[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35896-35901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-824]


Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke Order 
in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of third antidumping duty 
administrative review and intent not to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., 
Ltd., a producer and exporter of polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan. The period of 
review is May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.
    We preliminarily find that sales of subject merchandise have not 
been made below normal value. 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 for which 
the importer-specific rate is less than de minimis (i.e., less than 
0.50 percent). Furthermore, we preliminarily intend not to revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to subject merchandise produced and 
also exported by Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. because its sales 
were not made in commercial quantities (see 19 CFR 351.222(e)); see 
Intent Not to Revoke section of this notice. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Ledgerwood, at (202) 482-3836, 
or Brian Smith, at (202) 482-1766, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

[[Page 35897]]

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act''), as 
amended, by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all references are made to the Department 
of Commerce's (``the Department's'') final regulations at 19 CFR part 
351 (1999).

Case History

    On May 14, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on polyvinyl alcohol (``PVA'') from Taiwan. 
See 61 FR 24286. On May 19, 1999, the Department published a notice 
providing an opportunity to request an administrative review of this 
order for the period May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998 (64 FR 27235). 
On May 27, 1999, we received a timely request for an administrative 
review from Chang Chun Petrochemical Co. (``Chang Chun''). In addition, 
Chang Chun requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty 
order with respect to it. On June 30, 1999, we published a notice of 
initiation of this review for Chang Chun (64 FR 35124).
    On July 8, 1999, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Chang 
Chun. Because, the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost 
test in the last completed review for Chang Chun (see Notice of Final 
Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyvinyl 
Alcohol from Taiwan, 64 FR 32024 (June 15, 1999)), the Department had 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Chang Chun's sales of the 
foreign like product may have been made at prices below the cost of 
production (``COP'') as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated 
an investigation to determine whether Chang Chun made home market sales 
during the period of review (``POR'') at prices below its COP, and 
required Chang Chun to respond to the COP section of the questionnaire 
issued in July 1999.
    The Department received Chang Chun's response in August 1999. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Chang Chun in September and 
November 1999. Responses to these questionnaires were received in 
October and November 1999, respectively.
    On November 15, 1999, the Department requested submissions of 
factual information regarding revocation of the antidumping order in 
part. Such submissions and rebuttal comments were received from the 
petitioner, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Chang Chun in 
December 1999. On January 14, 2000, the Department issued to Chang Chun 
a supplemental questionnaire on the information it submitted pertaining 
to revocation. Chang Chun submitted its supplemental revocation 
response on February 4, 2000.
    On January 21, 2000, the Department published a notice postponing 
the preliminary results of this review until May 30, 2000 (65 FR 3418). 
On February 9, 2000, the Department requested confirmation from the 
Customs Service that it had not made any adverse findings with respect 
to the classification of PVA exported to the United States from Taiwan 
by Chang Chun. On February 16, 2000, the U.S. Customs Service confirmed 
that although it had conducted an investigation on Chang Chun's 
shipments, it found no violations (see memorandum to the file, dated 
March 14, 2000). Pursuant to section 782(i)(2) of the Act, the 
Department verified Chang Chun's response from February 21 through 
March 3, 2000. On April 27, 2000, the Department issued its 
verification report.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is PVA. PVA is a dry, white to 
cream-colored, water-soluble synthetic polymer. This product consists 
of polyvinyl alcohols hydrolyzed in excess of 85 percent, whether or 
not mixed or diluted with defoamer or boric acid. Excluded from this 
review are PVAs covalently bonded with acetoacetylate, carboxylic acid, 
or sulfonic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a 
concentration equal to or greater than two mole percent, and PVAs 
covalently bonded with silane uniformly present on all polymer chains 
in a concentration equal to or greater than one-tenth of one mole 
percent. PVA in fiber form is not included in the scope of this review.
    The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under 
subheading 3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by Chang Chun. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our 
verification results are outlined in the verification reports placed in 
the case file (see the Department's April 27, 2000, verification report 
(hereafter ``verification report'') for further discussion).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at prices below normal value, we compared the export 
price to normal value as described below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export price of individual 
transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales of the 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade (see section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). Where there were no sales of the foreign 
like product made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared the 
export price of those transactions to the constructed value of that 
merchandise (see section 773(a)(4) of the Act).

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Chang Chun covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Review'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the 
contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to 
the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise made in the home market in the ordinary 
course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making 
the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by Chang Chun in the following order: 
viscosity, hydrolysis, particle size, tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, 
volatiles, and visual impurities. For those U.S. sales of PVA for which 
there were no comparable foreign market sales in the ordinary course of 
trade (i.e., sales

[[Page 35898]]

within the contemporaneous window which were made at prices above the 
COP), we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Export Price

    In accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we 
calculated an export price for all of Chang Chun's sales since the 
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation, and because constructed export 
price (``CEP'') methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the 
facts of record. We calculated export price based on the packed, CIF 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United 
States. We made deductions from the starting price for domestic inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and 
marine insurance in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We 
made the following adjustments to Chang Chun's U.S. expense data based 
on our verification findings: (1) we corrected the reported amounts for 
packing expenses; and (2) we corrected invoice-specific information 
with respect to marine insurance and bank charges (see pages 16-21 and 
29 of the verification report for further discussion).

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
normal value (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared Chang Chun's volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b). For Chang Chun, we 
determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in the 
exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States because Chang 
Chun had sales in its home market which were greater than five percent 
of its sales in the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on sales in Taiwan.
    Based on our verification findings, we made the following 
adjustments to Chang Chun's reported home market expense data: (1) we 
corrected the reported amounts for credit expenses and packing 
expenses; and (2) we corrected invoice-specific information with 
respect to the quantity for one sales transaction (see pages 4, 15-16 
and 30 of the verification report and May 30, 2000, preliminary results 
calculation memorandum for further discussion).

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the export 
price transaction. The normal value LOT is that of the starting-price 
sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on 
constructed value, that of the sales from which we derive selling, 
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit. For export 
price, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is 
usually from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether normal value sales are at a different LOT than 
export price, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value 
is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export 
transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 
61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
    As in previous reviews, Chang Chun reported one channel of 
distribution for its U.S. and home market sales. Based on our analysis 
of the selling functions, we found that the selling activities 
performed in both the home market and the United States (e.g., freight 
and delivery arrangements) were similar. Therefore, we determined that 
sales in both markets are at the same LOT and consequently no LOT 
adjustment is warranted. (See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: PVA From Taiwan, 63 FR 32810, 32812 (June 16, 
1998)).

Cost of Production (``COP'')

    As we stated in the Case History section, because we disregarded 
sales below the COP for Chang Chun in the last completed segment of the 
proceeding (i.e., the second administrative review), we had reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Chang Chun's sales of the foreign 
product under consideration for the determination of normal value in 
this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by 
Chang Chun in the home market.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by grade, based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, and packing costs. We relied 
on the submitted COPs, correcting the reported amounts for general and 
administrative expenses and factory overhead based on our verification 
findings (see pages 29-30 of the verification report for further 
discussion). In addition, we adjusted the joint production costs 
between PVA and acetic acid using the relative sales value of each 
product calculated on the basis of a two-year period prior to the 
period of the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation (see May 
30, 2000, preliminary results calculation memorandum and Final Results 
of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: PVA From Taiwan; 64 
FR 32024, 32025 (June 15, 1999)).
    Chang Chun purchased a major input (i.e., vinyl acetate monomer 
(``VAM'')) used in the production of PVA from an affiliated party. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.407(b), we applied the major input rule to 
determine the value of the VAM. Under the major input rule, we normally 
will determine the value of a major input purchased from an affiliated 
person based on the higher of: (1) the price paid by the exporter or 
producer to the affiliated person for the major input; (2) the amount 
usually reflected in sales of the major input in the market under 
consideration; or (3) the cost to the affiliated person of producing 
the major input. In this case, we used the transfer price of VAM from 
Chang Chun's affiliate, which was higher than the market price or the 
affiliate's COP.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP, adjusted where appropriate, 
to the comparison market sales 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 within an extended period 
of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were 
sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. On a grade-specific basis, we compared the revised COP 
to the comparison market prices, less any applicable movement charges,

[[Page 35899]]

discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the 
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because 
we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a 
given product were made at prices below the COP, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because such sales were found to be made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and because the below-
cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    Based on this test, we excluded from our analysis certain 
comparison-market sales of PVA products that were made at below-COP 
prices within the POR. For those U.S. sales of PVA for which there were 
no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared export price to constructed value in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated 
constructed value based on the sum of Chang Chun's cost of materials, 
fabrication, SG&A (including interest expenses), U.S. packing costs, 
and profit.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 
and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Chang Chun in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in Taiwan. We used the 
weighted-average home market selling expenses for this purpose.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated normal value based on packed, FOB or delivered prices 
to unaffiliated purchasers in Taiwan. We made adjustments to the 
starting price for returns, where appropriate. We also made deductions, 
where appropriate, for inland freight--which included inland 
insurance--pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we 
made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences 
in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for 
differences in circumstances-of-sale (``COS'') in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses (i.e., 
credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit 
expenses and bank charges). Finally, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6) 
of the Act.

Price to Constructed Value Comparisons

    Where we compared export price to constructed value, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting from constructed value the weighted-average 
home market direct selling expenses and adding the U.S. direct selling 
expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 
19 CFR 351.401(c).

Intent Not To Revoke

    On May 27, 1999, Chang Chun requested that, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b), the Department revoke the antidumping duty order on PVA 
from Taiwan, with respect to merchandise that it produces and exports, 
at the conclusion of this administrative review. Chang Chun submitted 
along with its revocation request a certification stating that: (1) the 
company sold subject merchandise at not less than normal value during 
the POR, and that in the future it would not sell such merchandise at 
less than normal value (see 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(i)); (2) the company 
has sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial 
quantities during each of the past three years (see 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(ii)); and (3) the company agrees to immediate 
reinstatement of the order, if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to revocation, has sold the subject merchandise at 
less than normal value (see 19 CFR 351.222(b)(1)(iii)).
    On November 9, 1999, the petitioner opposed the request for 
revocation, arguing that the antidumping order is necessary to offset 
dumping and that Chang Chun will sell subject merchandise at less than 
normal value if the order is revoked. At the request of the Department, 
both the petitioner and Chang Chun submitted comments on Chang Chun's 
request for revocation (see December 7, and December 14, 1999, 
revocation submissions submitted by the parties).
    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation 
in part must submit the following: (1) a certification that the company 
has sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value in the 
current review period and that the company will not sell at less than 
normal value in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold 
the subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of 
the request in commercial quantities; and (3) an agreement to immediate 
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, has sold subject merchandise at 
less than normal value. (See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)). Upon receipt of 
such a request, the Department may revoke an order, in whole or in 
part, if it concludes that all three criteria mentioned above have been 
met. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). See Final Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal From Brazil, 65 FR 7497, 
7498, (February 15, 2000) (hereafter ``Silicon Metal From Brazil'').
    Chang Chun submitted the required certifications and agreement. 
However, after applying the three criteria outlined in section 
351.222(b) of the Department's regulations, and after considering the 
comments of the parties and all of the evidence in the record, we have 
preliminarily determined that one of the Department's requirements for 
revocation has not been met. Specifically, although we preliminarily 
find that Chang Chun has demonstrated three consecutive years of sales 
at not less than normal value, we also preliminarily find that, based 
on Chang Chun's U.S. shipment data, its sales to the United States have 
not been made in commercial quantities during each of the three review 
periods at issue, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(d) and 
351.222(e)(1)(ii).
    In particular, data on the record indicate that Chang Chun's sales 
of PVA to the U.S. market during the second POR (i.e., U.S. sales 
examined during the second administrative review of this proceeding) do 
not serve as an adequate basis for finding commercial quantities when 
compared to the total U.S. sales

[[Page 35900]]

volume during the POI.\1\ (See May 22, 2000, memorandum to the file 
regarding corrections to the verification report, including commercial 
quantities data noted therein.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Chang Chun's history of subject merchandise PVA sales is as 
follows: Chang Chun's 1st POR sales of subject PVA were 7.19% of its 
POI sales of subject PVA. Chang Chun's 2nd POR sales of subject PVA 
were 4.59% of its POI sales of subject PVA. Chang Chun's 3rd POR 
sales of subject PVA were 20.98% of its POI sales of subject PVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we have determined that the requirements for revocation 
have not been met because Chang Chun has not made sales to the United 
States in commercial quantities during the second segment of this 
proceeding.\2\ Based on our examination of these facts at verification 
and our review of Chang Chun's sales practices, we find that, 
consistent with Department practice, we do not have a sufficient basis 
to conclude that the de minimis dumping margin calculated for Chang 
Chun for the second administrative review is reflective of the 
company's normal commercial experience. See, e.g., Silicon Metal from 
Brazil, 65 FR at 7498 (finding that because sales and volume figures 
were so small the Department could not conclude that the reviews 
reflected what the company's normal commercial experience would be 
absent the discipline of an antidumping duty order). Because Chang Chun 
has not met the commercial quantities requirement, we have not examined 
the issue of the likelihood of future dumping (see Silicon Metal from 
Brazil, 65 FR at 7505).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As we noted in Pure Magnesium from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To 
Revoke Order In Part, 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 16, 1999) (Pure 
Magnesium from Canada), commercial quantities is a threshold 
requirement that must be met by parties seeking revocation. We also 
note that while the regulation requiring sales in commercial 
quantities may have developed from the unreviewed intervening year 
regulation, its application in all revocation cases based on the 
absence of dumping is reasonable and mandated by the regulations. 
The application of this requirement to all such cases is reflected 
not only in the provision for unreviewed intervening years (see 19 
CFR 351.222 (d)(1)), but also in the new general requirement that 
parties seeking revocation certify to sales in commercial quantities 
in each of the years on which revocation is to be based. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(ii). This requirement ensures that the Department's 
revocation determination is based upon a sufficient breadth of 
information regarding a company's normal commercial practice. See 
Pure Magnesium from Canada, at 64 FR 12979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chang Chun attempts to explain that the significant decrease in its 
sales volume during the second administrative review period was due to 
the alleged effect of the antidumping duty cash deposit rate required 
on its U.S. shipments of PVA as a result of the LTFV investigation 
prior to the publication of the final results of the first 
administrative review of the order on PVA from Taiwan (63 FR 32810, 
June 16, 1998). Chang Chun states that the LTFV cash deposit rate was 
the major factor affecting its substantial reduction in U.S. sales 
during the second POR (i.e., 5/1/97--4/30/98). (See verification report 
at page 29 and 30.) Whether this is the case or not does not detract 
from the record evidence which unequivocally demonstrates that the 
volume of such sales was far below the volume of Chang Chun's sales 
prior to the imposition of the discipline of the antidumping duty 
order. Moreover, it is the volume of these sales (not Chang Chun's 
alleged reasons for their size in this case) that is the focus of the 
Department's analysis with respect to whether they can be considered to 
be in commercial quantities.
    Based on the foregoing analysis, we have preliminarily determined 
that Chang Chun has not met one of the threshold requirements for 
revocation (i.e., sales in commercial quantities during the three 
consecutive PORs). We therefore preliminarily intend not to revoke the 
order, with respect to PVA produced and also exported by Chang Chun, if 
these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period May 1, 1998 through April 30, 
1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd..........................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Secretary will disclose to the 
parties to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with 
this review, within five days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary results of this review. Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication or the first business day 
thereafter.
    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal 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 37 
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. 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 subsequently issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, 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 Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. The request 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.

Cash Deposit and Assessment Requirements

    The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of the antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered 
by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. 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 the final results, we 
will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review for which 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), in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For assessment purposes, we 
intend to calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject 
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total entered 
value of the sales examined.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this antidumping duty review 
for all shipments of PVA from Taiwan, 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) of the Act: (1) no cash deposit will be required for PVA from 
Taiwan that is produced by Chang Chun (unless the margin established 
for the

[[Page 35901]]

company in the final results of this review is above de minimis); (2) 
for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV 
investigation or prior reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue to 
be the company-specific rate from the LTFV investigation or the prior 
review; (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 19.21 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.
    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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: May 30, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-14206 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P