[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 68 (Thursday, April 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18531-18536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-837]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

SUMMARY: Upon the request of the petitioners, the Department of 
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 
and Strip (``PET film'') from Taiwan, with respect to Nan Ya Plastics 
Corporation, Ltd., (``Nan Ya'') and Shinkong Synthetic Fibers 
Corporation (``Shinkong''), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213. The 
period of review (``POR'') is December 21, 2001, through June 30, 2003. 
Our preliminary results of review indicate that Nan Ya and Shinkong 
have sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during 
the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on Nan Ya's and 
Shinkong's entries of subject merchandise made during the POR, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``The Act''), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the 
final results of review no later than 120 days from the date of 
publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Tom Martin at (202) 482-
4114 and (202) 482-3936, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Office IV, 
Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

[[Page 18532]]

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department initiated this administrative review on August 19, 
2003, in response to a request for review by the petitioners.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50750 (August 22, 
2003) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this review, the 
following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this review are DuPont Teijin Films, 
Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America and Toray Plastics (America), 
Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 27, 2003, the Department issued the antidumping duty 
questionnaire \2\ to Nan Ya and Shinkong. After granting extensions to 
both respondents, we received responses to our questionnaire from both 
respondents in September and October 2003, respectively. We issued 
supplemental questionnaires to both respondents, pertaining to section 
A of the questionnaire on October 29, 2003, sections B and C of the 
questionnaire on November 6, 2003, and section D of the questionnaire 
on November 14, 2003. After the Department granted extensions, Nan Ya 
and Shinkong responded to these supplemental questionnaires. The 
Department sent an additional supplemental section B and C 
questionnaire to Nan Ya on February 9, 2004, and after requesting and 
receiving an extension of the deadline for the response, Nan Ya 
responded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section 
D requests information on the cost of production (``COP'') of the 
foreign like product and the constructed value (``CV'') of the 
merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further 
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered 
are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded 
or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films 
that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the 
application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more 
than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item 
number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Nan Ya Affiliation

    In the less-than-fair-value investigation, the Department found 
that Nan Ya was affiliated with some of its U.S. customers. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Taiwan, 67 FR 
35474 (May 20, 2002) (``LTFV Investigation''). In the instant review, 
Nan Ya claims that it is not affiliated with the U.S. customers found 
to be its affiliates in the LTFV Investigation. In making this claim, 
Nan Ya named an additional U.S. customer, a customer that was not at 
issue in the LTFV Investigation, and also denied that it was affiliated 
with Nan Ya. The Department has examined the issue of whether Nan Ya is 
affiliated with these U.S. customers through a family grouping. For 
these preliminary results, we continue to find, as we did in the LTFV 
Investigation, that Nan Ya is affiliated with these U.S. customers 
through this family grouping. We include in this finding the additional 
customer that was not at issue in the LTFV Investigation. See 
Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, to Holly A. 
Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, ``Affiliation of Nan Ya 
Plastics Corporation, Ltd., with Certain U.S Customers,'' dated April 
1, 2004 (``Affiliation Memo''). Interested parties are invited to 
submit comments on this specific issue, especially with regard to 
affiliation through a family grouping.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents covered by the description in the ``Scope 
of Review'' section, above, and sold in Taiwan during the POR are 
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied upon 
product type, product application, product thickness, and product grade 
to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales 
of the foreign like product or CV. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on 
the basis of the characteristics listed above.

Nan Ya Margin Calculation

A. Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In calculating U.S. price, we used export price (``EP''), as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Act, for all sales that Nan Ya 
reported as sold directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers, and 
constructed export price (``CEP''), as defined in section 772(b) of the 
Act, for all sales to customers that the Department has preliminarily 
determined to be Nan Ya's affiliates. See Affiliation Memo. We 
calculated EP using the packed prices charged to unaffiliated Taiwanese 
trading companies that requested U.S. shipping marks, or the first 
unaffiliated end-user in the United States (the starting price), and 
CEP using the packed price charged by the affiliated customer to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.
    We deducted from the starting price, where applicable, amounts for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
In this case, movement expenses include foreign inland freight, 
international freight, brokerage and handling charges, and marine 
insurance. For CEP sales, we deducted these same charges, whether or 
not paid for by affiliates, in addition to customs duties, U.S. inland 
freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight to unaffiliated 
customers, and warehousing, where applicable.

B. Normal Value

1. Selection of Comparison Market
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or 
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Nan Ya's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We 
determined that sales in the home market provide a viable basis for 
calculating NV. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales to 
unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual commercial quantities and the 
ordinary course of trade.
    For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in Taiwan, in the usual commercial 
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent 
possible, at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP sales, 
as appropriate. After testing home market

[[Page 18533]]

viability and whether home market sales were at below-cost prices, we 
calculated NV as noted in the ``Calculation of NV Based on Home Market 
Prices'' section below.
2. Cost of Production Analysis
    Because the Department determined that Nan Ya made sales in the 
home market at prices below the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise in the LTFV Investigation and excluded such sales from NV, 
the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that Nan Ya made sales in the home market at prices below 
the cost of producing the merchandise in this administrative review. 
See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department 
initiated a COP inquiry for Nan Ya.
    In response to a request made by Nan Ya to report its COP and CV 
information for period January 2002 through June 2003, instead of the 
POR, we requested that Nan Ya compare the COP from the first eleven 
days of the POR (December 21-31, 2001) to the rest of the POR. See 
Letter from Ronald Trentham to Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, dated 
September 25, 2003. The Department stipulated that if Nan Ya's December 
21-31, 2001, costs were significantly different from the weighted-
average costs it incurred for calendar year 2002 and through June 2003 
(after accounting for exchange rate fluctuations and inflation), then 
Nan Ya would be responsible for submitting its December 21-31, 2001, 
COP and CV data. Nan Ya provided the Department with this COP 
comparison, and demonstrated that its December 21-31, 2001, costs were 
not significantly different from the weighted-average costs it incurred 
for calendar year 2002 through June 2003. See Memorandum from Thomas 
Martin, Import Compliance Specialist, to The File, dated October 1, 
2003. The Department also applied this practice in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar 
From Italy, 67 FR 3155 (January 23, 2002).

a. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP for Nan Ya based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for the home market general and administrative (``G&A'') expenses, 
including interest expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by Nan 
Ya in its cost questionnaire responses.

b. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    On a model-specific basis, we compared the reported COP to the home 
market prices, adjusted for any applicable discounts and rebates, 
movement charges, selling expenses, and packing. We then compared the 
adjusted weighted-average COP for Nan Ya to the adjusted home market 
sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had 
been made at prices below the COP in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time (i.e., a period of 18 months), and, whether 
below-cost prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time.

c. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR are 
at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales 
of that product because we determine that the below-cost sales were not 
made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time. 
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
during the POR are at prices less than the COP, we determine such sales 
to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended 
period of time in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 
773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. In such cases, because we compare prices to 
POR average costs, we also determine that such sales were not made at 
prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We 
compared the COP for subject merchandise to the reported home market 
prices less all applicable charges. Based on this test, we found that 
Nan Ya did have sales below cost which failed the cost test and, as a 
result, were removed from the home market data set.
3. Calculation of NV Based on Home Market Prices
    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Taiwan. We adjusted the starting price for reported 
quantity discounts and other discounts, for any differences in packing, 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the 
Act, and we deducted movement expenses pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we adjusted 
the starting price for differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act by deducting direct 
selling expenses (credit expenses) incurred for home market sales, and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses).
4. Level of Trade /Constructed Export Price Offset
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP transactions, as appropriate. 
The NV LOT is that of the starting-price of sales in the comparison 
market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we 
derive selling, general, and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and 
profit. For EP sales, 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 an affiliated 
importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
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 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 a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    We obtained information from Nan Ya about the marketing stages 
involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondents for 
each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for EP and CEP sales, 
and home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in 
the starting price before any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed 
LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be 
similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for 
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be dissimilar. Nan Ya did not request an LOT adjustment.
    Nan Ya reported that it made EP and CEP sales of subject 
merchandise only to distributors (including the distributors that the 
Department finds to be affiliates) through a single channel of 
distribution in the U.S. market. Further, Nan Ya indicated that it 
performed certain types of selling functions (sales

[[Page 18534]]

promotion, warranty services, technical advice and freight and delivery 
arrangements) for its U.S. distributors. See Memorandum from Thomas 
Martin and Zev Primor, Import Compliance Specialists, to the File, 
``Level of Trade Analysis for Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd.,'' 
dated April 1, 2004 (``Nan Ya LOT Memo''). Because there is only one 
type of customer, a single channel of distribution, and the same 
selling functions are performed in equal degrees to all U.S. customers, 
we preliminarily determine that there is a single LOT with respect to 
Nan Ya's EP and CEP sales.
    In the home market, Nan Ya reported that it sold subject 
merchandise to distributors and end-users. Further, it indicated that, 
for each of the two reported channels of distribution, it provided the 
same types of selling functions (sales promotion, warranty services, 
technical advice, and freight and delivery arrangements) in the same 
degree for each of the two types of customers. Because these selling 
functions are provided in equal degrees to all home market customers, 
we preliminary find that there is only one LOT in the home market.
    Upon review of the record, we find that Nan Ya performed 
substantially similar selling functions for EP and CEP sales as 
compared to home market sales. The record indicates that there are 
minor differences between the selling functions performed for EP and 
CEP sales and home market sales. For example, Nan Ya provided some 
technical service for home market customers but not EP and CEP 
customers. However the information on the record indicates that there 
is insufficient qualitative differences in the selling functions 
performed by Nan Ya in making sales in the home market and United 
States market to find them to be distinct LOTs. Therefore, using the 
information on the record, we preliminarily determine that Nan Ya makes 
home market and U.S. sales, both EP and CEP, at the same LOT. As a 
result, no LOT adjustment is necessary. See Nan Ya LOT Memo.

Shinkong Margin Calculation

A. Export Price

    In calculating U.S. price, we used EP, in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, because Shinkong reported that it sold the 
merchandise directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted for these transactions. We deducted from the 
starting price, where applicable, amounts for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In this case, movement 
expenses include foreign inland freight to the port of export, 
international freight, brokerage and handling charges, marine 
insurance, and harbor duties.

B. Normal Value

1. Selection of Comparison Market
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or 
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Shinkong's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We 
determined that sales in the home market provide a viable basis for 
calculating NV. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales to 
unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual commercial quantities and the 
ordinary course of trade.
    For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in Taiwan, in the usual commercial 
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent 
possible, at the same LOT as the EP sales. After testing home market 
viability and whether home market sales were at below-cost prices, we 
calculated NV as noted in the ``Calculation of NV Based on Home Market 
Prices'' section below.
2. Cost of Production Analysis
    Because the Department determined that Shinkong made sales in the 
home market at prices below the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise in the LTFV Investigation and, therefore, excluded such 
sales from NV, the Department determined that there are reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Shinkong made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in this 
administrative review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a 
result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for Shinkong.

a. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP for Shinkong based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for the home market G&A expenses, including interest expenses. We 
relied on the COP data submitted by Shinkong in its cost questionnaire 
responses.

b. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    On a model-specific basis, we compared the reported COP to the home 
market prices, adjusted for any applicable discounts and rebates, 
movement charges, selling expenses, and packing. We then compared the 
adjusted weighted-average COP for Shinkong to the adjusted home market 
sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time (i.e., a period of 18 months), and, whether 
below-cost prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time.

c. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR are 
at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales 
of that product because we determine that the below-cost sales were not 
made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time. 
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
during the POR are at prices less than the COP, we determine such sales 
to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an ``extended 
period of time'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 
773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. We have also compared prices to POR average 
costs. We determined that such sales were not made at prices that would 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, because the prices 
were below the per unit COP. We compared the COP for subject 
merchandise to the reported home market prices less all applicable 
charges. Based on this test, we found that Shinkong did have sales 
below cost which failed the cost test and, as a result, were removed 
from the home market data set.
3. Calculation of NV Based on Home Market Prices
    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Taiwan. We adjusted the starting price for reported 
quantity discounts and other discounts, for any differences in packing, 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the 
Act, and we deducted movement expenses pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we adjusted 
the starting price for differences in COS,

[[Page 18535]]

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act by deducting direct 
selling expenses (credit expense and warranty expenses) incurred for 
home market sales, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit 
expenses). No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed.
4. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same LOT as the EP transactions. The NV LOT is that of 
the starting-price of 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 sales, the U.S. LOT 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 LOT 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 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 a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    We obtained information from Shinkong about the marketing stages 
involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondents for 
each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for EP and home 
market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the 
starting price before any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed LOTs 
are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be 
similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for 
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be dissimilar. Shinkong did not request an LOT adjustment.
    Shinkong reported that it made EP sales of subject merchandise to a 
single type of customer through a single channel of distribution in the 
U.S. market. Further, Shinkong indicated that it performed certain 
types of selling functions (packing, freight, and warranty services) 
for all U.S. customers. Because there is only one type of customer, a 
single channel of distribution, and the same selling functions are 
performed for every customer, we preliminarily determine that there is 
a single LOT with respect to Shinkong's EP sales.
    In the home market, Shinkong reported that it sold subject 
merchandise to distributors and end-users. Further, it indicated that 
for each of the two reported channels of distribution, it provided the 
same types of selling functions (packing, freight services, and 
warranty services) in the same degree for each of the two types of 
customers. Because these selling functions are provided in equal 
degrees to all home market customers, we preliminarily find that there 
is only one LOT in the home market.
    Upon review of the record, we find that Shinkong performed the same 
selling functions for its home market that it does for U.S. sales 
(packing, freight services, and warranty services), and as such, we 
preliminarily find that the selling functions performed by Shinkong for 
the EP transactions and for home market sales are the same, and the 
prices do not vary according to the services provided. See Shinkong's 
September 22, 2003, response to the Department's Section A 
questionnaire at A-10,11. Because EP sales are made at the same LOT as 
home market sales, no LOT adjustment is warranted. See Memorandum from 
Thomas Martin and Zev Primor, Import Compliance Specialists, to the 
File, ``Level of Trade Analysis for Shinkong Synthetic Fibers 
Corporation,'' dated April 1, 2004.

Currency Conversions

    We converted foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, pursuant to 
section 773A of the Act, using the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank, the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period 
December 21, 2001, through June 30, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation......................         0.62
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd...........................        85.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose the calculations used in its analysis 
to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date 
of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request 
a hearing within 30 days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 
CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication of this notice, or the first business day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 7 days after the deadline for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit written arguments are requested to 
submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 
summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we 
request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department 
with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a 
diskette. The Department will publish the notice of the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 
120 days from the publication date of this notice.

Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an 
importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this 
review. If the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, 
we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on 
all entries made during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of 
publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP 
to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of the importers' entries 
during the review period.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed 
in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a 
particular product is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no

[[Page 18536]]

cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously 
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 original 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) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be the ``all others'' rate of 2.56 percent, which is the ``all others'' 
rate established in the LTFV Investigation. These deposit requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the 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: April 1, 2004.
Jeffrey A. May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-8015 Filed 4-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P