[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55583-55587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for Xiangcheng Yisheng 
Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review for Xiangcheng Yisheng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Xiangcheng Yisheng Foodstuffs 
Co., Ltd. (``Yisheng''), the Department of Commerce is conducting a new 
shipper review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the 
People's Republic of China. The period of review is November 1, 2001, 
through October 31, 2002. We have preliminarily determined that, based 
on the use of adverse facts available, the respondent sold subject 
merchandise to the United States at prices below normal value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Frank, Office of AD/CVD 
Enforcement 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-0090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this antidumping duty order are all grades 
of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not 
peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in 
water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the 
addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences 
between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.
    The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) garlic 
that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not 
exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed.
    The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and 
for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 
0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order 
to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under 
the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested 
and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
(``Customs'') to that effect.

Background

    On December 31, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a new shipper antidumping duty review of 
shipments of fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
exported by Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd., Jining Trans-High 
Trading Co., Ltd., and Yisheng. See Notice of Initiation of New Shipper 
Antidumping Duty Reviews: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China, 68 FR 542 (January 6, 2003). The Department is still reviewing 
Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd., and Jining Trans-High Trading Co., 
Ltd. The current deadline for preliminary results of review for these 
two firms is October 31, 2003. The Department is conducting this review 
of Yisheng in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act'').

[[Page 55584]]

Separate Rate

    In proceedings involving non-market-economy (NME) countries, the 
Department begins with a presumption that all companies within the 
country are subject to government control and thus should be assigned a 
single antidumping rate unless an exporter can affirmatively 
demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and 
in fact (de facto), with respect to its exports. In this review, 
Yisheng has requested a separate company-specific rate.
    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent in its 
export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate, 
company-specific rate, the Department analyzes the exporting entity in 
an NME country 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, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), and amplified by 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-22587 
(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).
    The Department's separate-rate test is unconcerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/ border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, 
quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are 
imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over 
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See,e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).
    Yisheng provided separate-rate information in its responses to our 
original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a 
separate-rates analysis to determine whether this producer/exporter is 
independent from government control (see Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic 
of China, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)).
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
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.
    Yisheng has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Foreign Trade 
Law of the People's Republic of China'' and the ``Administrative 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the 
Registration of Legal Corporations.'' The Department has analyzed such 
PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of de jure control. 
See, e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 
7, 2001). We have no information on the record of this review that 
would cause us to reconsider this determination.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its 
export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to, the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-22587. Therefore,the Department has 
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates.
    According to Yisheng, it is a privately owned company. It has 
asserted the following: (1) There is no government participation in 
setting export prices; (2) its sales manager and authorized employees 
have the authority to bind sales contracts; (3) it does not have to 
notify any government authorities of its management selection; (4) 
there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (5) it 
is responsible for financing its own losses. Yisheng's questionnaire 
responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. 
Furthermore, our analysis of the responses reveals no other information 
indicating the existence of government control. Consequently, we 
preliminarily determine that Yisheng has met the criteria for the 
application of a separate rate.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Yisheng 
on December 31, 2002. The Department granted a number of extensions to 
Yisheng to file its response to the questionnaire and, in total, 
extended the deadline from February 7, 2003, to April 1, 2003. The 
Department received Yisheng's response to the Department's original 
questionnaire on April 1, 2003. The Department rejected Yisheng's 
factors-of-production response entirely because the Department found it 
to be inadequate and internally inconsistent. On June 2, 2003, the 
Department sent Yisheng a supplemental questionnaire requesting a new 
factors-of-production submission and clarification on other parts of 
its response. On June 20, 2003, the Department received Yisheng's 
response to the supplemental questionnaire but its submission did not 
include a factors-of-production response. Yisheng stated that it 
omitted factors-of-production information because it did not own a 
photocopying machine, its sole printer was a 20-year old dot-matrix 
printer, no one at the company spoke English, and the data had to be 
obtained from third parties.
    On August 13, 2003, in response to a telephone call from Yisheng's 
counsel stating that Yisheng would file its factors-of-production 
response soon, the Department informed Yisheng's counsel that it would 
reject such a response because it would be untimely filed. On August 
18, 2003, 59 days past the June 20, 2003, deadline, Yisheng submitted a 
factors-of-production response. The Department rejected this submission 
for the following reasons: (1) it was untimely filed, (2) Yisheng did 
not demonstrate that that it acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the requested information, and (3) the information could not 
be used without undue difficulties. See Letter from Laurie Parkhill to 
Yisheng, dated September 3,

[[Page 55585]]

2003. On August 19, 2003, Yisheng filed a submission requesting that 
the Department accept its August 18, 2003, submission and claimed for 
the first time that its supplier was not cooperating. Specifically, 
Yisheng claimed that, ``Only after the Department's deadline for this 
supplemental response, did the grower, Yuyu, agree to allow Yisheng's 
outside accountants to visit it and collect data to answer the 
questions relevant to it.'' Yisheng did not provide an explanation, 
however, as to why its supplier would not cooperate and did not provide 
an explanation as to why it had not identified this reason earlier.
    In a review involving a non-market economy (``NME''), the factors 
of production are crucial to determining normal value. As the 
Department has stated clearly in its recent Policy Bulletin covering 
new shipper reviews in general (found on the Department's website at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov), it is the responsibility of the party 
requesting a new shipper review to provide all of the information 
necessary to the Department for initiating the new shipper review. It 
is also the responsibility of the party requesting a new shipper review 
to provide the Department with the necessary information for it to 
calculate an accurate dumping margin. In other words, if a party 
desires to receive the benefits of a new shipper review, it has an 
affirmative obligation to provide the Department with the information 
necessary to calculate the new shipper dumping margin. Thus, in NME new 
shipper review cases, the respondent must provide complete factors-of-
production information.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if, in the course of an 
antidumping review, an interested party (A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or 
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, 
then the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use 
the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
    We find that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, Yisheng 
withheld information we requested by not submitting an adequate 
factors-of-production response. We also find that, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, Yisheng did not provide an adequate factors-
of-production response in a timely manner. Finally, we find that, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Yisheng significantly 
impeded this proceeding by not providing an adequate factors-of-
production response for the following reasons: (1) the factors-of-
production information is necessary to calculate a margin, (2) as a 
self-requesting new shipper, Yisheng has an affirmative obligation to 
respond, (3) Yisheng's first factors-of-production response was grossly 
inadequate, and (4) Yisheng did not submit a subsequent response to the 
request for factors-of-production information until 59 days after the 
deadline. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we 
preliminarily determine that the use of facts otherwise available is 
warranted to calculate a margin for Yisheng's sales of subject 
merchandise during the period of review.
    Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not 
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested 
party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the 
applicable requirements established by the administering authority'' if 
(1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its 
submission, (2) the information can be verified, (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information 
and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect 
to the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue 
difficulties.
    The Department rejected Yisheng's August 18, 2003, factors-of-
production response for the following reasons: (1) the information was 
not submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) 
Yisheng did not demonstrate that it acted to the best of its ability to 
provide the information, and (3) given the limited amount of time left 
under the statutory deadlines of the review to analyze its factors-of-
production submission, issue supplemental questions, plan and conduct a 
verification, and prepare the preliminary results, the information 
could not be used without undue burden on the Department. Thus, for the 
various reasons under sections 782(e)(1), (4), and (5) of the Act, the 
Department has not used the factors-of-production information Yisheng 
reported.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of 
that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. In 
addition, the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) 
(SAA), establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference 
``. . . to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
SAA at 870.
    For the Department to calculate an accurate margin in an NME 
proceeding, it needs valid factors-of-production information. Yisheng 
had ample time to submit the requested production-process information 
and factors-of-production data for this new shipper review. In fact, 
Yisheng had more days to respond to the original and supplemental 
questionnaires than any other company in this new shipper review. 
Because Yisheng had an affirmative responsibility to provide the 
necessary factors-of-production information so that we may calculate a 
margin and because it did not provide this necessary information, we 
find that Yisheng did not act to the best of its ability.
    Applying total adverse facts available to Yisheng is consistent 
with the Department's application of adverse facts available in past 
cases. See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 68 FR 36767 (June 19, 
2003) (``Fresh Garlic: Final''). In Fresh Garlic: Final, we applied 
adverse facts available to the respondent, Hongda, when it failed to 
provide total production and factors of production for the period in a 
timely manner. See also Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 7 (``Crawfish'').
    In Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review (``Fresh Garlic: 
Preliminary''), we found that the ``responsibility for submission of 
accurate factors of production lies with the respondent seeking a rate 
based on such information, and that failures, even if made by a 
supplier, may provide grounds for the application of adverse facts 
available.'' Fresh Garlic: Preliminary, 68 FR 22676 (April 29, 2003) 
(citing Crawfish at Comment 7). Also, in the Fresh Garlic: Preliminary, 
the Department explained that the language of the statute and 
regulation

[[Page 55586]]

allow for the application of an adverse inference when an ``interested 
party'' does not act to the best of its ability in responding to 
questionnaires. The Department explained that a supplier that refused 
to respond to requests for necessary information is an ``interested 
party'' to the review and therefore application of adverse facts 
available was warranted. Id. (citing Certain Cased Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 10).
    Furthermore, because Yisheng did not provide an acceptable 
explanation as to why its supplier would not cooperate, applying 
adverse facts available to Yisheng is consistent with our conclusion in 
Creatine Monohydrate From the PRC, where the Department stated, `` . . 
. [a]s there is no acceptable explanation on the record for the 
supplier's failure to provide factor of production information, an 
adverse inference in applying facts available is warranted due to the 
supplier's failure to act to the best of its ability.'' Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 
From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71108 (December 20, 
1999) (emphasis in original) (``Creatine Monohydrate From the PRC''). 
See also Fresh Garlic: Preliminary 68 FR at 22679; Certain Cased 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 48612 (July 
25, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 10.
    In Yisheng's August 19, 2003, submission, it claimed for the first 
time that its supplier was not cooperating and that this non-
cooperation was the reason it was unable to submit a timely factors-of-
production response. Given that Yisheng's claim was made after it was 
informed that its response would be rejected and 60 days after the 
deadline for its factors-of-production response, the Department 
questions the validity of this claim. Moreover, Yisheng's August 19, 
2003, submission did not provide an explanation as to why its supplier 
would not cooperate and did not provide an explanation as to why it did 
not identify this reason earlier. Therefore, we find that Yisheng did 
not act to the best of its ability to comply with our request for 
information and, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have 
preliminarily determined to use adverse facts otherwise available in 
reaching the preliminary results of review.
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act. Section 776(c) of the Act provides, however, 
that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than 
on information obtained in the course of a review, the Department 
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA states 
that the independent sources may include published price lists, 
official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained 
from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. 
See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. As discussed in Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (TRBs), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. If there 
are no independent sources from which the Department can derive 
calculated dumping margins, however, unlike other types of information 
such as input costs or selling expenses, the only source for margins is 
previous administrative determinations, as is the case in this review.
    Throughout the history of this proceeding, the highest rate ever 
calculated is 376.67 percent; it is currently the PRC-wide rate and was 
calculated based on information contained in the petition. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 49058, 49059 (September 26, 
1994). The information contained in the petition was corroborated for 
the preliminary results of the first administrative review. See Fresh 
Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 68229, 68230 (December 27, 1996). Further, 
it was corroborated in subsequent reviews to the extent that the 
Department referred to the history of corroboration and found that the 
Department received no information that warranted revisiting the issue. 
See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 
67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002). Similarly, no information has been 
presented in the current review that calls into question the 
reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the 
information is reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department stated in TRBs that it will ``consider information 
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that 
would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the 
selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the 
Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate 
margin.'' See TRBs, 61 FR at 57392. See also Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin 
in the case as best information available because the margin was based 
on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
extremely high margin). The rate we have selected is the rate currently 
applicable to Yisheng and all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. 
Further, there is no information on the administrative record of the 
current review that indicates the application of this rate would be 
inappropriate or that the margin is not relevant. Therefore, for all 
sales of subject merchandise exported by Yisheng, we have applied, as 
adverse facts available, the 376.67 percent margin from a prior 
administrative review of this order and have satisfied the 
corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of the Act. See 
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18439, 18441 (April 9, 
2001) (employing a petition rate used as adverse facts available in a 
previous segment as adverse facts available in the current review).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of the application of adverse facts available, we 
preliminarily determine a dumping margin of 376.67 percent for 
Yisheng's exports of fresh garlic during the period November 1, 2001, 
through October 31, 2002.
    An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of

[[Page 55587]]

these preliminary results. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 
days after the date of publication, or the first business day 
thereafter, unless the Department alters the date under 19 CFR 
351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 
comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may 
be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who make such a submission in this review are requested 
to submit (1) a statement of each issue, (2) a brief summary of the 
argument for each issue, and (3) a table of authorities.
    The Department will publish the final results of this new shipper 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
case or rebuttal brief, within 90 days of publication of this notice. 
See 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1).

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department will 
determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to Customs upon completion of this review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, 
we will direct Customs to assess the resulting rate against the entered 
customs value for the subject merchandise on each of the entries 
produced by Henan Yuyu Fruits & Vegetables Products Co., Ltd. and 
exported by Yisheng during the period of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject 
merchandise grown by Henan Yuyu Fruit & Vegetables Products Co., Ltd., 
and exported by Yisheng, the cash-deposit rate will be that established 
in the final results of this review; (2) for all other subject 
merchandise exported by Yisheng, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC 
countrywide rate, which is 376.67 percent; (3) for all other PRC 
exporters which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC countrywide rate; and (4) for all 
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 22, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-24398 Filed 9-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S