[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48880-48884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21058]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-449-804]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 2003..

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Kemp or Daniel O'Brien, at (202) 
482-5346 or (202) 482-1376, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Office 5, 
Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.
Summary: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar 
(rebar) from Latvia. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject 
merchandise by Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs (Liepajas 
Metalurgs) have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) \1\ to assess 
antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference 
between the export price (EP) and the NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Formerly the U.S. Customs Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit arguments are requested to submit with 
each argument: (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. Further, we ask that parties submitting comments provide 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) with an additional copy of 
the public version of any such comments on diskette.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 7, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
order on rebar from Latvia. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's 
Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777 
(September 7, 2001). On September 3, 2002, the Department issued a 
notice of opportunity to request the first administrative review of 
this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

[[Page 48881]]

Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 56267 (September 3, 2002).On September 3, 
2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Liepajas Metalurgs 
requested an administrative review. On October 24, 2002, the Department 
published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review, covering the period January 30, 2001, through 
August 31, 2002 (the POR). See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 65336 (October 24, 
2002).
    On October 25, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Liepajas Metalurgs, specifying that the responses to 
Section A and Sections B-D would be due on November 15, and December 2, 
2003, respectively.\2\ We received timely responses to Sections A-C of 
the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental 
questionnaires. Based on a timely allegation filed by the 
petitioners\3\ on January 6, 2003, we initiated a cost of production 
(COP) investigation of Liepajas Metalurgs. The company submitted timely 
responses to Section D of the antidumping questionnaire, as well as to 
supplemental questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which 
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests 
a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market 
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market 
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy 
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section 
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like 
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. 
Section E requests information on further manufacturing.
    \3\ The petitioners in this case are the Rebar Trade Action 
Coalition (``RTAC'') and its individual members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this review, the product covered by this order is 
all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under item number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. 
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth 
bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or 
coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we verified information provided by Liepajas 
Metalurgs. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site 
inspection of Liepajas Metalurgs' facilities and examination of 
relevant sales and financial records. See Memorandum from Daniel 
O'Brien and Jim Kemp, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to Gary 
Taverman, Director, Office 5, Re: Verification of the Sales and Cost 
Responses of Joint Stock Company Liepaja Metalurgs in the First 
Administrative Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, 
dated July 30, 2003 (the Verification Report).

Facts Available

    When responding to the questionnaire, Liepajas Metalurgs did not 
report all of the product characteristics for certain home market sales 
made by its affiliated reseller, Armaturas Servisa Centrs (ASC). 
Additionally, Liepajas Metalurgs did not report certain sales of 
merchandise that Liepajas Metalurgs produced but which was commingled 
at ASC's warehouse with incoming rebar produced by other companies and 
sold by ASC. Finally, we found that Liepajas Metalurgs' calculation of 
home market freight expense was unreliable for rebar shipments from the 
plant to the warehouse and shipments from Liepajas Metalurgs' Riga 
sales office (RSO) to the customer. We examined these issues closely at 
verification and found that Liepajas Metalurgs, in the normal course of 
business, did not maintain the necessary records to report the data as 
requested by the Department.
    With regard to sales of merchandise commingled with different 
manufacturers' products, we found that ASC developed a system to 
identify the producer based on the customer, grade and size of the 
rebar, and location of the merchandise in inventory. However, ASC could 
not provide documentation to support its segregation of rebar and 
acknowledged that even by this method, the company was unable to 
identify the manufacturer for every sale. Concerning sales of 
merchandise with incomplete matching characteristics, we found that ASC 
only recorded all of the product characteristics (i.e. type of steel, 
yield strength, and size) of its merchandise when a customer ordered a 
specific grade of rebar. Therefore, ASC was unable to the report yield 
strength, and sometimes size, for sales where no such request was made 
by its customers. Finally, for the freight calculations in question, 
Liepajas Metalurgs could not properly document the type of merchandise 
shipped (i.e. rebar or other products) and the quantity relating to the 
freight invoices. For a further discussion of these issues, see the 
Verification Report.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department 
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.
    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the 
interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 
30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, (1994) (SAA) at 870. Furthermore, ``{a{time} ffirmative 
evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required 
before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping 
Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
    In this case, we have found that an adverse inference is not 
appropriate for Liepajas Metalurgs because the company acted to the 
best of its ability to report the data requested by the Department. In 
its December 16, 2002, Section B response, Liepajas Metalurgs explained 
that ASC had some sales for which it did not track the necessary 
product information. Thereafter, the company answered all the 
Department's supplemental questions on this issue. At verification, we 
confirmed the information contained in Liepajas Metalurgs' responses 
regarding the sales with incomplete product information.

[[Page 48882]]

 Likewise, Liepajas Metalurgs attempted to the best of its ability to 
identify the manufacturer of all of ASC's sales. The company developed 
a method to accomplish this task, but, as we found at verification, due 
to ASC's manner of conducting business, it had no means to document its 
segregation of rebar by producer. ASC opened in May 2002 and was only 
in business and had sales for approximately four months during the POR. 
During this time frame, ASC was still in the process of developing a 
record keeping system and establishing routine procedures for the sales 
process. At verification, we confirmed that ASC conducted business and 
tracked sales in a manner that did not provide for the proper reporting 
of all the information requested by the Department, in spite of ASC's 
best efforts to do so.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Liepajas Metalurgs (and 
its affiliate, ASC) acted to the best of their ability and no adverse 
inference is warranted. Moreover, we expect that in future reviews ASC 
will have had sufficient time to establish its record keeping 
procedures in full awareness of the Department's reporting 
requirements. Thus, the Department will expect the company to properly 
report the source and matching characteristics for all of its home 
market sales and failure to do so may result in an adverse inference in 
the application of facts available.
    Instead of an adverse inference, we have applied neutral facts 
available in response to Liepajas Metalurgs' inability to provide all 
the requested information. For purposes of the margin calculation, we 
were able to find an identical match at the same level of trade for the 
vast majority of Liepajas Metalurgs' U.S. sales (ASC's sales are at a 
distinct (more advanced) level of trade than Liepajas Metalurgs' direct 
home market and EP sales). See the Level of Trade Adjustment section 
below. Since we do not have all the information pertaining to ASC's 
sales, we cannot determine whether we may have found ``most similar'' 
matches among ASC's sales, if the company had correctly reported all of 
the information. Therefore, rather than attempting to match to similar 
home market sales, we applied neutral facts available pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act and compared the U.S. sales with no 
identical match to constructed value (CV), as described in the 
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value section of this 
notice.
    We have also applied a neutral facts available adjustment to 
Liepajas Metalurgs' home market freight expense calculated on shipments 
from the plant to the warehouse. In its calculation, Liepajas Metalurgs 
combined the cost for train and truck shipments into one expense 
allocated over all sales through the RSO or ASC warehouse. At 
verification, we found that the component of the expense based on truck 
shipments was unreliable. We found that in spite of Liepajas Metalurgs' 
best effort to properly calculate the expense, the documentation 
available to Liepajas Metalurgs did not provide the necessary 
information to do so. See the Verification Report at 17. Therefore, we 
have applied neutral facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) 
of the Act and relied on the portion of the expense based on train 
freight for all shipments to the RSO or ASC warehouses.
    While we found similar deficiencies with the calculation of freight 
expense for shipments from the RSO to the customer, we concluded that 
the expense calculated by the RSO was reasonable when compared to other 
verified and properly reported freight expenses incurred by Liepajas 
Metalurgs to the same or similar destinations. Therefore, we made no 
adjustment to the freight expense for shipments from the RSO to the 
customer.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare 
contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and 
comparison markets that are identical with respect to the matching 
characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondent that fit the definition of the scope of the 
order and were sold in the comparison market during the POR fall within 
the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on three 
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison 
market sales of the foreign like product: type of steel, yield 
strength, and size. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise 
in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next 
most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics 
listed above.

Export Price

    We calculated an EP for all of Liepajas Metalurgs' sales because 
the merchandise was sold directly by Liepajas Metalurgs to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser for delivery to the United States, and 
constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the 
facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
These included inland freight and domestic brokerage and handling 
expenses.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate), that the time of the sales reasonably 
corresponds
    to the time of the sale used to determine EP, and that there is no 
particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the 
EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally 
be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the 
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States.
    We found that Liepajas Metalurgs had a viable home market for 
rebar. As such, Liepajas Metalurgs submitted home market sales data for 
purposes of the calculation of NV.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices section below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on a timely allegation filed by the petitioners, we initiated 
a COP investigation of Liepajas Metalurgs to determine whether sales 
were made at prices below COP. See Memorandum From Daniel O'Brien, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Gary Taverman, Director, 
Office 5, Re: Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for Liepajas Metalurgs, dated January 29, 2003.

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, 
fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied 
on Liepajas Metalurgs' submitted COP except in the specific instances 
noted below, where the submitted costs were not appropriately 
quantified or valued. See Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien and Jim Kemp, 
International Trade Compliance Analysts, to Constance Handley, Program 
Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for Joint Stock Company Liepajas 
Metalurgs, dated August 4, 2003 (the Analysis Memorandum).

[[Page 48883]]

    a. We revised the G&A and interest expense factor by removing 
packing expenses from the denominator of Liepajas Metalurgs' original 
calculation. Additionally, we removed net exchange rate gains and 
losses from G&A and included them in the calculation of the financial 
expense factor.
    b. We recalculated ASC's reported expense for cutting rebar.

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for Liepajas 
Metalurgs to its home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, 
as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these 
sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period 
of time (i.e., a period of one year) in substantial quantities and 
whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time.
    On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, 
rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

3. Results of the COP Test

    We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of 
Liepajas Metalurgs' sales of a given product were made at prices below 
the COP and such sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) 
of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average 
COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the 
product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Liepajas Metalurgs made sales 
below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We determined NV for Liepajas Metalurgs as follows. We made 
adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market 
movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments for Liepajas 
Metalurgs's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit expenses). We made the following additional 
adjustment to the calculation of normal value. See the Analysis 
Memorandum.
    We recalculated Liepajas Metalurgs' and ASC's indirect selling 
expense calculation to incorporate certain expenses found at 
verification.
    As reported in its December 16, 2002, Section B Questionnaire 
Response (Section B), Liepajas Metalurgs made sales of ``non-commercial 
length'' rebar during the POR. Liepajas Metalurgs considers the 
merchandise corresponding to these sales to be a ``by-product from 
production of commercial length'' rebar. See Section B at B-6. 
Accordingly, Liepajas Metalurgs sold the non-commercial length products 
at ``salvage value'' in the home market. Therefore, we have designated 
the non-commercial length rebar as non-prime in our calculation of 
Liepajas Metalurgs' antidumping duty margin. We confirmed at 
verification that Liepajas Metalurgs sold no such merchandise in the 
U.S. market.
    In addition to these adjustments, we have made modifications to the 
calculation of normal value based on the facts otherwise available, as 
discussed in the Facts Available section of this notice.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For those comparisons with no identical matches, we compared EP to 
CV, as a neutral facts available adjustment, because of ASC's inability 
to report all of the sales data requested by the Department. See the 
Facts Available section above. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 
CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, G&A expenses, 
profit, and U.S. packing.
    We calculated CV based on the methodology described in the COP 
section, above. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
used the actual amounts incurred and realized by Liepajas Metalurgs in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison market 
to calculate selling expenses and profit. For price-to-CV comparisons, 
we made adjustments to CV for COS differences, pursuant to section 
773(a)(8) of the Act. Specifically, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales 
(credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit 
expenses).

E. Level of Trade Adjustment

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as the EP transaction. The NV level of trade is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP 
sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from exporter to importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP transactions, 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.
    In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we 
obtained information from Liepajas Metalurgs about the marketing stages 
involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for 
each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and 
home market sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the 
starting price before any adjustments.
    In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for Liepajas Metalurgs, 
we examined the specific types of customers, the channels of 
distribution, and the selling practices of the respondent. Generally, 
if the reported levels of trade are the same, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
reports levels of trade that are different for different categories of 
sales, the functions and activities may be dissimilar. We found the 
following.
    Liepajas Metalurgs reported three channels of distribution in the 
home market: 1) direct sales by Liepajas Metalurgs; 2) sales by 
Liepajas Metalurgs' RSO; and 3) sales by ASC. In the U.S. market, 
Liepajas Metalurgs reported one channel of distribution: direct sales 
by Liepajas Metalurgs. The company reported three customer categories 
in the home market: 1) traders; 2) end users; and 3) service centers. 
We found that the selling functions performed by Liepajas Metalurgs 
differed significantly for

[[Page 48884]]

home market customers depending on the channel of distribution. The 
activities performed by ASC and the RSO were in greater number and more 
advanced than those provided by Liepajas Metalurgs on direct sales. ASC 
and RSO both provided selling functions such as customer negotiation, 
warehousing, sorting, repacking, and freight delivery, while Liepajas 
Metalurgs only negotiated with customers and arranged delivery of the 
product. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that sales through 
ASC and RSO are at the same level of trade and Liepajas Metalurgs' 
direct sales are at a different level of trade in the home market.
    Liepajas Metalurgs has reported one customer category in the U.S. 
market: traders. In comparing EP sales to the direct sales in the home 
market sales, we found that the selling functions performed by Liepajas 
Metalurgs for its direct customers and channels of distribution were 
very similar in the U.S. and Latvian markets. For U.S. sales, Liepajas 
Metalurgs conducts negotiations with the traders and arranges delivery 
to the port. Therefore, we concluded that the EP and home market direct 
sales were made at the same level of trade. Since Liepajas Metalurgs' 
direct home market and U.S. sales are at the same level of trade, and 
RSO's and ASC's home market sales are at a more advanced level of trade 
and a consistent pattern of price differences exist, we have 
preliminarily determined that a level of trade adjustment is warranted.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margin exists for the period January 30, 
2001, through August 31, 2002:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Producer                                   Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs................                                                      0.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. 
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues 
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days 
after the date of publication. 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 parties submitting written comments should 
provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of 
any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days 
of publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all 
appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty 
assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Since the 
delivery terms for all of Liepajas Metalurgs' U.S. sales were FOB 
Latvian seaport, we will calculate entered value using the gross unit 
price reported in the U.S. sales database. Where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will instruct the BCBP to assess duties on all 
entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of 
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate listed above for Liepajas Metalurgs 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review, 
except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis, 
the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the 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) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit 
rate will be 17.21 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply with 
this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 4, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-21058 Filed 8-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S