[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16473-16477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-507-501]


Certain In-shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain in-
shell pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) for the 
period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. If the final results 
remain the same as the preliminary results of this administrative 
review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess 
countervailing duties as detailed in the ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results. (See the ``Public Comment'' 
section of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office VI, Group II, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2849.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

    On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the countervailing duty order on certain in-shell pistachios from Iran. 
See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Countervailing Duty Order: In-shell Pistachios from Iran, 51 FR 8344 
(March 11, 1986) (In-shell Pistachios). On March 1, 2001, the 
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' (67 FR 9438). On March 22, 2002, we received a 
timely request for an administrative review from Cyrus Marketing, the 
exclusive representative of the Rafsanjan Pistachio Producers 
Cooperative (RPPC), the respondent company in this proceeding. On April 
24, 2002, we initiated an administrative review covering the period of 
review (POR) January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001 (67 FR 20089).
    On June 11, 2002, we issued our initial questionnaire to the 
Government of Iran (GOI) and RPPC. On September 17, 2002, we issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to RPPC.
    On October 23, 2002, we extended the period for the completion of 
the Preliminary Results pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Certain In-shell Pistachios from 
the Islamic Republic of Iran: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 65091 
(October 23, 2002).
    On February 20, 2003, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to the 
GOI. On March 5, 2003, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to 
RPPC. On March 19, 2003, we received from the GOI a partial response to 
the Department's February 20, 2002, supplemental questionnaire.
    On March 20, 2003, we sent a letter to the GOI, extending for the 
second time the time limit for the submission of its full response to 
the supplemental questionnaire issued by the Department on February 20, 
2003. The due date of the supplemental questionnaire was extended until 
March 25, 2003. However, we stated in the letter that, given the 
proximity of this extended due date to the date of our preliminary 
results (i.e., March 31, 2003), we could not guarantee that we would be 
able to analyze the information contained in the supplemental response 
in time to incorporate that information in our preliminary results.
    On March 21, 2003, we sent a letter to RPPC, extending for the 
second time the time limit for the submission of its response to the 
second supplemental questionnaire issued by the Department on March 5, 
2003. The due date of the supplemental questionnaire was extended until 
March 25, 2003. However, we stated in the letter that, given the 
proximity of this extended due date to the date of our preliminary 
results (i.e., March 31, 2003), we could not guarantee that we would be 
able to analyze the information contained in

[[Page 16474]]

the supplemental response in time to incorporate that information in 
our preliminary results.
    On March 25, 2003, we did not receive the GOI's supplemental 
questionnaire response. See March 25, 2003 Memorandum to the File from 
the team. Therefore, as discussed below in the ``Use of Facts 
Available'' section of this notice, we have resorted to the facts 
otherwise available employing an adverse inference. (See section 776 of 
the Act.)
    Also on March 25, 2003, we did not receive the second supplemental 
questionnaire response from RPPC. See March 25, 2003 Memorandum to the 
File from the team. Therefore, as discussed below in the ``Use of Facts 
Available'' section of this notice, we have resorted to the facts 
otherwise available, employing an adverse inference. (See section 776 
of the Act.)
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 (2002), this administrative 
review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was 
specifically requested. Accordingly, this administrative review covers 
RPPC and nine programs.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this administrative review is in-shell 
pistachio nuts from which the hulls have been removed, leaving the 
inner hard shells and edible meat, as currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 0802.50.20.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

    During the course of this proceeding, we have repeatedly sought 
information pertaining to all companies that are cross-owned and/or 
affiliated with RPPC, the producer of subject merchandise, and RPPC's 
shareholders. See pages III-3 through III-4 of the Department's June 
11, 2002, questionnaire, page 1 of the Department's September 17, 2002, 
supplemental questionnaire, and page 1 of the Department's March 5, 
2003, second supplemental questionnaire. In addition, we have 
repeatedly requested information concerning the total sales and sales 
of subject merchandise made by RPPC during the POR. See pages III-3 
through III-4 of the Department's June 11, 2002, questionnaire, page 1 
of the Department's September 17, 2002 supplemental questionnaire, and 
page 1 of the Department's March 5, 2003, second supplemental 
questionnaire. Moreover, we have repeatedly asked for specific 
information concerning RPPC's and its members' usage of the following 
programs: Provision of Fertilizer and Machinery, Provision of Water and 
Irrigation Equipment, Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate 
Materials Used in the Production of Exported Goods, Program to Improve 
the Quality of Exports of Dried Fruit, Tax Exemptions, Technical 
Assistance from the GOI, and Provision of Credit. See pages III-9 
through III-12 of the Department's June 11, 2002, questionnaire, pages 
3 through 6 of the Department's September 17, 2002, supplemental 
questionnaire, and pages 3 through 4 of the Department's March 5, 2003, 
second supplemental questionnaire.
    In response to these repeated inquiries relating to affiliation, 
sales data, and the seven aforementioned programs, RPPC repeatedly 
failed to answer specific questions, provided incomplete answers, and 
did not provide useable information regarding these seven programs.
    In addition, we have sought, without success, information from the 
GOI regarding details about RPPC's and its growers' usage of the 
programs under review. See the Department's June 11, 2002, initial 
questionnaire. Moreover, we specifically asked the GOI to provide 
copies of relevant legislation proving that certain programs subject to 
this administrative review have been terminated. See the Department's 
February 20, 2003, supplemental questionnaire. The GOI failed to 
provide the requested legislation and only answered one of the 
Department's supplemental questions (see the GOI's March 19, 2003, 
submission).
    Section 776(a) of the Act requires the use of facts available when 
an interested party withholds information that has been requested by 
the Department, or when an interested party fails to provide the 
information requested in a timely manner and in the form required. As 
described above, RPPC and the GOI have failed to provide information 
regarding these programs in the manner explicitly and repeatedly 
requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts 
otherwise available.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that in selecting 
from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference 
that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that a 
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. The 
Department finds that by not providing necessary information 
specifically requested by the Department, despite numerous 
opportunities, the GOI and RPPC have failed to cooperate to the best of 
their ability. Therefore, in selecting from among the facts available, 
the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted.
    When employing an adverse inference in an administrative review, 
the statute indicates that the Department may rely upon information 
derived from: (1) The petition, a final determination in a 
countervailing duty or an antidumping investigation, any previous 
administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping 
review, section 753 review, or section 762 review; or (2) any other 
information placed on the record. See 19 CFR 351.308(c). Thus, in 
applying adverse facts available, we have used information on the 
record of this administrative review as well as information from the 
final determinations of In-shell Pistachios and Certain In-shell 
Pistachios and Certain Roasted In-shell Pistachios from the Islamic 
Republic of Iran: Final Results of New Shipper Countervailing Duty 
Reviews, 68 FR 4997 (January 31, 2003) (Pistachios New Shipper 
Reviews).
    If the Department relies on secondary information (e.g., data from 
a petition) as facts available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that 
the Department shall, ``to the extent practicable,'' corroborate such 
information using independent sources reasonably at its disposal.\1\ 
The SAA further provides that to corroborate secondary information 
means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. See also, 19 CFR 351.308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA 
clarifies that information from the petition is ``secondary 
information.'' See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying 
H.R. 5110 (H. Doc. No. 103-316) (1994) (SAA) at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in those instances in which it determines to apply adverse 
facts available, the Department, in order to satisfy itself that such 
information has probative value, will examine, to the extent 
practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. 
However, unlike other types of information, such as publicly available 
data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national 
average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for 
data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable 
subsidy programs. The only source for such information normally is 
administrative determinations. In the instant case, no evidence has 
been presented or obtained which contradicts the reliability of the

[[Page 16475]]

evidence relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not 
relevant. See Cotton Shop Towels from Pakistan: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 42514 (August 13, 
2001). Where circumstances indicate that the information is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. 
See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant 
case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the 
relevance of the benefit data relied upon in previous segments of this 
proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the 
information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies

A. Export Certificate Voucher Program

    The GOI and RPPC explain that prior to calendar year 2000, there 
were three exchange rates in effect: (1) The oil-notional rate, 
available exclusively to the GOI for its own budgetary requirements; 
(2) the non-oil export rate, also referred to as the ``export rate,'' 
available to importers and exporters for their foreign exchange 
transactions; and (3) the ``free-market'' rate, which was itself tied 
to the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE). According to information from the 
GOI, during the months leading up to the POR, the export rate and the 
``free-market'' rate, although similar to each other, were 
significantly different from the oil-notional rate.
    Under this system, the GOI required exporters to deposit a certain 
percentage of their anticipated export revenue with the Central Bank of 
Iran (CBI). Deposit rates varied across industries. In the case of the 
pistachio industry, the deposit requirement was 100 percent of the 
export sale. Also, the GOI required exporters to obtain, for a nominal 
fee, an export certificate. In addition, the GOI required exporters to 
return the foreign exchange earned on the sale to the CBI.
    Provided that the exporter conducted the transaction through an 
Iranian bank, the CBI issued, upon return of the foreign exchange 
earnings, an export certificate voucher to the exporter. The export 
certificate voucher, in turn, gave the exporter three options: (1) Use 
the dollars earned on the export sale, within three months of receipt, 
to purchase dollar-denominated imports; (2) use the voucher to convert 
the amount of foreign exchange listed on the export certificate into 
rials at the export rate; or (3) sell the voucher, within three months 
of receipt, on the open market at slightly higher margins (i.e., the 
margin between the export rate and ``free market'' rate) to buyers in 
Iran that had a need to acquire U.S. dollars.
    According to the GOI, this exchange rate system was revised 
pursuant to Iran's adoption of its third five-year development plan in 
March of 2000. Under the new system, the GOI abolished the export rate, 
thus leaving only two rates, the oil-notional rate and the ``free 
market'' rate. However, according to the GOI, participants in the 
export certificate voucher program were eligible to utilize a third 
rate that more closely tracked but, nonetheless, was still below the 
``free market'' rate.
    Under this revised exchange rate system, exporters must return 
their foreign currency to the CBI within eight months of the sale. As 
an added incentive, the CBI offers an early deposit reward to holders 
of export certificate vouchers equal to one percent of the sale for 
every month the exporter returns the foreign currency prior to the 
termination of the eight month deadline. This reward is capped at six 
percent of the sale. The exporter is then free to sell the ``awarded'' 
foreign exchange at the ``free market'' rate.
    According to the GOI, the exchange rate system adopted under the 
third five-year development plan was, itself, abolished by the CBI in 
March of 2002. Under the new 2002 system, the GOI claims that it has 
completely unified its exchange rate system.
    According to RPPC, it utilized the export certificate voucher 
program during the POR, selling the vouchers on the open market at 
slightly higher margins (i.e., the margin between the export rate and 
``free market'' rate) (see page 11 and Exhibit 7 of RPPC's August 19, 
2002, questionnaire response). Moreover, RPPC used the early deposit 
reward program during the POR (see page 4 of RPPC's October 15, 2002, 
questionnaire response). To calculate the benefit from the export 
certificate voucher program, we subtracted the exchange rate listed on 
each export certificate RPPC sold during the POR from the free market 
exchange rate that was in effect as of the date of the export 
certificate. We then multiplied this difference, in rials per dollar, 
by the dollar value listed on each export certificate. Next, we summed 
each of the products to arrive at the total benefit in rials. We then 
divided the total benefit by RPPC's export sales during the POR. We 
note that, as BIA, we used RPPC's total sales of export certificates in 
rials for RPPC's export sales, as RPPC did not provide us with its 
export sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine, for 
liquidation purposes, a net countervailable subsidy of 1.14 percent ad 
valorem for RPPC.
    We calculated a benefit for RPPC's early deposit rewards by 
dividing the total amount of RPPC's early deposit rewards in rials by 
the same export sales figure discussed above. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine, for liquidation purposes, a net 
countervailable subsidy of 2.72 percent ad valorem for RPPC.
    However, we found in the Pistachios New Shipper Reviews that the 
export certificate voucher program in its entirety was terminated as of 
March 21, 2002 (see Comment 13 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum). 
Therefore, for cash deposit purposes, the rate is 0.00 percent ad 
valorem for RPPC. For further discussion, see ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section below.

B. Provision of Fertilizer and Machinery

    Petitioners have alleged that under this program the GOI provides 
fertilizer and machinery to the pistachio industry at preferential 
prices. Although RPPC itself stated that it did not receive any inputs 
from the GOI during the POR, RPPC did not provide any information 
regarding the usage of this program by the 70,000 members of RPPC. 
Therefore, as adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine a net 
countervailable subsidy of 7.11 percent ad valorem, from In-shell 
Pistachios, for RPPC.

C. Provision of Water and Irrigation Equipment

    Petitioners have alleged that the GOI undertakes the construction 
of soil dams, flood barriers, canals, and other irrigation projects on 
behalf of pistachio farmers. Although RPPC itself stated that it did 
not receive any funding from the GOI during the POR with respect to 
this program, RPPC did not provide any information regarding the usage 
of this program by the 70,000 members of RPPC. Therefore, as adverse 
facts available, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable 
subsidy of 7.11 percent ad valorem, from In-shell Pistachios, for RPPC.

D. Program to Improve Quality of Exports of Dried Fruit

    Petitioners have alleged that pursuant to the Budget Act of 2001-
2002, the GOI provides financial assistance to exporters of dried fruit 
and pistachios to

[[Page 16476]]

assist them in the production of export quality goods. RPPC did not 
respond to questions regarding its or its members' usage of this 
program. Therefore, as adverse facts available, we preliminarily 
determine a net countervailable subsidy of 7.11 percent ad valorem, 
from In-shell Pistachios, for RPPC.

E. Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate Materials Used in the 
Production of Exported Goods

    Petitioners have alleged that pursuant to the Third Five Year 
Development Plan (TFYDP) enacted by the GOI, duties and levies paid in 
connection with the importation of intermediate materials used in the 
production of the exported commodities and goods are refunded to 
exporters. RPPC did not answer any of our questions with respect to 
this program. Therefore, as adverse facts available, we preliminarily 
determine a net countervailable subsidy of 7.11 percent ad valorem, 
from In-shell Pistachios, for RPPC.

F. Tax Exemptions

    Petitioners have alleged that the GOI provides tax exemptions to 
agricultural producers who are exporters. During the verification of 
the new shipper reviews, the Department learned that section 141 of the 
Direct Taxation Act exempts exporters of agricultural goods from income 
taxes (see December 4, 2002 memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI from Alicia Kinsey, Case Analyst, 
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the GOI (GOI 
Verification Report) at page 6, which has been placed on the record of 
this administrative review). RPPC stated that it was not subject to 
income taxation during the POR. However, RPPC has failed to provide 
relevant tax information for any of the 70,000 growers that are members 
of its cooperative. Therefore, as adverse facts available, we 
preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 7.11 percent 
ad valorem, from In-shell Pistachios, for RPPC.

G. Technical Assistance from the GOI

    Petitioners have alleged that pistachio growers receive technical 
support as part of the GOI's program to facilitate agricultural 
development. Although RPPC itself stated that it did not receive any 
technical assistance from the GOI during the POR with respect to this 
program, RPPC did not provide any information regarding the usage of 
this program by the 70,000 members of RPPC. Therefore, as adverse facts 
available, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 
7.11 percent ad valorem, from In-shell Pistachios, for RPPC.

H. Provision of Credit

    Petitioners have alleged that the GOI provides loans at below 
market interest rates to members of the agricultural sector. RPPC 
states that it did not receive any loans from the GOI. In the course of 
this administrative review, we requested that RPPC submit financial 
statements for the POR. RPPC submitted financial statements covering 
the year ending March 19, 2001. These financial statements include a 
line item for ``loans'' and do not contain any explanatory notes. RPPC 
claims that these financial statements are complete and are the most 
current.
    We find that RPPC failed to provide us with complete financial 
statements for the POR, as the financial statements that RPPC submitted 
cover only one quarter of the POR. We note that RPPC is one of the 
largest pistachio producers in the world and, thus, should be able to 
provide the Department with at least some form of financial information 
(e.g., unaudited financial statements) for the remaining nine and one-
half months of the POR, as we are well into 2003. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that there is not enough evidence on the record 
to confirm that RPPC's outstanding loans were not provided by the GOI, 
as RPPC did not submit any ledgers or journals as supporting 
documentation, nor did it submit any financial statements or records 
for the majority of the POR.
    Therefore, as adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine a 
net countervailable subsidy of 7.11 percent ad valorem, from In-shell 
Pistachios, for RPPC.

II. Program Determined to Be Not Countervailable

A. Price Supports and/or Guaranteed Purchase of All Production

    Based on information obtained in the course of the recently-
completed new shipper reviews of in-shell pistachios and in-shell 
roasted pistachios from Iran, we determined that this program is not 
countervailable (see Pistachios New Shipper Reviews and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5). No 
information was submitted in the instant review to warrant the 
Department to reconsider its determination. Therefore, we continue to 
find this program not countervailable.

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we determined 
an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise participating in this administrative review. We 
preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy 
rate to be:

Producer/Exporter
    Rafsanjan Pistachio Producers Cooperative (RPPC).
Net Subsidy Rate
    53.63 percent ad valorem.
    Under section 351.526 of the Department's regulations, the 
Department can adjust cash deposit rates to account for program-wide 
changes. During the recently-completed new shipper reviews of in-shell 
pistachios and in-shell roasted pistachios from Iran, the Department 
verified that the export certificate voucher program has been 
terminated subsequent to the POR (see Pistachios New Shipper Reviews 
and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13). 
Therefore, we are adjusting the cash deposit rate to take into account 
this program-wide change. Thus, in determining the cash deposit rate 
listed below, we have deducted the subsidies found for this program 
from the overall subsidy rate calculated for RPPC.

Producer/Exporter
    Rafsanjan Pistachio Producers Cooperative (RPPC).
Cash Deposit Rate
    49.77 percent ad valorem.
    If the final results of this review remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct Customs to 
assess countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department also 
intends to instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated 
countervailing duties as indicated above as a percentage of the f.o.b. 
invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from reviewed 
companies, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
    Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for 
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing 
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, 
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as 
provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 
351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which 
a review was not requested, duties must

[[Page 16477]]

be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue 
to be collected, at the rate previously ordered. As such, the 
countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no 
longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that 
company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company v. 
United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council v. 
United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 
353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which is 
identical to 19 CFR 351.212(c)(ii)(2)). Therefore, the cash deposit 
rates for all companies except those covered by this review will be 
unchanged by the results of this review.
    We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for 
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit 
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this 
order will be the rate for that company established in the most 
recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. 
If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the 
most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the 
statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments 
is applicable. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies 
until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. In 
addition, for the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001, 
the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered 
by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of 
entry.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and Customs shall assess, countervailing duties on all 
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we have 
calculated a company-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject 
to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to Customs 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 Customs to assess the 
resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the 
subject merchandise on each of the company's entries during the review 
period.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
these preliminary results. Any such hearing is tentatively scheduled to 
be held 37 days from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to 
request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) 
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be 
raised at the hearing. Parties may file case briefs pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(ii). Six copies of the business proprietary version and six 
copies of the non-proprietary version of the case briefs must be 
submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 30 days from the 
date of publication of the preliminary determination. As part of the 
case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the 
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. Parties may also submit rebuttal briefs 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Six copies of the business proprietary 
version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal 
briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 5 
days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An interested party 
may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that 
party's case or rebuttal briefs. Further written arguments should be 
submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered if 
received within the time limits specified above.
    This administrative review is issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) 
and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: March 31, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-8235 Filed 4-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P