33522 (June 
22, 2001) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 5.
    In the January 22, 2003 supplemental questionnaire, the Department 
requested Huarong to calculate the scrap offset by dividing the actual 
amount of scrap sold during the POR by the total POR production of 
subject merchandise. Huarong, in its February 4, 2003 response, stated 
that while it did have sales of steel scrap during the POR, it did not 
record sales of scrap according to subject and non-subject merchandise. 
In addition, Huarong stated that it did not reintroduce any internally-
generated scrap steel into the production of subject merchandise. See 
Huarong's October 23, 2002, section D supplemental questionnaire 
response at 3. Since Huarong did not report the scrap offset using its 
actual sales of scrap, nor attempt to do so through allocating such 
sales to subject merchandise or by using any other reasonable 
methodology, we have preliminarily determined to not grant this offset 
to Huarong.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margin exists for the period February 1, 
2001, through January 31, 2002:

[[Page 10694]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Manufacturer/exporter           Time period      Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Huarong Machinery Company     2/1/01-1/31/02              34.56
 Bars/Wedges......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching these preliminary results within 10 
days of the date of announcement of these preliminary review results. 
An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication 
of the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties 
may submit written comments (case briefs), in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.310(c)(1)(ii), and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit 
with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of 
the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the Department 
requests that parties submitting written comments provide the 
Department with a diskette containing the public version of those 
comments. We will issue subsequently a memorandum identifying the date 
of a hearing, if one is requested, and the deadlines for submitting 
case and rebuttal briefs.
    The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties.

Duty Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific per-unit duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of those 
same sales. These importer-specific rates will be assessed uniformly on 
all entries of each importer that were made during the POR. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106 (c)(2), we will instruct Customs to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 
0.5 percent ad valorem. For all shipments of bars/wedges from the PRC 
exported by Huarong and imported by entities not identified by Huarong 
in its questionnaire response, we will instruct customs to assess 
antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of 
the entry. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly 
to Customs upon the completion of the final results of this 
administrative review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of bars and wedges from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this 
notice, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for bars and wedges exported by Huarong will be the rate 
established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for 
companies previously found to be entitled to a company-specific rate, 
the cash deposit rate for bars/wedges will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period reviewed; (3) for 
all other PRC exporters of bars/wedges from the PRC, the cash deposit 
rate will be the following PRC country-wide rate: 47.88 percent; and 
(4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of bars/wedges from the 
PRC who do not have their own rate will be the rate applicable to the 
PRC supplier of the exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under Sec.  351.402(f)(2) of the Department's 
regulations 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 determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-5299 Filed 3-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P