[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56634-56639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-846]


Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of the Twelfth New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently 
conducting the twelfth new shipper review of the antidumping duty order 
on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering 
the period April 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004. We preliminarily 
determine that no sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') with 
respect to the exporters who participated fully and are entitled to a 
separate rate in this review. If these preliminary results are adopted

[[Page 56635]]

in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR'') for which the 
importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  September 28, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bankhead (Dixion) or Kit Rudd 
(Wally) 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) 482-9068 or (202) 482-1385, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On April 17, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China, 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997) (``Brake Rotors Order'').
    On October 28, 2004, the Department received timely requests for 
new shipper reviews under the antidumping duty order on brake rotors 
from the PRC in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.214(c) of the 
Department's regulations, from Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. 
(``Wally'') and Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd. (``Dixion'').
    On November 24, 2004, the Department initiated these new shipper 
reviews for the period April 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004, for 
Wally and Dixion. See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of the Twelfth New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 69 FR 
70632 (December 7, 2004).
    On December 3, 2004, the Department requested from the Office of 
Policy a memorandum listing surrogate countries.
    On December 6, 2004, the Department issued its Section A, C, and D 
of the General Antidumping Duty Questionnaire to Wally and Dixion.
    On December 7, 2004, the Department received from the Office of 
Policy a list of surrogate countries. On December 8, 2004, the 
Department provided all interested parties the opportunity to submit 
information pertinent to selecting a surrogate country and valuing 
factors of production in this review.
    On December 20, 2004, the Department requested from CBP copies of 
all customs documents pertaining to the entry of brake rotors from the 
PRC exported by Wally and Dixion during the period of April 1, 2004, 
through September 30, 2004. See Memorandum from James C. Doyle, Office 
Director, to William R. Scopa of CBP, dated December 20, 2004. The 
Department also issued Wally and Dixion sales and cost reconciliation 
questionnaires on December 20, 2004.
    On January 21, 2005, Wally and Dixion submitted Sections A, C, D, 
and importer questionnaire responses along with their sales and cost 
reconciliations.
    On January 24, 2005, Dixion submitted an invoice to replace an 
invoice it claimed it inadvertently submitted in its January 21, 2005, 
response.
    On February 1, 2005, the Coalition for the Preservation of American 
Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (``Petitioners'') 
submitted comments regarding Wally and Dixions' questionnaire 
responses.
    On February 2, 2005, the Department placed documentation provided 
by CBP on the record pertaining to specific entries of brake rotors 
and/or brake drums exported by Wally and Dixion during the POR.
    On February 9, 2005, Wally and Dixion provided information for 
valuing factors of production in this review.
    On March, 11, 2005, the Department sent Dixion a supplemental 
Sections A, C, and D questionnaire, as well as a supplemental importer 
questionnaire.
    On March 14, 2005, the Department sent Wally a supplemental 
Sections A, C, D questionnaire, as well as a supplemental importer 
questionnaire.
    On April 8, 2005, Wally and Dixion submitted their responses to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaires.
    On April 25, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results of the instant review on brake rotors from the PRC. 
See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Extension of the 
New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews, 70 FR 22298 (April 29, 2005).
    On June 22, 2005, the Department sent Wally and Dixion a second 
supplemental on Sections A, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaires 
and on the importer questionnaires. On July 14, 2005, Dixion submitted 
its second supplemental Sections A, C, and D of the antidumping 
questionnaire and on the importer questionnaire. On July 20, 2005, 
Wally submitted its response to the second supplemental Sections A, C, 
and D questionnaire as well as the second importer questionnaire.
    On July 25, 2005, the Department issued Dixion a third supplemental 
sections A, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire and the importer 
questionnaire. On July 29, 2005, the Department issued Dixion an 
additional questionnaire.
    On August 4, 2005, Wally submitted its supplemental questionnaire 
response on August 4, 2005. On August 8, 2005, Dixion submitted its 
third and fourth supplemental questionnaire responses.
    On August 10, 2005, Petitioners submitted verification comments for 
Wally.
    On August 29, 2005, Wally and Dixion submitted their verification 
exhibits to the Department.

Period of Review

    The POR covers April 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray 
cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in 
diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight 
from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters 
(weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the 
following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, 
vans and recreational vehicles under ``one ton and a half,'' and light 
trucks designated as ``one ton and a half.''
    Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and 
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are 
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone 
some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some 
grinding or turning.
    These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in 
the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') 
which produces vehicles sold in the United States. (i.e., General 
Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in 
this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the 
United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are 
made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet 
the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake 
rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or 
unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 
inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) 
and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 
3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).

[[Page 56636]]

    Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 
8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
order is dispositive.

Verification

    On August 4, 2005, the Department issued verification outlines to 
Wally and Dixion. The Department conducted verification of the 
questionnaire responses of Wally during the period August 15 through 
17, 2005, and Dixion from August 18 through August 20, 2005. On 
September 20, 2005, the Department issued the verification reports for 
Wally and Dixion.
    We used standard verification procedures, including on-site 
inspection of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and 
examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification 
results are outlined in the verification report for each company. For 
further discussion, see September 20, 2005, verification reports for 
Dixion and Wally (``Dixion Verification Report'') and (``Wally 
Verification Report'').

New Shipper Status - Wally and Dixion

    Consistent with our practice, we investigated the bona fide nature 
of the sales made by Wally and Dixion 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 each company, and our verification 
thereof, we preliminarily determine that both respondents have met the 
requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR, and that 
neither was 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 both respondents' sales of brake rotors to the United States 
as appropriate transactions for this new shipper review. See Memorandum 
from Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program 
Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, 12th 
New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''): Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the New Shipper Review of 
Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd., dated September 20, 2005; see also 
Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 
9, 12th New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic 
of China (``PRC''): Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the New Shipper 
Review of Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd., dated September 20, 2005.

Separate Rates

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country in all previous antidumping cases. See, i.e., Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
70997 (December 8, 2004). In accordance with 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. We 
have no evidence suggesting that this determination should be changed. 
Therefore, we treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this 
review and calculated NV by valuing the FOP in a surrogate country. It 
is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise 
subject to review that are located in NME countries a single 
antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of 
governmental control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 
with respect to its export activities. To establish whether an exporter 
is sufficiently independent of governmental control to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter using the criteria 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as 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 established in these cases, the 
Department assigns separate rates to NME exporters only if they can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over their export activities.

Absence of De Jure Control

    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control over export 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. See Sparklers at 
20589.
    In the instant review, Wally and Dixion submitted complete 
responses to the separate rates section of the Department's 
questionnaire. The evidence submitted in the instant review by these 
Respondents includes government laws and regulations on corporate 
ownership, business licences, and narrative information regarding the 
companies' operations and selection of management. The evidence 
provided by Wally and Dixion supports a finding of a de jure absence of 
governmental control over their export activities because: (1) there 
are no controls on exports of subject merchandise, such as quotas 
applied to, or licenses required for, exports of the subject 
merchandise to the United States; and (2) the subject merchandise does 
not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or export 
licensing.

Absence of De Facto Control

    The absence of de facto governmental control over exports is based 
on whether the Respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent 
of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from 
its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy 
from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon 
Carbide at 22587; Sparklers at 20589; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
    In their questionnaire responses, Wally and Dixion submitted 
evidence indicating an absence of de facto governmental control over 
their export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that: 
(1) each company sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) each 
company retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; 
(3) each company has a general manager, branch manager or division 
manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an 
agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the board of 
directors or company employees, and the general manager appoints the 
deputy managers and the manager of each department; and (5) there is no 
restriction on either companies use of export revenues. Therefore, the 
Department has

[[Page 56637]]

preliminarily found that Wally and Dixion have established prima facie 
that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by 
Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Use of Partial Facts Available for Wally and Dixion

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) 
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that ``if the 
administrating authority finds that an interested party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information from the administering authority or the 
Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.'' See also Statement of 
Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
    For the reasons explained below, and pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that the use of a partial facts available is warranted for the 
selection of certain surrogate values. On January 21, 2005, Wally and 
Dixion each submitted the material inputs used in their production of 
subject merchandise during the POR. See Wally's January 21, 2005, 
Questionnaire Response (``Wally QR''); see also Dixion's January 21, 
2005, Questionnaire Response (``Dixion QR''). On March, 11, 2005, the 
Department sent Dixion a supplemental Sections A, C, and D 
questionnaire and on March 14, 2005, the Department sent Wally a 
supplemental Sections A, C, D questionnaire; the Department requested 
material specifications for certain material inputs Respondents 
reported using to produce subject merchandise during the POR. Wally and 
Dixion each provided the specifications of their material inputs as 
requested by the Department. See Wally's April 8, 2005 Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response at pages 21 - 23 (``Wally SQR''); see also 
Dixion's April 8, 2005 Supplemental Questionnaire Response at pages 22 
- 23 (``Dixion SQR''). Respondents' provided the specifications 
regarding the phosphorous content of the pig iron, the carbon and 
manganese contents of the ferromanganese, and the silicon content of 
the ferrosilicon they used to produce subject merchandise during the 
POR. Id. Additionally, Wally reported that the limestone it used in the 
production process was not limestone flux. See Wally SQR at 22.
    The Department conducted verification of the questionnaire 
responses of Wally during the period August 15 through 17, 2005, and 
Dixion from August 18 through August 20, 2005. While at verification 
the Department was unable to verify the specifications reported by 
Respondents in their questionnaire responses for the following material 
inputs: pig iron, ferromanganese, and ferrosilicon. See Dixion 
Verification Report; see also Wally verification report. The Department 
was also unable to verify Wally's statement that it did not use 
limestone flux. Id. The Department was thus unable to verify certain 
information provided by the Respondents; therefore, the use of facts 
available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act is appropriate.
    The Department, however, finds that Respondents acted to the best 
of their ability, and we have not used an adverse inference, as 
provided under section 776(b) of the Act, to value their factors of 
production. Specifically, though the Respondents were unable to support 
their claims regarding the chemical content of certain inputs used, the 
Department found that the Respondents submitted the highest surrogate 
values as being representative of their actual factors of production 
for pig iron and ferrosilicon. See Respondents' February 9, 2005, 
Factor Value submission. Thus, for the preliminary results, the 
Department is applying the highest surrogate value to these inputs, 
which is the value that Respondents proposed the Department use to 
value these inputs, as facts available.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''), 
in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, 
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the ``Normal Value'' section below.
    The Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Office of 
Policy, Acting Director, to Brian C. Smith, Program Manager: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries, dated December 7, 2004. We select an appropriate surrogate 
country based on the availability and reliability of data from the 
countries. See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 
Surrogate Country Selection Process (``Policy Bulletin''), dated March 
1, 2004. In this case, we have found that India is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise, is at a similar level of economic 
development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, and has publicly 
available and reliable data. See Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, Case 
Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 and James 
C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, to The File, 12th New Shipper 
Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): 
Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated September 20, 2005 (``Surrogate 
Country Memo'').

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated export prices (``EPs'') for sales to the United States for 
Wally and Dixion because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was 
made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP 
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the 
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight, 
brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance. 
For Wally, each of these services was either provided by a NME vendor 
or paid for using a NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction for 
these movement charges on surrogate values. For Dixion,

[[Page 56638]]

international freight was provided by a market economy provider and 
paid in U.S. dollars, and therefore we used the actual cost per 
kilogram of the freight. See Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, Case 
Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 and James 
C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, to The File, 12th New Shipper 
Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): 
Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated September 20, 2005 
(``Surrogate Values Memo'') for details regarding the surrogate values 
for other movement expenses.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production (``FOP'') reported by the Respondents 
for the POR. To calculate NV, we valued the reported FOP by multiplying 
the per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate 
values. In selecting surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the available values. As 
appropriate, we adjusted the value of material inputs to account for 
delivery costs. Where appropriate, we increased Indian surrogate values 
by surrogate inland freight costs. We calculated these inland freight 
costs using the shorter of the reported distances from the PRC port to 
the PRC factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit's (``CAFC'') decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed.Cir. 1997). For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation or deflation 
using data published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. 
We excluded from the surrogate country import data used in our 
calculations imports from Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia due to 
generally available export subsidies. See China Nat'l Mach. Import & 
Export Corp. v. United States, CIT 01-1114, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 
2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and 
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 
FR 12651 (March 15, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4. Furthermore, we disregarded prices from NME 
countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME or a country with general export subsidies. We converted the 
surrogate values to U.S. dollars as appropriate, using the official 
exchange rate recorded on the dates of sale of subject merchandise in 
this case, obtained from Import Administration's website at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. For further detail, see the 
Surrogate Values Memo.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist during 
the period April 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004:

                        Brake Rotors from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (``Wally'')......                0.00
Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd. (``Dixion'').....                6.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within ten 
days of the date of announcement of the preliminary results. An 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may 
submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of 
the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which 
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days 
after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). 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 Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the 
public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue 
the final results of this new shipper review, including the results of 
our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, 
within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on 
the final results of this review.

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 companies 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 brake rotors from the PRC produced and 
exported by Wally and Dixion that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of the new shipper reviews. The following cash deposit 
requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of 
the new shipper reviews for all shipments of subject merchandise from 
Wally and Dixion entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the publication date: (1) for subject merchandise 
manufactured and exported by Wally and Dixion, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review, 
except that no cash deposit will be required if the cash deposit rate 
calculated in the final results is zero or de minimis; and (2) for 
subject merchandise exported by Wally or Dixion but not manufactured by 
Wally or Dixion, respectively, the cash deposit rate will continue to 
be the PRC countrywide rate (i.e., 43.32 percent); and (3) for subject 
merchandise produced by Wally or Dixion but not exported by the same 
company, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the 
exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.

[[Page 56639]]

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)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: September 20, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-19363 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S