[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42034-42038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3906]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of the Eighth New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently 
conducting the eighth new shipper review of the antidumping duty order 
on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') covering the period February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. 
This review covers one exporter.
    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), we have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made 
at less than normal value (``NV'') with respect to the exporter who 
participated in this review. If the preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') to not assess antidumping duties on entries 
of merchandise subject to this review.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 90 days from the 
date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Musser or Stephen F. 
Berlinguette, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1777 and (202) 482-3740, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on 
certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 
Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). The Department received a timely 
request from Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Blue 
Field''), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b) and (c), for a new 
shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved 
mushrooms from the PRC, which has a February annual anniversary month 
and an August semi-annual anniversary month. On September 24, 2004, the 
Department found that Blue Field's request for review appeared to 
satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated the new 
shipper antidumping duty review. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 
the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Eighth New Shipper 
Antidumping Duty Review, 69 FR 57264 (September 24, 2004). On September 
30, 2004 the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit 
publicly available information for consideration in the preliminary 
results.
    On October 1, 2004, the Department requested from CBP copies of all 
customs documents pertaining to the entry of certain preserved 
mushrooms from the PRC exported by the respondent during the period of 
February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. See Memorandum from James C. 
Doyle, Director, Office 9, to William R. Scopa of CBP, dated October 1, 
2004. We issued the original questionnaire to Blue Field in September 
2004. Responses to the questionnaire were received in October 2004. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Blue Field and an importer-
specific questionnaire to Blue Field's U.S. importer in December 2004. 
We received responses to the questionnaires in December 2004 and 
January 2005.
    From January 10 through January 14, 2005, the Department conducted 
verification of the information submitted by Blue Field in accordance 
with 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307. On February 8, 2005, we 
issued the verification report for Blue Field. See Memorandum to the 
File from Amber Musser and Steve Winkates through Brian C. Smith, Re: 
Verification of the Response of Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial 
Co., Ltd. in the Eighth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, dated February 
8, 2005 (``Blue Field verification report'').
    On March 22, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no later than 
July 14, 2005 (70 FR 14444).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus 
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Preserved mushrooms'' refer to 
mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, 
and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and 
heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars 
in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, 
brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported 
whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope 
of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which are pre-salted and packed 
in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further 
processing.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) all 
other species of mushrooms, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh 
and chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched 
mushrooms''; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing 
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the 
antidumping duty order. See ``Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling 
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, 
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,'' 
dated June 19, 2000. The Department's scope determination was 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Tak Fat 
Trading Company, et. al. v. United States, et. al., 396 F.3d 1378 
(Fed. Cir., 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable 
under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 
2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') covers February 1, 2004, through 
July 31, 2004.

[[Page 42035]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, as amended, we verified 
information provided by Blue Field. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of Blue Field's facility and 
examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification 
results are outlined in the Blue Field verification report.

New Shipper Status

    Consistent with our practice, we investigated the bona fide nature 
of the two sales made by Blue Field for this new shipper review. We 
found no evidence that the sales in question were not bona fide sales. 
Based on our investigation into the bona fide nature of the sales, the 
questionnaire responses submitted by the company, and our verification 
thereof, we preliminarily determine that the respondent has met the 
requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR, and that it 
was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously 
shipped subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, for 
purposes of these preliminary results of the review, we are treating 
the respondent's sales of certain preserved mushrooms to the United 
States as an appropriate transaction for this new shipper review.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and thus should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate).
    Blue Field is a limited liability company registered in the PRC. 
Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether the 
export activities of this respondent are 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). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in 
its export activities from government control to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 
(``Silicon Carbide''). Under the separate-rates criteria, the 
Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent 
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over export activities.
1. De Jure Control
    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control over exporter activities includes: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the 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.
    In prior cases involving products from the PRC, the Department has 
examined the following PRC laws for purposes of determining whether 
there is an absence of de jure control with respect to a respondent's 
export functions: the 1994 ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic 
of China;'' the ``Company Law of the PRC,'' effective as of July 1, 
1994; and ``The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative 
Regulations,'' promulgated on June 13, 1988. See July 22, 2004, 
Memorandum to the File, which places the above-referenced laws on the 
record of this proceeding segment.
    As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them 
to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of limited 
liability companies absent proof on the record to the contrary. See, 
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) 
(``Furfuryl Alcohol''), and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with 
Rollers from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 
1995).
    The respondent 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 (May 12, 1994) and the Administrative 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the 
Registration of Legal Corporations (June 3, 1988). 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). At verification, we found that the 
respondent's business license and Certificate of Approval for 
enterprises with foreign trade rights in the PRC were granted in 
accordance with these laws. For further information, see the Blue Field 
verification report. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there 
is an absence of de jure control over the respondent's export 
activities.
2. De Facto Control
    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 22587, and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at 22544. 
Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto 
control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each 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 management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587 and Furfuryl 
Alcohol, 60 FR at 22545.
    Blue Field has asserted the following: (1) it establishes its own 
export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any 
governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel 
decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses 
profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell 
its assets and to obtain loans. We examined documentation at 
verification which substantiated Blue Field's claims as noted above. 
See the Blue Field verification report, pages 3-11. As a result, there 
is a sufficient basis to determine preliminarily that this respondent 
has demonstrated a de facto absence of government control of its export 
functions and is entitled to a separate rate. Consequently, we have 
preliminarily determined that Blue Field has met the criteria for the 
application of separate rates.

[[Page 42036]]

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Blue Field's two sales of subject merchandise 
to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the 
export prices to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

    We used export price (``EP'') methodology in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first 
sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States 
directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and 
constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP based on the packed FOB China port price to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, 
we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for 
foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in 
the PRC in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign 
inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by 
PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges 
on surrogate rates from India (see ``Surrogate Country'' section below 
for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection).
    To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used truck freight 
distances and rates published by the Indian Freight Exchange obtained 
from the following website: http://www.infreight.com. To value foreign 
inland train freight charges, we used data contained in the July 2001 
Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. To value foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, we relied on October 1999-September 2000 information reported 
in the public U.S. sales listing submitted by Essar Steel Ltd. in the 
antidumping investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 67 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001).

Normal Value

A. Non-Market-Economy Status
    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the 
parties to this review has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we 
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which 
applies to NME countries.
B. Surrogate Country
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India was among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development. See Surrogate Country Request Memorandum, dated September 
28, 2004. In addition, based on publicly available information placed 
on the record (e.g., world production data), India is a significant 
producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we considered India 
the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production 
because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country 
selection. See Memorandum Re: Seventh Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of 
China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated September 28, 2004.
C. Factors of Production
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited 
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the 
factors reported by Blue Field which produced the preserved mushrooms 
it exported to the United States during the POR. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available 
Indian values.
    Based on our verification findings, we revised the per-unit factor 
reported for soil and the reported inland freight distances reported in 
Blue Field's responses. See Blue Field verification report at pages 14 
and 16.
    The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this 
determination was based on the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
to make them delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous 
with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency or in U.S. dollars, we 
adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices (``WPIs'') 
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics (``IFS''). See Memorandum Re: Factors Valuation For the 
Preliminary Results, from Stephen F. Berlinguette, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, dated July 
14, 2005, for a detailed explanation of the methodology used to 
calculate surrogate values.
    Except where specified below, we valued raw material inputs using 
the weighted-average unit import values from the POR derived from the 
World Trade Atlas Trade Information System (Internet Version 4.3e) 
(``World Trade Atlas''). The source of these values was the Directorate 
General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Indian 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Below is a listing of surrogate 
values that utilized sources other than POR-contemporaneous World Trade 
Atlas data.
    Blue Field produced (rather than purchased) the fresh mushrooms 
which it used in the mushroom canning process during the POR. 
Therefore, we valued the inputs which this company used to produce the 
fresh mushrooms which were canned during the POR. To value spawn, we 
used an average price based on data contained in the 2003-2004 
financial reports of Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (``Agro Dutch''), Flex 
Foods Ltd. (``Flex Foods'') and Premier Explosives, Ltd. (``Premier 
Explosives'') (i.e., three Indian producers of the subject 
merchandise). To value cow manure, we averaged data contained in the 
above-referenced Flex Foods and Agro Dutch financial reports. To value 
rice straw, we used data from the 2003-2004 Premier Explosives 
financial report. For soil, we used 2003-2004 price information 
obtained from a project report issued in December 2004 by India's 
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development entitled Integrated 
Project on Production and Processing of Button Mushrooms for Export, 
available online at: http://www.nabard.org/roles/ms/ap/mushroom.htm.
    Blue Field produced all of the cans which it used to sell preserved 
mushrooms to the U.S. market during the POR. Therefore, for can-making 
materials, we valued tin plate using January 2002-December 2002 average 
Indian import values from World Trade Atlas, and we valued copper 
conducting wire using January 2003-December 2003 average Indian import 
values from

[[Page 42037]]

World Trade Atlas, as its useable form is consumed in the production of 
cans.
    Because there is insufficient evidence on the record to account for 
the factors involved in recovering the resulting scrap, we did not 
apply a scrap offset. Parties requesting a byproduct offset have the 
burden of presenting to the Department not only evidence that the 
generated byproduct is sold or re-used in the production of the subject 
merchandise, but also all the information necessary for the Department 
to incorporate such offsets into the margin calculation. In this 
instance, however, Blue Field did not provide evidence that post-
production copper wire scrap was sold or re-used. Moreover, Blue Field 
did not provide either the complete set of factors necessary for the 
reworking of the scrap copper wire into a useable form, nor did it 
provide an attempt at a valuation for such factors. As a result of 
these considerations, we preliminarily determine that Blue Field did 
not meet its burden of adequately documenting the claimed byproduct 
offset and, as a result, we did not apply it.
    To value salt, we used and inflated an average import price based 
on January 2002-December 2003 data contained in World Trade Atlas 
because we were unable to obtain a more current value.To value water we 
used January 2003 data available on the Maharastra Industrial 
Development Corporation's website and was used in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Garlic from the 
People's Republic of China, 70 FR 34082-34086 (June 13, 2005). We used 
data contained in the 2002-2003 financial report of Flex Foods to 
calculate and inflate a POR value for super phosphate.
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). See Expected Wages of Selected 
Non-market Economy Countries, from the Import Administration website 
at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.
    To value electricity, we used 2000 Indian price data from the 
International Energy Agency's (``IEA'') report, ``Electricity Prices 
for Industry,'' contained in the 2002 Key World Energy Statistics from 
the IEA. To value steam coal, we used February 2004-July 2004 Indian 
import data from World Trade Atlas, and added an amount for loading and 
additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to 
the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the 
periodical Business Line.
    To value factory overhead and selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, we used the 2003-2004 financial 
reports of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods, both Indian producers of the 
subject merchandise.
    In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997), we revised our methodology for calculating source-to-
factory surrogate freight for those material inputs that are valued, 
based all or in part, on CIF import values in the surrogate country. 
Therefore, we have added to CIF surrogate values from India a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances from either 
the closest PRC port of importation to the factory, or from the 
domestic supplier to the factory on an input-specific basis.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during 
the period February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Manufacturer/producer/exporter               Margin Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd........               0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to the 
parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 
days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held on September 12, 2005.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the 
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties 
may be submitted no later than August 22, 2005. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due no later than 
August 29, 2005. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a 
statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not 
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 
cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of the review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 90 days after 
the date of issuance of the preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess and liquidate, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate 
appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of 
this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio 
of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct 
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by 
this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the 
final results of this review is above de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Upon completion of this review, we will require cash deposits at 
the rate established in the final results as further described below.
    Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security 
requirements for shipments of mushrooms from the PRC produced and 
exported by Blue Field that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of the new shipper review. The following cash deposit requirements will 
be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for 
all shipments of subject merchandise from Blue Field entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date: (1) for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Blue 
Field, no cash deposit will be required if the cash deposit rate 
calculated in the final results is zero or de minimis; (2) for subject 
merchandise exported by Blue Field but not manufactured by Blue Field, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 
198.63 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise produced by Blue Field 
but not exported by Blue Field, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the exporter.
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication

[[Page 42038]]

of the final results of the next administrative review.
    Notification to Importers
    This notice 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: July 14, 2005.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-3906 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S