[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36112-36116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-836]


Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan: 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 a request by Kuraray Co., Ltd., a producer and 
exporter of polyvinyl alcohol from Japan, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
polyvinyl alcohol from Japan. The period of review is May 1, 1998, 
through April 30, 1999.
    We preliminarily find that sales of subject merchandise have been 
made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

[[Page 36113]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt, at (202) 
482-0629, or Brian Smith, at (202) 482-1766, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 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, as amended 
(``the Act''), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references are made to the 
Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') final regulations at 19 
C.F.R. Part 351 (April 1999).

Case History

    On May 14, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on 
polyvinyl alcohol (``PVA'') from Japan (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, 1998, 
through April 30, 1999 (64 FR 27235). On May 28, 1999, we received a 
request for an administrative review from Kuraray Co., Ltd. 
(``Kuraray''). On June 30, 1999, we published a notice of initiation of 
this review for Kuraray (64 FR 35124).
    On July 9, 1999, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Kuraray. 
The Department received a response from the company in September 1999.
    On October 4, 1999, the petitioner submitted a timely allegation, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, that Kuraray had made sales in 
the home market at less than the cost of production (``COP''). Our 
analysis of the allegation indicated that there were reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that Kuraray had sold PVA in the home market at 
prices at less than the COP. Accordingly, we initiated a COP 
investigation with respect to Kuraray, pursuant to section 773(b) of 
the Act (see Memorandum from Team to Louis Apple, Office Director, 
dated November 10, 1999).
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Kuraray in November 1999 
and January 2000. Responses to these questionnaires were received in 
December 1999 and February 2000, respectively.
    On January 21, 2000, the Department published a notice postponing 
the preliminary results of this review until May 30, 2000 (65 FR 3418). 
The Department conducted verification of the company's response from 
February 21 through March 17, 2000, pursuant to section 782(i)(2) of 
the Act. In April 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 period of review (``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 Kuraray. 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.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondent's sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at below normal value, we 
compared, where appropriate, the export price and constructed export 
price (``CEP'') to the normal value, as described below. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared, where appropriate, the 
export prices and CEPs 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).

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Kuraray 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 the respondent in the following 
order: viscosity, hydrolysis, particle size, tackifier, defoamer, ash, 
color, volatiles, and visual impurities.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    During the POR, Kuraray sold subject merchandise to the U.S. market 
(1) directly through its wholly-owned U.S. affiliate (Kuraray America 
Inc.) (hereafter referred to as Kuraray America); (2) through Kuraray 
America via its wholly-owned home market affiliate (Kuraray Trading 
Co., Ltd.) (hereafter referred to as Kuraray Trading); or (3) directly 
through unaffiliated Japanese trading companies.
    With respect to one Japanese trading company through which Kuraray 
sells the subject merchandise, the petitioner requested that the 
Department examine whether Kuraray and that company are affiliates. 
Based on the verified data on the record, we preliminarily find that 
Kuraray and that Japanese trading company are not affiliates under the 
criteria outlined in section 771(33) of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 
351.102(b) (see Memorandum Regarding Affiliation from Team to Louis 
Apple, Office Director, dated May 30, 2000). We are also treating the 
sales made by Kuraray to the Japanese trading company during the POR as 
export price transactions, in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act.
    However, we carefully examined the totality of circumstances 
surrounding the U.S. sales process for those U.S. sales which Kuraray 
made through its

[[Page 36114]]

U.S. affiliate. Based on the evidence on the record, we found that 
Kuraray either sells the subject merchandise directly to its U.S. 
affiliate, or through Kuraray Trading, which in turn sells the subject 
merchandise to the U.S. affiliate. For U.S. sales made only through its 
U.S. affiliate, the U.S. customer contacts Kuraray's U.S. affiliate, 
who then places the order with Kuraray. Kuraray arranges for delivery 
of the goods from Japan to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and issues 
its invoice to its U.S. affiliate for payment of the goods. Even though 
Kuraray's U.S. affiliate does not have a warehouse, it takes title to 
the goods once it pays Kuraray for the goods. The U.S. affiliate then 
issues its sales invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and collects 
payment for the goods (see verification exhibits K-49 and K-50, and 
exhibits KA-15 through KA-17 of the April 19, 2000, Verification 
Report).
    For U.S. sales made through Kuraray Trading and the U.S. affiliate, 
the U.S. affiliate still transmits the U.S. customer's order to 
Kuraray. However, Kuraray sells the goods to Kuraray Trading in Japan. 
Kuraray Trading then issues the U.S. affiliate its sales invoice. 
Kuraray Trading arranges for delivery of the goods from Japan to the 
unaffiliated U.S. customer, and the U.S. affiliate takes title to the 
goods once it pays Kuraray Trading for the goods. The U.S. affiliate 
also issues its sales invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and 
collects payment for the goods (see verification exhibits KT-8 through 
KT-10, and KA-10 through KA-12 of the April 19, 2000, Verification 
Report).
    Given the facts on the record, the Department preliminarily 
determines that, because the U.S. affiliate purchased the merchandise 
from Kuraray and/or Kuraray Trading and sold the merchandise to the 
unaffiliated purchaser, these sales were made in the United States and, 
thus, should be treated as CEP transactions (see Cold-Rolled and 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea, Final 
Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 13359 (March 13, 2000) and 
accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 12; and Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cookware from Mexico, Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 
30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 2) 
(Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico).
    For Kuraray's U.S. sales not made through its U.S. affiliate (i.e., 
made through an unaffiliated trading company in Japan), we calculated 
export price based on the reported packed FOB price between Kuraray and 
the unaffiliated trading company in Japan because Kuraray had knowledge 
that the sale was destined for the U.S. market (see verification 
exhibit K-58 of the April 19, 2000, Verification Report). We made 
deductions, as appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland 
freight from the plant to the port of exportation, foreign warehousing 
expenses, foreign inland insurance, and foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    For Kuraray's U.S. sales made through its U.S. affiliate, we based 
CEP on packed CIF or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, foreign 
inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, 
international freight, palletization charges, foreign warehousing 
expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. Customs duties 
(which include harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees), and 
U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to the customer), in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made the following adjustments to Kuraray's U.S. expense data 
based on our verification findings: (1) we corrected the reported 
amounts for foreign warehousing expenses, credit expenses, U.S. 
indirect selling expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses incurred in 
the home market, and packing expenses; and (2) we corrected invoice-
specific information with respect to gross unit price, entered value, 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international freight, and 
U.S. Customs duties (see pages 14-21 and 29-33 of the April 19, 2000, 
Verification Report for further discussion).
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from 
CEP direct and indirect selling expenses that were associated with 
Kuraray's economic activities occurring in the United States and 
associated with the sale to the U.S. customer. We also deducted from 
CEP an amount for profit, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.

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 the respondent's volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.404(b). 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 Kuraray made 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 home market sales in Japan.
    Based on our verification findings, we made the following 
adjustments to Kuraray's home market expense data: (1) we denied an 
adjustment for the rebate claimed by Kuraray Trading because the 
company was unable to demonstrate that the claimed amounts were 
actually paid to, or deducted from, the amounts owed by certain 
customers; (2) we corrected the reported amounts for one type of rebate 
offered by Kuraray, inland freight expenses from the plant to the 
warehouse, warehousing expenses, indirect selling expenses incurred by 
Kuraray Trading, and packing expenses; and (3) we corrected invoice-
specific information with respect to payment dates (see pages 22-33 of 
the April 19, 2000, Verification Report for further discussion).

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    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 or CEP transaction. The normal value LOT is that of the starting-
price sales in the comparison market 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. For CEP, it is the level of 
the constructed export sale from the exporter to the affiliated 
importer.
    To determine whether normal value sales are at a different LOT than 
export price or CEP, 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 a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) 
of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the normal value level is more 
remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the

[[Page 36115]]

difference in the levels between normal value and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust normal value under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We note that the U.S. Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has 
held that the Department's practice of determining LOT for CEP 
transactions after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. 
Supp. 2d 1221, 1241-42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The Department believes, 
however, that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On 
June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgement in Borden on the LOT 
issue. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip 
Op. 99-50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The government has filed an appeal of 
Borden which is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Department has continued to follow 
its normal practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) prior to 
starting a LOT analysis, as articulated by the Department's regulations 
at section 351.412.
    In this case, Kuraray reported two customer categories (i.e., 
distributors and end users) and three channels of distribution (sales 
through unaffiliated distributors to end users, direct sales to end 
users, and sales through its affiliate to end users) for its home 
market sales. In its response, Kuraray claims that its sales to 
unaffiliated home market customers (i.e., end users and distributors) 
are at the same LOT as its sales made through affiliated customers 
because Kuraray provides the same selling services to its unaffiliated 
and affiliated customers. Specifically, Kuraray identified the 
following selling services to both types of customer: (1) salespeople 
visits; (2) inventory maintenance; (3) after-sale service and technical 
advice; (4) advertising; (5) freight and delivery; and (6) handling of 
rejected merchandise. Based on our review of the record evidence, we 
agree with the respondent's claim that all home market sales are at the 
same LOT (see exhibit A.3.k. of the December 1, 1999, submission).
    Kuraray had both export price and CEP sales in the U.S. market. 
Kuraray reported that its export price sales were made through one 
channel of distribution (i.e., sales through unaffiliated Japanese 
trading companies to U.S. end users). Kuraray also reported that its 
CEP sales were also made through two channels of distribution (i.e., 
sales through its U.S. affiliate via its home market affiliate and 
sales through its U.S. affiliate only), which we have treated as one 
LOT because there is no apparent difference in the selling functions 
performed by Kuraray. In analyzing Kuraray's selling activities for its 
export price sales, we found that the export price sales involved 
basically the same selling functions associated with the home market 
LOT described above (i.e., inventory maintenance, freight and delivery, 
and handling of rejected merchandise). Therefore, based upon this 
information, we preliminarily determine that the LOT for all export 
price sales is the same as that in the home market.
    For sales which we re-categorized as CEP sales, after making the 
appropriate deductions under section 772(d) of the Act, we found that 
there are no remaining expenses associated with selling activities 
performed by Kuraray that are reflected in the CEP price. In contrast, 
the normal value prices include selling expenses attributable to 
selling activities performed by Kuraray for the home market, such as 
sales support and freight and delivery functions (see exhibit A.3.k. of 
the December 1, 1999, submission). Accordingly, we have concluded that 
CEP is at a different LOT from the normal value LOT.
    We then examined whether a LOT adjustment or CEP offset may be 
appropriate. In this case, Kuraray only sold at one LOT in the home 
market; therefore, there is no information available to determine a 
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which 
normal value is based and the comparison market sales at the LOT of the 
export transaction, in accordance with the Department's normal 
methodology as described above (see Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from 
Mexico and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6). Further, we 
do not have information which would allow us to examine pricing 
patterns based on respondent'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 
provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT 
in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
LOT of the CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Cost of Production Analysis (``COP'')

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP 
investigation of sales made by Kuraray 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, G&A expenses, and packing costs. We relied 
on the submitted COPs except that we have adjusted Kuraray's reported 
per-unit costs to account for the overstatement of acetic acid amounts. 
We also revised Kuraray's G&A and interest expenses based on our 
verification findings (see Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum 
from team to the File, dated May 30, 2000).

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP 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, discounts, rebates 
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 and the contemporaneous months of the POR (see 
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum from team to the File, dated 
May 30, 2000).

[[Page 36116]]

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated normal value based on both packed, FOB or delivered 
prices Kuraray charged to its unaffiliated purchasers in Japan and 
packed, FOB or delivered prices Kuraray Trading charged to its 
unaffiliated purchasers in Japan. We made adjustments to the starting 
price for discounts and rebates, where appropriate. We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, for inland freight (i.e., plant to 
warehouse and warehouse to customer), inland insurance and warehousing 
expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    For all comparisons, we made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment, 
where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses, pursuant to 
section 773 (a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.410(c).
    For comparisons to CEP sales, we also deducted from normal value 
the lesser of comparison-market indirect selling expenses and indirect 
selling expenses deducted from CEP (the CEP offset), pursuant to 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.412(f).
    For comparisons to both export price and CEP sales, we made 
adjustments to normal value for differences in packing expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. We also made adjustments 
to normal value, where appropriate, for differences in costs 
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the 
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 
C.F.R. 351.411.

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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuraray Co., Ltd.............................................       2.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(b), the Department will conduct 
disclosure within five days after the date of publication of this 
notice. 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 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 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. The Department will 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service upon completion of this review. For Kuraray, for duty 
assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific 
assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total 
entered value of subject merchandise of the same sales for each 
importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the 
Customs Service 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 
(i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this antidumping duty review 
for all shipments of PVA from Japan, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for 
Kuraray will be rate established in the final results; (2) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original less-than-fair-value (``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 (3) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 77.49 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. 00-14352 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P