66 FR 51375, October 9, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-821]
 
Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether 
Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner, Goss Graphic 
Systems, Inc., and MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, 
whether assembled or unassembled, from Germany. This review covers MAN 
Roland Druckmaschinen AG, a manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review is September 1, 
1999, through August 31, 2000.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have not been made below 
normal value for MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we 
will instruct the Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on 
entries of the subject merchandise by MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG 
covered by this review. Interested parties are invited to comment on 
these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger, or Kate Johnson, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration--Room B099, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-4136, or 482-4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is September 1, 1999 through August 31, 
2000.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Background

    On July 23, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register, 
61 FR 38166, the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on 
large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, whether 
assembled or unassembled (LNPP), from Germany. We published an 
antidumping duty order on September 4, 1996 (61 FR 46623).
    On September 20, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period September 1, 1999, 
through August 31, 2000 (65 FR 56868). The Department received requests 
for an administrative review of MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG and its 
U.S. affiliate MAN Roland Inc. (collectively MAN Roland).
    On September 29, 2000, Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. (the petitioner) 
requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties have 
been absorbed by KBA or MAN Roland. On April 20, 2001, the Department 
requested proof that unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the 
antidumping duties to be assessed on entries during the review period. 
See discussion in the ``Duty Absorption section,'' below.
    On October 10, 2000, the petitioner requested that the Department 
defer for one year the initiation of its review of entries by KBA 
subject to the above-referenced order covering the period September 1, 
1999, to August 31, 2000. On October 30, 2000, we granted the 
petitioner's request to defer the review of KBA's entries, as well as 
initiated a review of MAN Roland. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation 
in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 64662.
    On October 27, 2000, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to MAN 
Roland. We received a response on February 5, 2001. We issued 
supplemental questionnaires in April and August 2001, and received 
responses in May and September 2001.
    On March 22, 2001, the Department extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results in this review until October 1, 2001. See Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses, and Components Thereof, from Germany and 
Japan: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 16040.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are large newspaper printing 
presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, 
whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that 
are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more 
than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page 
in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of 
the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of 
type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper.
    In addition to press systems, the scope of the order includes the 
five press system components. They are: (1) A printing unit, which is 
any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process 
(full) color; (2) a reel tension paster (RTP), which is any component 
that feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in 
width into a subject printing unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or 
combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering 
the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than 
two pages in width into a newspaper format; (4) conveyance and access 
apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two 
newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production

[[Page 51376]]

process and which provides structural support and access; and (5) a 
computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or 
software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and 
coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing 
presses or press components.
    A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the 
press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate 
such components into an existing press system.
    Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, 
press additions, and press components are typically shipped either 
partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are 
assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation 
process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection 
of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large 
newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, 
regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-
subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope 
of this order. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP 
system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at 
least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major 
LNPP components of which they are a part.
    For purposes of the order, the following definitions apply 
irrespective of any different definition that may be found in Customs 
rulings, U.S. Customs law or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS): the term ``unassembled'' means fully or 
partially unassembled or disassembled; and (2) the term ``incomplete'' 
means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to 
be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition 
or component.
    This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or 
replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not 
integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are 
separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not 
shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the 
scope of this order. Used presses are also not subject to this scope. 
Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an arm's-
length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce newspapers 
in the ordinary course of business.
    Further, this order covers all current and future printing 
technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited 
to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress 
systems. The products covered by this order are imported into the 
United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 
8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper 
printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 
8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems 
may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 
8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Duty Absorption

    On September 29, 2000, the petitioner requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. 
Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if requested, 
to determine during an administrative review initiated two or four 
years after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties 
have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject 
merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. In this case, MAN Roland sold to the United States through an 
importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of 
the Act.
    Because this review was initiated four years after the publication 
of the antidumping duty order, we will make a duty absorption 
determination in this segment of the proceeding.
    On April 20, 2001, the Department requested proof that unaffiliated 
purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on 
entries during the review period. On June 18, 2001, MAN Roland 
responded to the Department's request stating that there is no basis 
under the statute for a finding that any antidumping duties ``have been 
absorbed'' by MAN Roland or its affiliates since the final results of 
the only review completed to date found no dumping by MAN Roland. As we 
have found preliminarily that there is no dumping margin for MAN Roland 
with respect to its U.S. sale under this review, we find preliminarily 
that there is no duty absorption.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether MAN Roland's sale of a LNPP to the United 
States was made at less than normal value, we compared constructed 
export price (CEP) to the normal value, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    Although MAN Roland's home market was viable, in accordance with 
section 773 of the Act and our past practice in this proceeding and in 
the companion proceeding involving Japan, we based normal value on 
constructed value because we determined that, even though the general 
product characteristics of LNPP systems are comparable enough for them 
to be considered a foreign like product, the physical differences in 
the sub-component specifications between LNPPs sold in the United 
States and the home market are so great that meaningful price-to-price 
comparisons cannot be made. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and 
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 
62700, 62702 (October 19, 2000), followed in Large Newspaper Printing 
Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from 
Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
11555 (February 26, 2001); and Large Newspaper Printing Presses and 
Components Thereof: Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Germany: 
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Final Determinations of Scope Inquiries, 65 
FR 62695, 62697 (October 19, 2000), followed in Large Newspaper 
Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 11557 (February 26, 2001) (1998-1999 Final 
Results).

Constructed Export Price

    We calculated CEP, in accordance with sections 772(b), (c) and (d) 
of the Act, for MAN Roland's sale under review because the contract 
governing the U.S. sale was executed in the United States by MAN 
Roland's affiliated sales agent in the United States.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed price to an unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of 
the Act, we made deductions for the following charges: foreign inland 
freight charges; combined German inland insurance, marine insurance and 
U.S. inland insurance expenses; German handling, ocean freight, U.S. 
handling and U.S. inland freight expenses; U.S. brokerage; and U.S. 
Customs duty (including harbor maintenance and merchandise processing 
fees). We also made

[[Page 51377]]

deductions for commissions, imputed credit, warranty, direct training 
expenses, testing expenses, casualty insurance premium expenses and 
other direct selling expenses, pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act. We deducted further those indirect selling expenses incurred by 
MAN Roland and its U.S. affiliate that related to economic activity in 
the United States.
    As in prior segments of this proceeding, we calculated an imputed 
credit expense by multiplying an interest rate by the net balance of 
production costs incurred, and progress payments made, during the 
construction period. Consistent with the revised methodology discussed 
at Comment 4 of the 1998-1999 Final Results, we used MAN Roland's euro 
short-term interest rate for the production period, and the U.S. dollar 
short-term interest rate for the post-production imputed credit 
portion. MAN Roland used the commercial production date to mark the end 
of the production period, rather than the installation date as 
requested in our supplemental questionnaire. For purposes of the 
preliminary results, we have accepted the imputed credit calculation 
using the commercial production date. However, we may consider this 
part of the methodology further in our final results.
    In addition, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing or 
assembly expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
    Further, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the 
Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by 
MAN Roland and its affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise 
in the United States and the foreign like product in the home market 
and the profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

    As noted above under the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section of this 
notice, we based normal value on constructed value in accordance with 
section 773 of the Act because we determined that the unique, custom-
built nature of each LNPP sold does not permit proper price-to-price 
comparisons, even though the home market was viable for MAN Roland.

Cost of Production Analysis and Constructed Value

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect MAN Roland made sales in the 
home market at prices below its cost of production (COP) in this review 
because the Department disregarded certain sales made by MAN Roland 
during the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and during the 
previous administrative review pursuant to a finding that sales failed 
the cost test. See 1998-1999 Final Results. As a result, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether MAN Roland made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below its COP within the meaning 
of section 773(b) of the Act.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of MAN Roland's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for general and administrative (G&A) and financial expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We compared the COP figures to home market 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. On 
a contract-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, 
less any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect selling 
expenses, and packing expenses.
    MAN Roland reported commissions paid to unaffiliated and affiliated 
sales agents, and claimed that the commissions paid to its affiliated 
sales agents are made at arm's length. In support of this claim, MAN 
Roland provided a regression analysis based on the estimated 
profitability of each sale. However, as we discussed in Comment 5 of 
the Decision Memorandum to the 1998-1999 Final Results, this analysis 
fails to demonstrate that the affiliated commissions were made at arm's 
length. Further, our analysis comparing the commissions paid to both 
affiliated and unaffiliated agents for the home market sales in this 
review shows that the average commission percentage paid to affiliated 
agents was significantly different than the average commission 
percentage paid to unaffiliated agents (see Memorandum to the File 
entitled Preliminary Results Calculation Worksheets for MAN Roland, 
dated October 1, 2001). Consequently, we have not deducted affiliated 
party commissions from the home market price for purposes of comparison 
to the COP.
    MAN Roland reported an additional warranty expense for delayed 
installation. MAN Roland allocated this expense based on past 
historical experience, although it reported that it did not incur this 
expense on any of the home market sales included in this review (see 
May 29, 2001, supplemental Section B response at page 34). As explained 
at Comment 6 of the Decision Memorandum to the 1998-1999 Final Results, 
this expense is properly considered a direct selling expense and will 
be deducted only from those sales to which the expense applies. Since 
none of the sales in this review incurred this expense, we have not 
deducted this expense from the home market price for purposes of 
comparison to the COP.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) 
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.
    The results of our cost test for MAN Roland indicated that certain 
home market sales were at prices below COP within an extended period of 
time, were made in substantial quantities, and would not permit the 
full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded the 
below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the 
basis for determining selling expenses and profit.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated 
constructed value based on the sum of MAN Roland's cost of materials, 
fabrication, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and 
U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based 
SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by MAN 
Roland in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign 
country.
    We relied on MAN Roland's reported COP and constructed value 
amounts.

CEP to Constructed Value Comparisons

    For CEP to constructed value comparisons, where appropriate, we 
deducted imputed credit, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 
and 773(a)(8) of the Act. We calculated imputed credit for constructed 
value purposes in accordance with the methodology explained in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' section of this notice.
    We also made a CEP offset adjustment to normal value, as explained 
below, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, by deducting 
the home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate normal value

[[Page 51378]]

based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or 
CEP transaction. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at 
different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a 
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is 
a difference in the stages of marketing. See id.; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 
(November 19, 1997) (Steel Plate). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\1\ including selling functions, 
class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling 
expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the 
final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two 
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for export and comparison market sales (i.e., normal value based on 
either home market or third country prices \2\), we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only 
the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Where normal value is based on constructed value, we 
determine the normal value LOT based on the LOT of the sales from 
which we derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for constructed 
value, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the export price or 
CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different 
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing export price or CEP sales at 
a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if a normal value LOT is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a LOT 
adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, Steel Plate, 62 FR at 61731, 
61732.
    We obtained information from MAN Roland regarding the marketing 
stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, 
including a description of the selling activities performed by MAN 
Roland for each channel of distribution.
    MAN Roland reported home market sales through one channel of 
distribution: directly from MAN Roland's production facilities to the 
customer. We observed that MAN Roland provides the following services 
on sales to home market customers: market research, sales contacts and 
negotiations, personnel training for customer, installation at customer 
site, advertising to customer, packing, warranty service, and freight 
and delivery arrangements. Accordingly, all of MAN Roland's home market 
sales are made through the same channel of distribution and constitute 
one LOT.
    As discussed above, we have determined that MAN Roland's U.S. sale 
under review is properly classified as a CEP sale. In its questionnaire 
response, MAN Roland reported that sales to the unaffiliated customers 
were made at the same LOT in both the United States and the home 
market. However, MAN Roland contends that, in the event that the 
Department classifies its U.S. sale as a CEP sale, then a LOT 
adjustment is appropriate to account for the differences between the 
actual LOT of the home market sales and the constructed LOT of the U.S. 
sale.
    We examined the sales to MAN Roland's affiliated importer, MAN 
Roland, Inc., and found only one LOT. This CEP LOT differed 
considerably from the home market LOT with respect to selling 
activities associated with market research, sales contacts and 
negotiations, personnel training for customers, installation at the 
customer site, advertising to customers, and warranty service. 
Therefore, we find the CEP LOT to be different from the home market LOT 
and to be at a less advanced stage of distribution than the home market 
LOT. Based on this analysis, we conclude that the comparison market and 
U.S. channels of distribution, and the sales functions associated with 
each are sufficiently different so as to constitute two different 
levels of trade, and we find that the comparison market sales are made 
at a more advanced level of trade than are CEP sales. Because MAN 
Roland made sales in the home market at only one level of trade, the 
difference in the level of trade cannot be quantified. Further, we do 
not have information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns 
based on MAN Roland's sales of other products, and there are no other 
respondents or other record information on which such an analysis could 
be based. Accordingly, because the data available do not form an 
appropriate basis for making a level of trade adjustment, but the level 
of trade in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution 
than the level of trade of the CEP, we have made a CEP offset to normal 
value in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions, in accordance with section 773A(a) of 
the Act, based on the official exchange rates in effect on the date of 
the U.S. sale as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for the 1999-2000 POR is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                  Period    Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAN Roland..........................................  9/1/99-8/     0.00
                                                         31/00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our 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 publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and 
rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case 
briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 35 days, 
respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). 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 this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.
    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

[[Page 51379]]

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.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results, we will instruct the Customs Service to 
liquidate all entries subject to this review without regard to 
antidumping duties.
    If these preliminary results are not adopted in the final results, 
we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rates calculated in the final results of this review are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent). For assessment 
purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific assessment rates for 
the subject merchandise by aggregating the antidumping duty margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales examined and dividing the amount by the 
total entered value of the sales examined.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
company (MAN Roland) will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, a prior review, or the 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 30.72 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by 
the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(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 administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: October 1, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-25271 Filed 10-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P