Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices 60221

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–557–805]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner and four producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia. The period

of review is October 1, 1995, through

September 30, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by each of the companies

subject to this review. If these

preliminary results are adopted in the

final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to submit comments

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or Fabian Rivelis,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1776 or (202) 482–

3853, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 1, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Extruded

Rubber Thread from Malaysia (61 FR

51259).

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1), on October 2, 1996, the

petitioner, North American Rubber

Thread, requested an administrative

review of the antidumping order

covering the period October 1, 1995,

through September 30, 1996, for the

following producers and exporters of

extruded rubber thread: Filati Lastex

Sdn. Bhd. (Filati), Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.

(Heveafil), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd.

(Rubberflex), and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd

(Rubfil). On October 31, 1996, each of

these four companies also requested an

administrative review.

On November 15, 1996, the

Department initiated an administrative

review for Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex,

and Rubfil (61 FR 58513). In December

1996, the Department issued sales

questionnaires to these four companies.

The Department also issued cost

questionnaires to Heveafil and

Rubberflex.

On February 13, 1997, Rubfil

withdrew its request for administrative

review in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(5). However, we have not

terminated the review for Rubfil because

the petitioner also requested a review

for this company. Because Rubfil did

not respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, we have assigned a

margin to Rubfil based on the facts

available. (See the ‘‘Facts Available’’

section below, for further discussion.)

Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex

submitted questionnaire responses in

February 1997. In March 1997,

petitioner alleged that Filati was selling

at prices below the cost of production

(COP) in its home market. Based on

information submitted by petitioner, the

Department found reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that sales in the

home market were made at prices below

the cost of producing the merchandise,

in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act). As a result, the Department

initiated an investigation to determine

whether Filati made home market sales

during the period of review (POR) at

prices below their respective COPs

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act.

Also in March 1997, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to Filati,

Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received

responses to these supplemental

questionnaires, as well as Filati’s initial

cost response in April 1997.

In June 1997, we issued additional

supplemental questionnaires to these

respondents. We received responses to

the supplemental questionnaires in June

and July 1997.

In July and August 1997, the

Department conducted sales and cost

verifications of the data submitted by

the three respondents participating in

this review, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.36(a)(iv).

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

extruded rubber thread. Extruded rubber

thread is defined as vulcanized rubber

thread obtained by extrusion of stable or

concentrated natural rubber latex of any

cross sectional shape, measuring from

0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140

gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch

or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded

rubber thread is currently classifiable

under subheading 4007.00.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. Our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Act are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part

353 (April 1, 1997).

Facts Available

In accordance with section 776(a)(2)

of the Act, we preliminarily determine

that the use of the facts available is

appropriate as the basis for Heveafil’s

and Rubfil’s weighted-average dumping

margins. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act

provides that if an interested party (1)

withholds information that has been

requested by the Department, (2) fails to

provide such information in a timely

manner or in the form or manner

requested, subject to subsections

782(c)(1) and (e), (3) significantly

impedes a determination under the

antidumping statute, or (4) provides

such information but the information

cannot be verified, the Department

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the

Act, use facts otherwise available in

reaching the applicable determination.

A. Heveafil

We have used the facts available with

regard to Heveafil under section

776(a)(2)(D) of the Act because the

Department could not verify the

information provided by Heveafil as

required under section 782(i) of the Act,

despite the Department’s attempts to do

so.

Specifically, we were unable to verify

the COP and constructed value (CV)

information provided by Heveafil

because we discovered at verification

that the company had destroyed the

source documents upon which a large

portion of its response was based. The

destruction of these source documents

raises particular concern, as Heveafil

should have been well aware of the
60222 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

necessity of these documents based

upon its participation in prior segments

of this proceeding. Moreover, there were

significant delays in the verification

process itself, caused by company

difficulties in locating documents and

the inability of company officials to link

information submitted in the

questionnaire response to the

accounting system. Our findings at

verification are outlined in detail in the

public version of the cost verification

report from Shawn Thompson and Irina

Itkin to Louis Apple, dated October 17,

1997.

Because we were unable to verify the

information submitted by Heveafil in

this POR and because the company

failed to adequately prepare and provide

information during the verification, we

preliminarily determine that Heveafil

did not cooperate to the best of its

ability. Thus, pursuant to section 776(b)

of the Act, we are using adverse facts

available. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value; Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR

30326, 30327–29 (June 14, 1996).

As adverse facts available for

Heveafil, we have used the highest rate

calculated for any respondent in a prior

segment of this proceeding. This rate is

54.31%. We have determined that this

rate is sufficiently high to effectuate the

purpose of the facts available rule by

deterring such non-cooperative actions

as the destruction of source documents

needed for verification.

B. Rubfil

In accordance with section

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we also

preliminarily determine that the use of

the facts available is appropriate as the

basis for Rubfil’s weighted-average

dumping margin. Specifically, Rubfil

did not respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, issued in December 1996.

Because Rubfil did not respond to the

Department’s questionnaire and because

the applicable subsections of section

782 do not apply with respect to this

company, we must use facts otherwise

available to calculate Rubfil’s dumping

margin.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used

with respect to a party that has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information. See Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No., 316, 103rd

Cong., 2d. Sess. 870 (SAA). The failure

of Rubfil to reply to the Department’s

questionnaire demonstrates that it has

failed to act to the best of its ability in

this review, and, therefore, an adverse

inference is warranted.

As adverse facts available for Rubfil,

we have used the highest rate calculated

for Rubfil in a prior segment of this

proceeding (see Extruded Rubber

Thread from Malaysia, Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 33588 (June 20, 1997)),

which is considered secondary

information within the meaning of

section 776(c) of the Act. See SAA at

870. This rate of 54.31 percent is the

cash deposit rate currently assigned to

Rubfil. In certain other proceedings we

have refrained from using a

respondent’s current cash deposit rate

as FA for that respondent. See, e.g.,

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Thailand; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review 62 FR

53821 (Oct. 16, 1997). However, based

on the facts of this case, we find that

this existing cash deposit rate is

sufficiently high as to effectuate the

purpose of the facts available rule.

C. Corroboration of Secondary

Information

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The SAA

provides that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that

the Department will satisfy itself that

the secondary information to be used

has probative value (see SAA at 870).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike for other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as facts available a calculated

dumping margin from a prior segment of

this proceeding, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of that calculated

margin. With respect to relevance,

however, the Department will consider

information reasonably at its disposal as

to whether there are circumstances that

would render a margin not relevant.

Where circumstances indicate that the

selected margin may not be appropriate,

the Department will attempt to find a

more appropriate basis for facts

available (see, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers

from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,

1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers) (where the

Department disregarded the highest

margin as adverse best information

available because the margin was based

on another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin)).

For both Heveafil and Rubfil, we

examined the rates applicable to

extruded rubber thread from Malaysia

throughout the course of the proceeding.

With regard to their probative value, the

rate specified above is reliable and

relevant because it is a calculated rate

from the 1994–1995 administrative

review. There is no information on the

record that demonstrates that the rate

selected is not an appropriate total

adverse facts available rate for Heveafil

and Rubfil. Thus, the Department

considers these rates to be appropriate

adverse facts available.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

extruded rubber thread from Malaysia to

the United States were made at less than

normal value (NV), we compared the

United States price (USP) to the NV for

Filati and Rubberflex, as specified in the

‘‘United States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice.

Level of Trade and Constructed Export

Price (CEP) Offset

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determined NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade as export price (EP)

or CEP. The NV level of trade is that of

the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

profit. For EP, it is also the level of the

starting-price sale, which is usually

from the exporter to importer. For CEP,

it is the level of the constructed sale

from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP

sales, we examined stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison-market

sales are at a different level of trade, and

the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the

level of trade of the export transaction,

we make a level of trade adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the

CEP level and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

the levels between NV and CEP affects

price comparability, we adjust NV by

making a CEP offset, in accordance with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices 60223

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard

Pipes and Tubes From India:

Preliminary Results of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 23760, 23761 (May 1,

1997).

Both Filati and Rubberflex claimed

that they made home market sales at

only one level of trade (i.e., sales to

original equipment manufacturers) and

that this level was different, and more

remote, than the level of trade at which

they made CEP sales.

Because only one level of trade

existed in the home market for both

respondents, we conducted an analysis

to determine whether a CEP offset was

warranted for either company. In order

to determine whether NV was

established at a level of trade which

constituted a more advanced state of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP, we compared the selling functions

performed for home market sales with

those performed with respect to the CEP

transaction which excludes economic

activities occurring in the United States.

We found that both respondents

performed essentially the same selling

functions in their sales offices in

Malaysia for both home market and U.S.

sales. Therefore, their sales in Malaysia

were not at a more advanced stage of

marketing and distribution than the

constructed U.S. level of trade, which

represents an FOB foreign port price

after the deduction of expenses

associated with U.S. selling activities.

Because we find that no difference in

level of trade exists between markets,

we have not granted a CEP offset to

either Filati or Rubberflex. For a

detailed explanation of this analysis, see

the concurrence memorandum issued

for the preliminary results of this

review, dated October 31, 1997.

United States Price

For sales by Filati, we based USP on

EP, in accordance with section 772(b) of

the Act, when the subject merchandise

was sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation and

when the CEP methodology of section

772(c) of the Act was not otherwise

applicable. In addition, for both Filati

and Rubberflex, where sales to the first

unaffiliated purchaser took place after

importation into the United States, we

based USP on CEP, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act. For both

companies, we revised the reported data

based on our findings at verification.

A. Filati

We based EP on the gross unit price

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. We made deductions

from gross unit price, where

appropriate, for discounts and rebates.

In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B)

of the Act, we added an amount for

uncollected import duties in Malaysia

(where we made price-to-price

comparisons). In addition, where

appropriate, we made deductions for

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling expenses, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. customs duty,

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,

and U.S. inland freight, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

For sales made from the inventory of

the U.S. subsidiary, we based USP on

CEP, in accordance with section 772(b)

of the Act. We calculated CEP based on

the gross unit price to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United

States. We made deductions from gross

unit price, where appropriate, for

discounts and rebates. In accordance

with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we

added an amount for uncollected import

duties in Malaysia (where we made

price-to-price comparisons). We also

made deductions for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling

expenses, U.S. customs duty, and U.S.

inland freight, in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We made

additional deductions, where

appropriate, for commissions, credit,

U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S.

inventory carrying costs, in accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We

recalculated U.S. indirect selling

expenses to exclude an offset claimed

by Filati relating to imputed costs

associated with financing antidumping

and countervailing duty (CVD) deposits,

in accordance the Department’s practice

(see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden and

the United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 54043, (Oct. 17, 1997)

(AFBs)).

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced gross unit price

by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP.

In accordance with section 772(f) of the

Act, we calculated CEP profit rate using

the expenses incurred by Filati and its

affiliate on their sales of the subject

merchandise in the United States and

the foreign like product in the home

market and the profit associated with

those sales.

B. Rubberflex

We based USP on CEP, in accordance

with section 772(b) of the Act. We

calculated CEP based on the gross unit

price to the first unaffiliated customer in

the United States. We made deductions

from gross unit price, where

appropriate, for discounts and rebates.

We also made deductions for foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling expenses, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. customs duty,

and U.S. inland freight, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We

made additional deductions, where

appropriate, for credit, U.S. indirect

selling expenses, and U.S. inventory

carrying costs, in accordance with

section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We

recalculated U.S. indirect selling

expenses to exclude an offset claimed

by Rubberflex relating to imputed costs

associated with financing antidumping

and CVD duty deposits, in accordance

the Department’s practice (see AFBs).

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced gross unit price

by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP.

In accordance with section 772(f) of the

Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate

using the expenses incurred by

Rubberflex and its affiliate on their sales

of the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV, we compared the

volume of each of the respondent’s

home market sales of the foreign like

product to the volume of U.S. sales of

subject merchandise, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Based on this comparison, we

determined that the aggregate volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product for both Filati and Rubberflex is

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales for these

companies. Thus, we determined that

both Filati and Rubberflex had viable

home markets during the POR.

Consequently, we based NV on home

market sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

there were reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that Rubberflex had

made home market sales at prices below

its COP in this review because the

Department had disregarded sales below

the COP for Rubberflex in a previous

administrative review (see Notice of

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Extruded

Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 61 FR

54767 (October 22, 1996)) and the

petitioner submitted an adequate

allegation that there were reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that Filati
60224 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

had made home market sales at prices

below its COP in this review. As a

result, the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether the

respondents made home market sales

during the POR at prices below their

respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for SG&A

and packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

Where possible, we used the

respondents’ reported COP amounts,

adjusted as discussed below, to compute

weighted-average COPs during the POR.

We compared the COP figures to home

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. On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges and discounts.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined (1) whether,

within an extended period of time, such

sales were made in substantial

quantities, and (2) whether such sales

were made at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in the normal

course of trade.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than 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 during the POI

were at prices less than the COP, we

determined such sales to have been

made in substantial quantities within an

extended period of time in accordance

with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In

such cases, we also determined that

such sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

the below-cost sales. Where all sales of

a specific product were at prices below

the COP, we disregarded all sales of that

product, and calculated NV based on

CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and

U.S. packing costs. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based

SG&A expenses and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by each

respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

We deducted from CV weightedaverage home market direct selling

expenses incurred on sales made in the

ordinary course of trade.

Company-specific calculations are

discussed below.

A. Filati

We made the following adjustments to

Filati’s reported COP and CV data based

on our findings at verification. For the

cost of manufacturing (COM), in order

to properly value the second quality

merchandise and apply the appropriate

manufacturing variance, we first valued

the second quality merchandise at the

standard cost of the first quality product

that was intended to be produced. We

then calculated the variance between

the revised total standard cost and the

total actual cost, and applied the

variance proportionately to each perunit standard cost. We also recalculated

Filati’s reported G&A expense ratio by

excluding the direct selling, indirect

selling, G&A expense, and financial

expenses from the denominator of the

ratio. The resulting ratio was applied to

the per-unit COM. Finally, we

recalculated Filati’s reported interest

expense to include only short-term

interest income as an offset to total

financial expense. For further

discussion of these adjustments, see the

cost calculation memorandum from

Michael Martin to Christian Marsh,

dated October 31, 1997.

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the gross unit

price to unaffiliated customers. We

made adjustments to Filati’s reported

sales data based on our findings at

verification, and where appropriate, we

made deductions for rebates.

For home market price-to-EP

comparisons, we made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)

of the Act. Pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses and bank charges. Where

applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(1), we offset any commission

paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV

by the amount of home market indirect

selling expenses and inventory carrying

costs, up to the amount of the U.S.

commission.

For home market price-to-CEP

comparisons, we made deductions for

rebates and foreign inland freight, where

appropriate, pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made

deductions for credit expenses and bank

charges.

For all price-to-price comparisons, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act. In addition, where appropriate, we

made adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.57.

For CV–to–EP comparisons, we made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for credit expenses, bank

charges, and U.S. commissions, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

and (a)(8) of the Act. Where applicable,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1),

we offset any commission paid on a U.S.

sale by reducing the NV by the amount

of home market indirect selling

expenses and inventory carrying costs,

up to the amount of the U.S.

commission.

For CV–to–CEP comparisons, we

made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses and bank charges.

We also deducted indirect selling

expenses and inventory carrying costs,

up to the amount of the U.S.

commission deducted from the CEP.

B. Rubberflex

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the gross unit

price to unaffiliated customers. We

made adjustments to Rubberflex’s

reported sales data based on our

findings at verification, and, where

appropriate, we made deductions for

discounts and rebates.

We also made deductions for foreign

inland freight, foreign inland insurance

and credit expenses. In addition, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the

Act. Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.57.

For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

credit expenses.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices 60225

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark rate for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Further, section 773A(b) directs the

Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has

undergone a sustained movement. A

sustained movement has occurred when

the weekly average of actual daily rates

exceeds the weekly average of

benchmark rates by more than five

percent for eight consecutive weeks.

(For an explanation of this method, see

Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency

Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8,

1996).) Such an adjustment period is

required only when a foreign currency

is appreciating against the U.S. dollar.

The use of an adjustment period was not

warranted in this case because the

Malaysian Ringgit did not undergo a

sustained movement.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Filati, Heveafil and Rubberflex by

using standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, examination of

relevant sales and financial records, and

selection of original source

documentation containing relevant

information.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

October 1, 1995, through September 30,

1996:

Manufacturer/exporter

Review period Margin

(percent)

Filati

Sdn.

Bhd. ... 10/01/95–9/30/96 36.36

Heveafil

Sdn.

Bhd./

Filmax

Sdn.

Bhd. ... 10/01/95–9/30/96 54.31

Rubberflex

Sdn.

Bhd. ... 10/01/95–9/30/96 4.47

Rubfil

Sdn.

Bhd. ... 10/01/95–9/30/96 54.31

Interested parties may request a

disclosure within 5 days of publication

of this notice and may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs. The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. We have

calculated an importer-specific duty

assessment rate based on the ratio of the

total amount of AD duties calculated for

the examined sales made during the

POR to the total value of subject

merchandise entered during the POR.

This rate will be assessed uniformly on

all entries of that particular importer

made during the POR. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the U.S. Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of extruded rubber thread

from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rates for Filati,

Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil will be

the rates established in the final results

of this review, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

353.6, the cash deposit will be zero; (2)

for previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate,

as set forth below.

On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT), in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and FederalMogul Corporation v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that

once an ‘‘all others’’ rate is established

for a company, it can only be changed

through an administrative review. The

Department has determined that in

order to implement this decision, it is

appropriate to reinstate the original ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV investigation

(or that rate as amended for correction

of clerical errors or as a result of

litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. In

proceedings governed by antidumping

findings, unless we are able to ascertain

the ‘‘all others’’ rate from the original

investigation, the Department has

determined that it is appropriate to

adopt the ‘‘new shipper’’ rate

established in the first final results of

administrative review published by the

Department (or that rate as amended for

correction of clerical errors or as a result

of litigation) as the ‘‘all others’’ rate for

the purposes of establishing cash

deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews. Because this

proceeding is governed by an

antidumping duty order, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate for the purposes of this

review will be 15.16 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit 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 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 administrative review and 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: October 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29400 Filed 11–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P