[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51449-51453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-421-701]


Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands. 
This review covers sales to the United States by one manufacturer/
exporter, Outokumpu Copper Strip B.V. (OBV), and its U.S. affiliate, 
Outokumpu Copper (USA), Inc., of the subject merchandise during the 
period of

[[Page 51450]]

review (POR), August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. We gave interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Based on 
our analysis of the comments received, we have changed the results from 
those presented in the preliminary results of review, where indicated 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karla Whalen or Lisette Lach, Office 
of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group III, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-6412, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the 
Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations, as codified at 19 CFR Part 353 
(1997).

Scope of This Review

    Imports covered by this review include brass sheet and strip, other 
than leaded and tin brass sheet and strip, from the Netherlands. The 
chemical composition of the products under review is currently defined 
in the Copper Development Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the 
Unified Numbering System (U.N.S.) C20000 series. This review does not 
cover products the chemical composition of which are defined by other 
C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. The physical dimensions of the products 
covered by this review are brass sheet and strip of solid rectangular 
cross section over 0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through 0.188 inch (4.8 
millimeters) in gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels 
(traverse-wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The 
merchandise under review is currently classifiable under items numbers 
7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under review is dispositive.

Background

    On August 12, 1988, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip (BSS) from 
the Netherlands (53 FR 30455). On August 12, 1996, the Department 
published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review'' for the period August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996 on BSS 
from the Netherlands (61 FR 41768). In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(a)(1), OBV requested that we conduct a review of its sales. On 
September 17, 1996, we published in the Federal Register a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping administrative review (61 FR 48882). 
This review covers entries of BSS by OBV and its U.S. affiliate 
Outokumpu Copper (USA), Inc. (OCUSA). On May 12, 1997, the Department 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 
administrative review (62 FR 25891). On May 27, 1997, respondent 
submitted a ministerial error allegation.
    On June 11, 1997, petitioners submitted a case brief and on June 
18, 1997, respondent submitted a reply brief. Neither petitioners 
(Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller Company, Olin Corporation, Revere 
Copper Products, Inc., International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers, the International Union, Allied Industrial Workers 
of America (AFL-CIO/CLC)) nor respondent requested a hearing; 
therefore, no hearing was held. The Department has now completed this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Reporting of Metal Prices on ``Rework'' Sales

    Petitioners allege that for certain home market sales, OBV failed 
to report a metal price. Petitioners base this claim on OBV's statement 
in its section B response that ``[r]ework sales may also involve 
reworking scrap purchased by OBV which is fabricated into a finished 
product.'' Therefore, petitioners conclude that as the Department has 
been working with an ``incomplete'' database for the home market sales, 
the Department should reject the home market database as submitted and 
resort to use of facts available, or at a minimum, impute the maximum 
metal cost to these sales.
    Respondent replies that petitioners' allegation evidences a 
misunderstanding of ``rework'' sales as reported by OBV. OBV claims 
that it accurately reported prices for all sales, including the metal 
component, where applicable. First, OBV reasserts that when it 
purchased metal, fabricated the metal, and invoiced the customer for 
both metal and fabrication, the gross unit price reported to the 
Department included both metal and fabrication prices. Further, 
respondent asserts that if a transaction reported in the home market 
sales list does not provide a metal price, that transaction was a toll 
sale, whereby the customer supplied the metal, OBV processed the metal 
and subsequently invoiced the customer solely for fabrication. 
Therefore, OBV did not report a metal price for these toll sales.
    Second, OBV believes that petitioners' allegation results partly 
from confusion regarding the nature of the types of sales coded in 
Field 8.5, REWRKH, of OBV's home market sales list. When OBV purchased 
scrap from a customer and provided fabrication services to the 
customer, OBV considered these non-toll sales, which it reported to the 
Department with both a metal and fabrication price. Respondent points 
out that all sales coded in Field 8.5, with an ``R'' or a ``B,'' are 
toll sales in which the customer provided the metal to OBV for 
fabrication and OBV invoiced the customer only for fabrication charges. 
Sales designated in the sales listing by an ``R'' indicate transactions 
where the customer provides scrap metal for processing into subject 
merchandise. Sales designated by a ``B'' indicate transactions where 
the customer provides virgin metal for processing into subject 
merchandise. The metal fixation codes for each of these types of 
transactions evidence a tolling process. Thus, respondent reported a 
zero metal price for both ``R'' and ``B'' transactions, since there is 
no applicable metal price for these types of transactions.
    Third, respondent argues that at verification the Department 
verified both types of transactions and verified that OBV reported a 
metal price for all sales where the customer was actually charged for 
the metal as well as for the fabrication. The Department found no 
discrepancies in the sales traces. Finally, respondent notes that a 
comparison of the average prices charged for rework and regular sales 
demonstrates a credible difference in pricing.
    For the reasons identified above, respondent argues that there is 
no basis for the Department to apply facts available or to make changes 
to the reported sales information as the record clearly demonstrates 
that the sales price data reported by OBV was complete, accurate and 
fully verified by the Department.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent that it fully 
reported its sales

[[Page 51451]]

in accordance with the Department's instructions. Whenever there was a 
metal price associated with any given sale, it was reported by OBV. The 
Department verified several scenarios, including sales of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade where customers purchased 
the fully processed, finished product from OBV. The Department also 
verified that OBV made what are commonly referred to as ``rework'' or 
``tolled sales.'' (See OBV Sales Verification Report, dated April 16, 
1997, at 32-37). OBV reported these as either an ``R'' or a ``B'' in 
Field 8.5, REWRKH, of its home market data base. In this situation, OBV 
acts purely as a subcontractor. OBV receives raw or semi-finished 
material (whether scrap or plate) from the unaffiliated customer, which 
OBV then fabricates into the finished merchandise before sending it 
back to the customer. OBV performs this service for a fabrication fee 
and never takes title either to the input product or the finished 
merchandise.

Comment 2: Constructed Value Profit

    Petitioners claim that the Department erroneously disregarded 
``rework'' sales from its calculation of constructed value (CV) profit. 
Petitioners maintain that the Department must include all sales of the 
foreign like product in the CV profit calculation, whether or not such 
sales are used as the basis of product comparisons. Petitioners argue 
that the ``rework'' sales are made in the ordinary course of trade and 
as such must be included in the calculation of CV profit. Petitioners 
also argue that the nature of the metal or scrap input does not matter 
in determining whether these sales are outside of the ordinary course 
of trade, since the final product produced by OBV is identified by 
identical product control numbers. They argue that it is unjustifiable 
to exclude such sales for any reason other than a finding that the 
sales are outside of the ordinary course of trade. Accordingly, 
petitioners claim that ``rework'' sales should be included in the 
calculation of CV profit.
    OBV states that the Department properly excluded the rework sales 
from the calculation of constructed value profit because they are toll 
sales which should properly be classified as outside of the ordinary 
course of trade. Rework sales are sales of fabrication services, not 
sales of the foreign like product. OBV equates its rework sales to toll 
sales because the customer provides the material to be fabricated by 
OBV. OBV, in turn, fabricates the material into a finished product that 
is shipped back to the customer, and the customer is only invoiced for 
the fabrication service provided by OBV. Respondent reiterates that 
fabrication does not encompass the sale of a product, and consequently, 
any profit earned by OBV on toll sales should be excluded from the 
constructed value calculation for normal sales of brass sheet and 
strip. OBV further argues that it has been the Department's policy to 
exclude toll sales from the calculation of normal value, where the U.S. 
transactions did not involve toll sales. See Brass Sheet and Strip from 
the Republic of Korea, 51 FR 40833, 40834 (November 10, 1986). Thus, 
respondent urges the Department to continue to follow Department 
practice and exclude rework/toll sales from the normal value 
calculation and from the calculation of constructed value profit.
    OBV adds, however, that should the Department deviate from its own 
precedents with regard to the issue of rework/toll sales, as well as 
its established policy in all reviews of Brass Sheet and Strip from the 
Netherlands, the Department should apply a sales-below-cost test using 
the data reported by OBV and verified by the Department. Respondent 
argues that petitioners' recommendation that the Department alter the 
verified prices reported in OBV's sales list for the rework sales prior 
to the cost test is legally and factually unsubstantiated. 
Alternatively, respondent suggests that the Department rely on the 
reported gross price and the reported cost of production (COP).
    Department's Position: Previously, the Department treated tolling 
operations as involving the sale by the subcontractor of the subject 
merchandise. Under this view, in tolling situations, ``only the 
fabrication would be subject to the order on brass sheet and strip.'' 
Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; Final Affirmative Determination of 
Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 33610, 33612 (June 18, 
1993). Accordingly, when possible, the Department compared tolled sales 
to tolled sales and non-tolled sales to non-tolled sales. See, e.g., 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brass Sheet and 
Strip From Italy, 52 FR 816 (Jan. 9, 1987); Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada, 51 FR 
44319 (Dec. 9, 1986).
    Recently, however, the Department revised its practice and now 
considers the party contracting for the tolling, rather than the 
processor or subcontractor, to be the producer/exporter of the 
merchandise. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14070 (March 29, 1996). The 
Department's new approach to tolling is reflected in the recently 
adopted regulations implementing the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(URAA). See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 
FR 27296, 27411 (May 19, 1997) (Sec. 351.401(h)). These regulations do 
not govern the present review because the review was initiated prior to 
the date the regulations became effective. However, to the extent the 
regulations reflect the Department's practice, they do provide 
guidance.
    In the case of tolling, the Department revised its practice prior 
to the date the new regulations were proposed. Although this change was 
not directly necessitated by the URAA, the Department considers its new 
approach to tolling a more reasonable interpretation of the statute's 
intent. This is because, as described in the preamble to the proposed 
regulations, the party owning the components of the subject 
merchandise, the general contractor who arranges for the outside 
processing or assembly, ``has ultimate control over how the merchandise 
is produced and the manner in which it is ultimately sold. The 
Department will not consider the subcontractor to be the manufacturer 
or producer, regardless of the proportion of production attributable to 
the subcontracted operation or the location of the subcontractor or 
owner of the goods.'' Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 
Proposed Rule, 61 FR 7308, 7330 (Feb. 27, 1996) (preamble).
    Thus, the Department does not view OBV's sales of its tolling 
services as sales of the foreign like product within the ordinary 
course of trade. See 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677b(a)(1) (1995). Therefore, we 
have not included OBV's reported sales of its tolling services within 
the home market data base for comparison purposes or otherwise. 
Similarly, any profit derived from these sales should not be included 
in the calculation of constructed value.

Comment 3: Packing Conversion Error

    Petitioners note that in calculating OBV's packing costs for sales 
in the United States, the Department divided by the conversion factor 
when it should have multiplied by the conversion factor in converting 
pounds to kilograms. Therefore, the Department should correct this 
error in its final margin calculation program. OBV did not comment.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioners and 
has corrected this error in the final program.

[[Page 51452]]

Comment 4: U.S. Imputed Credit Expenses

    Petitioners allege that OBV incorrectly used a home market interest 
rate, instead of a U.S. interest rate, to determine imputed credit 
expenses for U.S. sales. Petitioners argue that this is inconsistent 
with the Department's practice, for the Department usually calculates 
imputed credit expenses by using a weighted-average, short-term 
borrowing rate that reflects the currency in which the sale was 
invoiced. Therefore, given that OBV's U.S. sales were invoiced in U.S. 
dollars, the U.S. short-term interest rate should be used to determine 
imputed credit expenses for OBV's U.S. sales.
    Petitioners state that the Department should recalculate OBV's U.S. 
imputed credit expenses using the publicly available U.S. short-term 
borrowing rate prevailing during the POR, since OBV's actual short-term 
borrowing rate in the United States is not available. Petitioners 
suggest that the Department use 8.52 percent, which is the average U.S. 
prime rate for third-quarter 1995 through second-quarter 1996, as 
published by the International Monetary Fund (See International 
Financial Statistics at 645 (April 1997)). OBV did not comment.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioners. 
Ordinarily, the Department calculates imputed credit expenses using a 
weighted-average, short-term borrowing rate which reflects the currency 
in which the sale was invoiced. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30324 
(June 14, 1996); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29557 (June 5, 
1995); and Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 60 FR 10552 
(February 27, 1995). The Department has continued to apply OBV's actual 
Dutch guilders denominated short-term borrowing rates as reported for 
all home market sales. OBV had no reported short-term borrowing rates 
for its sales to the United States, all of which were denominated in 
U.S. dollars. Therefore, consistent with our current practice, the 
Department has applied 8.47 percent, the average U.S. prime rate for 
August 1995 through July 1996, as published by the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System. See Federal Reserve Bulletin at A22 
(July 1997).

Comment 5: Cost of Manufacturing

    Petitioners note that the Department's cost of production 
verification report states that OBV discovered errors in its submitted 
COM while preparing for verification. Petitioners maintain that for the 
final determination the Department should correct the errors reported 
by OBV. OBV did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioners and 
has made the required adjustment to COM in the final margin calculation 
program.

Comment 6: Direct Cost Center Allocation

    Petitioners note that in OBV's normal accounting records, it 
allocates costs for its direct cost centers on the basis of kilograms 
processed. However, for this review, OBV allocated costs for two of its 
costs centers on the basis of linear meters processed. Petitioners 
argue that section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act requires and the 
Department's practice is to rely on the respondent's books and records 
if they reasonably reflect the costs associated with the cost of 
producing the subject merchandise. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 
29533, 29559 (June 5, 1995). Petitioners state that the Department 
obtained information during verification indicating that the allocation 
methodology used by OBV in its questionnaire response is not consistent 
with the allocation methods used by OBV in the normal course of 
business. Therefore, petitioners conclude that the Department should 
adjust OBV's reported conversion costs to reflect the cost allocation 
methods used by OBV in the normal course of business.
    Respondent states that the Department must reject petitioners' 
request to adjust OBV's control number specific costs submitted to the 
Department. According to OBV, the allocation it uses in the normal 
course of business assigns costs to broad product groups and fails to 
capture the cost of the product characteristics defined by the 
Department. Respondent notes that the Department's Section D 
questionnaire requires that the submitted costs recognize the 
differences in physical characteristics of the subject merchandise. 
Respondent maintains that it developed the linear meters processed 
allocation methodology in order to accurately report product-specific 
costs to the Department. Respondent contends that allocating costs 
based on OBV's normal methodology (i.e., on a per kilogram processed 
basis), as requested by petitioners, results in control numbers being 
assigned the same average costs. OBV notes that products with different 
dimensions require vastly differing amounts of processing time, with 
thin products undergoing more processing than the average product, 
while thick products undergo less processing. Respondent states that 
the cost centers allocated based on linear meters processed are 
primarily responsible for setting the dimension of the products 
manufactured. Respondent explains that the allocation of these cost 
center expenses over linear meters processed most accurately recognizes 
the differences in processing time in a manner that was tied directly 
to the company's production and financial records.
    Department's Position: We agree with OBV that its method of 
allocating costs based on linear meters processed is reasonable. As a 
general matter, section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act provides:

    Costs shall normally be calculated based on the records of the 
exporter or producer of the merchandise, if such records are kept in 
accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the 
exporting country (or the producing country, where appropriate) and 
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale 
of the merchandise.

    Accordingly, the Department adheres to an individual firm's 
recording of costs, if we are satisfied that the methodology reasonably 
reflects the costs of producing the subject merchandise, and is in 
accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) of 
the producer's home country. See, e.g., Canned Pineapple Fruit from 
Thailand; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 
29553, 29559 (June 5, 1995); Certain Stainless Steel Welded Pipe from 
the Republic of Korea; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 57 FR 53693, 53705 (November 12, 1992); and Furfuryl Alcohol 
from South Africa: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 60 FR 22550, 22556 (May 8, 1995). Normal accounting practices 
provide an objective standard by which to measure costs, while allowing 
respondents a predictable basis on which to compute those costs. The 
Department will only reject or adjust a party's reported costs based 
upon its normal accounting practices if those practices result in an 
unreasonable allocation of production costs. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper 
Printing Presses and Components

[[Page 51453]]

Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan, 61 FR 38139, 
38154 (May 26, 1992).
    At the same time, parties may adapt their normal cost accounting 
system to report data to the Department on a product-specific basis, 
provided the reporting methodology used is reasonable. See Canned 
Pineapple From Thailand, 60 FR at 29559-60. In the instant proceeding, 
OBV developed its linear meters processed allocation methodology in 
order to report its cost of production and constructed value on a 
product-specific basis to the Department. At verification, the 
Department requested and analyzed in detail source documents relating 
both to OBV's normal cost accounting system and its linear meter 
allocation methodology as reported. See OBV COP/CV Verification Report, 
dated March 2, 1997, at 20. OBV argued and we confirmed that OBV's 
normal cost accounting system, which relied upon an average cost for 
all products, did not account for the cost differences associated with 
varying dimensions of brass sheet products. These cost differences 
resulted from processing time differences between different thicknesses 
and grades of brass sheet. Although we have not necessarily determined 
that OBV's normal cost accounting system does not reasonably reflect 
OBV's costs for reporting purposes, we have determined that the linear 
meters processed allocation methodology captures the cost differences 
between the varying dimensions of brass sheet products. Accordingly, we 
have determined that OBV's submitted methodology for allocating costs 
to specific products is reasonable and we have continued to rely upon 
this methodology for the final results.

Comment 7: Duty Absorption

    Petitioners allege that the Department incorrectly stated in its 
duty absorption analysis that dumped sales through OBV's affiliate were 
1.13 percent of total U.S. sales. Petitioners state that previous 
Department duty absorption findings indicate the duty absorption 
finding should represent the percentage volume of sales that are dumped 
over the total U.S. sales in the POR, rather than the percentage margin 
of dumping. As such, in its final results of this review, the 
Department should identify in its duty absorption finding only the 
percent of OBV's U.S. sales (by quantity) where dumping was found. 
Respondent did not comment on this issue in its reply brief.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioners that 
when there are margins for particular sales, in our final duty 
absorption determination, we will provide the percentage (by volume ) 
of sales that are dumped out of the total U.S. sales during the POR. 
During this review, however, the Department has determined that there 
is no dumping margin for OBV on any of its U.S. sales during the POR. 
Therefore, the final duty absorption finding is negative.

Comment 8: Ministerial Error Allegation Regarding Credit Adjustments

    On May 27, 1997, respondent alleged that the Department made a 
ministerial error in the preliminary margin calculation program 
regarding certain credit adjustments. The Department added these 
reported credit adjustments in the calculation of home market discounts 
and rebates. In doing so, respondent claimed that the Department 
double-counted these credit adjustments as the home market gross unit 
price was reported net of these credit adjustments. Accordingly, OBV 
requested that this error be corrected prior to the issuance of the 
final results. Petitioners did not comment on this allegation.
    Department's Position: Based on respondent's submissions and the 
Department's verification findings, we agree with OBV that the credit 
adjustment field should not have been included in the calculation of 
discounts and rebates. This error has been corrected in the 
Department's final margin calculation program. The Department did not 
issue an amended preliminary determination because doing so is not the 
Department's standard practice and the noted error did not 
significantly affect the preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists for the period August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                     Manufacturer/exporter                       margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outokumpu Copper Strip B.V. (OBV).............................      0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and foreign market value may 
vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective 
upon publication of his notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the Netherlands entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rates for OBV will be the rate as stated above; (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, 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 (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this review, the cash rate will be 16.99 percent, 
which was the ``all others'' rate as established in the LTFV 
investigation. The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR section 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: September 9, 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-26044 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P