[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3883-3887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-1695]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-818]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Schepker or Carol Henninger at 
(202) 482-1756 or (202) 482-3003, 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 low enriched uranium from 
France for the period July 13, 2001 to January 31, 2003 (the POR). We 
preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Eurodif, 
S.A. (Eurodif), Compagnie G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Des Mati[eacute]res 
Nucl[eacute]aires (COGEMA) and COGEMA, Inc. (collectively, COGEMA/
Eurodif or the respondent), have been made below normal value (NV). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the 
constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 13, 2002, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
order on low enriched uranium from France. See Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Low Enriched Uranium from France, 67 FR 6680 (February 13, 
2002). On February 3, 2003, the Department issued a notice of 
opportunity to request the first administrative review of this order. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 5272 
(February 3, 2003). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), COGEMA/
Eurodif, a French producer of subject merchandise, requested an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on low enriched 
uranium from France on February 3, 2003. On February 28, 2003, United 
States Enrichment Corporation and USEC, Inc. (the petitioner), a 
domestic producer of subject merchandise, also requested an 
administrative review. On March 25, 2003, the Department published a 
notice of initiation of the administrative review, covering the period 
July 13, 2001, through January 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for 
Revocation in Part, 68 FR 14394 (March 25, 2003).
    On April 4, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to COGEMA/Eurodif. We received timely responses to all 
sections of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated 
supplemental questionnaires. Based on a timely allegation filed by the 
petitioner on June 20, 2003, we initiated a major input investigation 
with regard to the respondent's purchases of electricity from an 
affiliated party. On October 27, 2003, the Department published a 
notice extending the time limit for the preliminary results. See 
Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 61184 (October 27, 2003). The time 
limit for the preliminary results was subsequently further extended to 
January 20, 2004. See Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 69994 
(December 16, 2003).

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium 
(LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF[bds6]) with a 
U[bdi2][bdi3][bdi5] product assay of less than 20 percent that has not 
been converted into another chemical form, such as UO[bds2], or 
fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by 
which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-
blending of highly enriched uranium).
    Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. 
Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride 
with a U[bdi2][bdi3][bdi5] assay of 20 percent or greater, also known 
as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered 
by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated 
uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO[bds2]), whether or 
not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium 
concentrates (U[bds3]O[bds8]) with a U[bdi2][bdi3][bdi5] concentration 
of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates 
converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U[bdi2][bdi3][bdi5] 
concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the 
scope of this order.
    Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility 
end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user 
solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium 
dioxide (UO[bds2]) and/or

[[Page 3884]]

fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or 
fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in 
the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-
user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, 
and (ii) are re-exported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the 
LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the 
United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications 
of the importer and end user.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 
2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 
2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise 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 COGEMA/Eurodif 
from October 6-14, 2003, October 20-24, 2003, and October 29-30, 2003. 
We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection 
of the respondents facilities and examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. See Memorandum from Vicki Schepker and Carol 
Henninger, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to Gary Taverman, 
Director, Office 5, Re: Verification of the Sales Response of Eurodif 
S.A., Compagnie G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Des Mati[eacute]res 
Nucl[eacute]aires, and COGEMA, Inc., dated December 31, 2003, (Sales 
Verification Report); see also Memorandum from Ernest Gziryan, Senior 
Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, Re: 
Verification Report on the Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Data Submitted by Eurodif S.A., Compagnie G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Des 
Mati[eacute]res Nucl[eacute]aires, and COGEMA, Inc. dated January 20, 
2004, (Cost Verification Report); Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan, 
Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 
Re: Verification Report on the Cost of Production Data Submitted by 
EdF, dated January 20, 2004; and Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan, 
Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 
Re: Verification Report on the COP Data Submitted by RTE, dated January 
20, 2004.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of LEU from France were made in the 
United States at less than fair value, we compared the constructed 
export price (CEP) to the constructed value (CV), as described in the 
Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice.
    In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated CEPs and compared them to CV.
    We note that during the POR, the respondent sold LEU pursuant to 
contracts in which it undertook to manufacture and deliver LEU for a 
cash payment covering only the value of the enrichment component; for 
the natural uranium feedstock component, the respondent received an 
amount of natural uranium equivalent to the amount used to produce the 
LEU shipped (so-called separative work unit (SWU)\1\ contracts). 
However, the product manufactured and delivered by the respondent was 
LEU. For purposes of our antidumping analysis, we have translated 
prices and costs involved in SWU contracts to an LEU basis, increasing 
those values to account for the cost of the uranium feedstock involved. 
These adjustments are described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SWU is a unit of measurement of the effort required to 
separate the U235 and U238 atoms in uranium feed in order to create 
a final product richer in U235 atoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculated a CEP. 
Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date 
of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the 
merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to 
an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of 
the Act. Consistent with this definition, we found that COGEMA/Eurodif 
made CEP sales during the POR because the sales were made for the 
account of COGEMA/Eurodif by the respondent's U.S. subsidiary, COGEMA, 
Inc., in the United States.
    We calculated CEP based on packed prices charged to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. For all sales, which 
involved payments on a SWU basis, we translated the prices to an LEU 
basis by adding a value for the uranium feedstock used in the 
production of the LEU. This value was derived from the respondent's 
reported entered value of feed, which was based on publicly available 
price information used for customs entry purposes.
    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations provide that the 
date of sale will normally be the date of invoice, unless the material 
terms of sale are set on some other date.
    In the instant case, the material terms of sale are set on the date 
of the contract with the U.S. customer. Therefore, we based the date of 
sale on that date.
    The sales examined in this review represented merchandise which 
entered the United States during the POR. We have not included 
deliveries made of merchandise entered during the provisional measures 
gap period\2\ (gap period) in our calculation because these entries are 
not subject to antidumping duties. For the purposes of the preliminary 
results, we have accepted COGEMA/Eurodif's allocation methodology for 
linking deliveries to entries with two exceptions. See Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum - Eurodif S.A., Compagnie 
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Des Mati[eacute]res Nucl[eacute]aires, and 
COGEMA, Inc. from Vicki Schepker and Carol Henninger, International 
Trade Compliance Analysts to Constance Handley, Program Manager 
(January 20, 2004) (Preliminary Calculation Memorandum). We verified 
that some entries could be definitively linked to a particular delivery 
to a U.S. utility. For entries that could not be definitively linked to 
a delivery, COGEMA/Eurodif used a hierarchy to allocate LEU in 
inventory at the fabricator to deliveries, starting with Eurodif-
produced LEU entered during the POR. See Sales Verification Report at 
42-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of 
the Act expired on January 9, 2002. The order was published on 
February 13, 2002. Therefore, between those dates, no duties were 
collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the port of exit, international 
freight, marine insurance, charges for shipment of samples, 
transportation expenses for the movement of customer feed, and port 
charges. We also deducted any discounts from the starting price.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from 
the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling 
the subject merchandise in the United States, including indirect 
selling expenses, credit expense, and inventory carrying costs.
    In addition, in accordance with 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we 
made

[[Page 3885]]

a deduction for CEP profit. The CEP profit rate is normally calculated 
on the basis of total revenue and total expenses on sales in the 
comparison market and the U.S. market. In this case, there were no 
useable home market sales of LEU during the POR and therefore no 
useable home market profit from which to derive CEP profit. Therefore, 
we based CEP profit on the total expenses and total revenue derived 
from Eurodif's U.S. and third-country sales of the subject merchandise. 
See Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    Finally, we made additional adjustments to CEP based upon our 
findings at verification. See Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

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) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the export price (EP) 
or CEP. 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.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act, because COGEMA/Eurodif's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. 
However, COGEMA/Eurodif has only one customer in the home market, an 
affiliated party. Because we had no independent means to determine 
whether prices for sales to this customer were made at arm's length, 
for purposes of this review, we have based NV on CV. See sections 
351.403 and 351.405 of the Department's regulations. Adjustments made 
in deriving CV are described in detail in the Calculation of Normal 
Value Based on Constructed Value section below.
B. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. 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, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and 
U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the 
Act, we based general and administrative (G&A) expenses on amounts 
derived from Eurodif's financial statements. We based financial 
expenses on the financial statements of COGEMA's parent company, AREVA, 
which represents the highest level of consolidation for Eurodif. For 
selling expenses, we used information on Eurodif's indirect selling 
expenses from its questionnaire response and from information obtained 
at verification. Where appropriate, we made circumstance of sale (COS) 
adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.410 of the Department's regulations. For a further 
discussion of the calculation of indirect selling expenses and a COS 
adjustment of a proprietary nature, see the Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum.
    Because we could not determine whether COGEMA/Eurodif's sales in 
France were made in the ordinary course of trade in the home market, we 
calculated profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the 
Act and the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) at 841. We based 
CV profit on the profit rate of Eurodif's sales of LEU in all markets 
other than the United States and France. See Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments Memorandum for the Preliminary Results from 
Ernest Z. Gziryan, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting (January 20, 2004) (Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments Memorandum). The profit cap under alternative (iii) of 
section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act cannot be calculated in this case 
because we do not have information allowing us to calculate the amount 
normally realized by exporters or producers (other than respondent) in 
connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of 
the merchandise in the same general category.
    In addition to these adjustments, we included in the reported cost 
the Public Service Electricity Generation Fund tax (the ``FSPPE levy'') 
accrued by Eurodif and recorded in the company's books. See Constructed 
Value Calculation Adjustments Memorandum, see also Cost Verification 
Report at 8.
    In this case, electricity is considered a major input that Eurodif 
obtained from its affiliated supplier, [Eacute]lectricit[eacute] de 
France (EdF). See Memorandum from Ernest Gziryan, Senior Accountant, to 
Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, Re: Petitioner's Allegation of 
Purchases of Major Inputs From Affiliated Parties at Prices Below the 
Affiliated Parties' Cost of Production, dated August 13, 2003. Section 
773(f)(3) of the statute states that ``in the case of a transaction 
between affiliated persons involving the production by one of such 
persons of a major input, the administering authority may determine the 
value of the major input on the basis of the information available 
regarding such cost of production, if such cost is greater than the 
amount that would be determined for such input under paragraph (2).'' 
Section 351.407(b) of the Department's regulations states that in 
applying the major input rule, the Department will normally include the 
higher of the transfer price between affiliates, the market price for 
the input, or the affiliate's cost of production (COP) for the 
purchased input. As such, we evaluated the affiliated supplier's 
reported electricity COP. We found that EdF's books reflected a 
calculated cost based on a marginal costing methodology and resulted in 
different costs for the same physically identical product - 
electricity. As it is the Department's long standing practice to 
calculate a single average cost for producing products of identical 
physical characteristics, for the preliminary results we adjusted the 
reported electricity COP by calculating one average POR cost of 
producing electricity and used it in our major input analysis. We 
adjusted the reported value of electricity purchased from EdF to the 
higher of the transfer price, the market price or EdF's cost of 
production. Due to the proprietary nature of this information, see the 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments Memorandum for more details.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT 
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when 
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a

[[Page 3886]]

different LOT, 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 LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from the respondent about the marketing stages involved in 
the reported U.S. sales, as well as in the home market, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for 
each channel of distribution. Given that all U.S. sales were CEP sales, 
we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after 
the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
    In the U.S. market, the respondent sells to utility customers. 
After deducting expenses associated with the selling activities 
reflected in the price under section 772(d) of the Act (i.e., the 
expenses of COGEMA, Inc.), we noted selling expenses associated with 
strategic planning and marketing, customer sales contact, production 
planning and evaluation, and contract administration. These expenses 
did not vary by U.S. channel of distribution. Therefore, we found all 
U.S. sales to be made at a single LOT.
    Selling expenses for CV were based on Eurodif's selling expenses 
exclusive of expenses allocated to Eurodif's U.S. sales. Eurodif 
performed all the selling activities for sales to its sole customer in 
the French market. Therefore, we found a single LOT of trade in the 
home market.
    Eurodif generally performs the same kinds of selling functions in 
both markets. We note that for several of the thirteen reported 
categories of selling functions, Eurodif stated that it performs the 
functions to the same degree for both the CEP and the home market LOT. 
The respondent described different degrees of selling activities for 
its home market sales and sales to its U.S. affiliate in the following 
categories: sales forecasting, visiting customers/potential customers, 
negotiating contracts, receiving and booking orders/order processing, 
collecting payments/invoice follow-up, and customer follow-up. We 
reviewed each of the selling functions at verification and found that 
Eurodif performs the same level of selling activity for receiving and 
booking orders/order processing and collecting payments/invoice follow-
up for both home market and CEP sales. See Sales Verification Report at 
15-19. With regard to the selling functions of visiting customers/
potential customers and negotiating contracts, Eurodif had reported 
different levels of activity for sales in the home market and sales to 
its U.S. affiliate. We found that Eurodif performs these functions to a 
similar degree for its sales in the U.S. market and in the home market, 
as all of its sales in the home market are to one customer under a 
long-term contract. For sales forecasting and customer follow-up, in 
which Eurodif reported different levels of activity for sales in the 
home market and sales to its U.S. affiliate, we found that there are 
some minor differences in the levels of these selling functions. 
However, these differences alone do not constitute a basis for finding 
a more advanced level of trade in the home market. We note that we did 
not base CV profit on sales in France. See the Calculation of Normal 
Value Based on Constructed Value section above. Since there is no 
evidence on the record to indicate that the selling functions for sales 
to third-country markets differ from Eurodif's selling functions to 
COGEMA, Inc., we have no reason to conclude that Eurodif's home market, 
third-country market and U.S. sales were made at different levels of 
trade. Accordingly, we are not granting a CEP offset adjustment.

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 July 13, 2001, 
through January 31, 2003:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Producer                                   Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COGEMA/Eurodif........................................                                                      5.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Where the 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP 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 
LEU from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

[[Page 3887]]

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 COGEMA/Eurodif 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 19.95 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: January 20, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-1695 Filed 1-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S