[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61084-61092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29958]



[[Page 61084]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-791-802]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Furfuryl Alcohol From the Republic of South Africa

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

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

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the Republic of South Africa. The 
review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United States during 
the period December 16, 1994, through May 31, 1996, the period of 
review.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, and the correction 
of certain ministerial errors, we have changed the preliminary results. 
The final results are listed below in the section ``Final Results of 
Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Frederick or Kris Campbell, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-0186 and (202) 482-3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreement Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of 
Commerce's (``the Department's'') regulations are to the provisions 
codified at 19 CFR part 353, as of April 1, 1996. Where we cite to the 
Department's new regulations (19 CFR part 351, 62 FR 27926 (May 19, 
1997) (``New Regulations'') as an indication of current Department 
practice, we have so stated.

Background

    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter to the United States 
of the subject merchandise, Illovo Sugar Limited (``ISL''). On July 8, 
1997, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary 
Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Furfuryl Alcohol from the Republic of South Africa, 62 FR 36488 (``the 
preliminary results''). We received case and rebuttal briefs from QO 
Chemicals, Inc (``the petitioner'') and ISL on August 7, 1997, and 
August 26, 1997, respectively. A public hearing was held on August 28, 
1997.
    The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol 
(C<INF>4</INF>H<INF>3</INF>OCH<INF>2</INF>OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a 
primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is 
used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent 
for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other 
soluble dyes. The product subject to this order is classifiable under 
subheading 2932.13.00 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 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Constructed Export Price (``CEP'')

    For sales to the United States, we calculated CEP based on the same 
methodology used in the preliminary results, with the following 
exceptions:
    1. We excluded certain sales made of furfuryl alcohol which entered 
the United States prior to the suspension of liquidation. See Comment 
6.
    2. We based the calculation of the CEP profit rate on information 
contained in ISL's audited financial statements regarding profits made 
on ``by-products'' rather than on the total profit figure in the 
company's financial statements. See Comment 8.
    3. We have treated the quality testing expense that ISL incurs upon 
furfuryl alcohol's arrival in the United States as a movement expense 
and not as an indirect selling expense. See Comment 9.
    4. We limited the deduction of indirect expenses incurred in the 
home market on behalf of U.S. sales to the expenses of ISL personnel 
incurred for travel to the United States. See Comment 10.
    5. Tank car rental credits gained for transporting furfuryl alcohol 
in the United States are no longer added to CEP because the reported 
tank car rental expense is net of such credits. See Comment 11.
    6. Certain U.S. inventory carrying costs have been converted from 
Rand to U.S. dollars. See Comment 12.

Normal Value (``NV'')

    We used the same methodology to calculate NV as that described in 
the preliminary results.

Analysis of Comments Received

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We received a case 
brief from the petitioner and a rebuttal brief from ISL (e.g., 
``Petitioner Case Brief'', ``ISL Rebuttal Brief'').
    Comment 1: Fictitious Home Market: The petitioner argues that the 
Department erred in the preliminary results by not determining that a 
fictitious market exists in South Africa rendering HM sales of furfuryl 
alcohol inappropriate as a basis for NV. The petitioner contends that 
the Department unlawfully restricted the applicability of the 
fictitious market provision (section 773(a)(2) of the Act) to 
situations where there is evidence of different movements in prices at 
which different forms of the foreign like product are sold or offered 
for sale.
    Specifically, the petitioner argues that the Department's 
restriction of this provision to situations involving price movements 
of different forms of the foreign like product is incorrect for the 
following reasons. First, the legislative history of the 1988 amendment 
to the fictitious market provision (which provides that the Department 
may consider ``different movements in prices at which different forms 
of the foreign like product are sold or offered for sale'' as evidence 
of a fictitious market) clearly indicates that this evidence is simply 
an illustrative example of a fictitious market and does not prevent the 
Department from finding a fictitious market based on other evidence. In 
this regard, the petitioner cites the Senate Report accompanying this 
amendment: ``The purpose of this provision is to highlight one 
particular example of a fictitious market.'' S.Rep. No. 71, 100th 
Congress., 1st Sess. at 126 (1987) (Senate Report) (emphasis 
petitioner's). Second, the petitioner contends that the Department's 
interpretation conflicts with PQ Corp v. United States, 652 F. Supp. 
724, 729 (CIT 1987) (``PQ Corp.''), which, although it predated the 
1988 amendment, continues to offer the proper reading of the general 
purpose of the fictitious market provision as concerned with preventing 
``parties from manipulating dumping margins by * * * offering 
merchandise at a price that does not reflect its actual market

[[Page 61085]]

price.'' Third, the petitioner claims that the Department's reasoning 
renders the provision a nullity in all cases where there is only one 
form of the foreign like product, as in this review. The petitioner 
concludes that the Department's overly restrictive reading of the 
fictitious market provision has allowed ISL to manipulate the results 
of this review by establishing a fictitious market through severe home 
market price reductions even though the world price for furfuryl 
alcohol increased during the period of review (``POR'').
    ISL responds that the petitioner's reading of the fictitious market 
provision is overly broad and contends that the Department should 
sustain its position in the preliminary results that a fictitious 
market does not exist in the home market. Citing Tubeless Steel Disc 
Wheels from Brazil, 56 FR 14083 (April 5, 1991) (Disc Wheels), 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, 58 FR 32095 (June 8, 1993) 
(Porcelain Cookware), and the Department's June 30, 1997, Memorandum, 
ISL contends that: (a) The Department has always required evidence of 
price movements of different forms of the foreign like product before 
pursuing a fictitious market allegation; (b) furfuryl alcohol is a 
single, unitary product and there is no possibility that the prices of 
different forms of the foreign like product could be manipulated to 
distort the dumping margin; and (c) contrary to the petitioner's 
interpretation of PQ Corp., this case stands for the proposition that 
there is no reason to invoke the fictitious market provision absent 
evidence that a sale is anything less than a bona fide transaction; in 
this case, the viability and reality of the transactions is not in 
dispute. ISL adds that the petitioner's concern with reduced home 
market prices is more appropriate to a below-cost allegation, which the 
petitioner chose not to file, and concludes that a respondent is within 
its discretion to eliminate price discrimination by either raising U.S. 
price, lowering home market price, or doing a combination of the two, 
citing Final Results of Redetermination to Court Remand, The Timken 
Company v. United States, CIT Case No. 94-01-00008 (December 17, 1996)) 
(Timken Remand).
    DOC Position: We agree with ISL that the record evidence regarding 
its South African sales does not warrant a finding that ISL has 
established a fictitious home market. Our general practice in 
determining whether a fictitious market exists is to require evidence 
that the decrease in the price of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was accompanied by an increase in the price of sales of 
``different forms of the foreign like product.'' See Disc Wheels, 56 FR 
at 14085 (``[B]efore pursuing a [fictitious market] allegation, the 
Department must have sufficient evidence to believe that there have 
been different movements in the prices at which different forms of the 
subject merchandise have been sold in the home market'') and Porcelain 
Cookware, 58 FR at 32096 (``In order for price differences to serve as 
a basis for initiating a fictitious sales inquiry . . . the Department 
must have sufficient evidence to believe or suspect that there have 
been different movements in the prices at which different forms of the 
subject merchandise have been sold in the home market and that such 
movements appear to reduce the amount by which foreign market value 
(FMV) exceeds the U.S. price of the merchandise''). As we explained in 
the June 30, 1997, Memorandum, the facts that the petitioner presents 
in support of its claim, centering around a single supplier selling at 
low prices in the home market, do not justify an expansion of our 
practice.
    Although our position regarding the petitioner's claim was stated 
clearly in that memorandum, we make the following additional points 
regarding the petitioner's comments as contained in its case brief. 
First, given the language in the Senate Report to the 1988 amendment to 
the fictitious market provision that price movements within a foreign 
like product are ``one example of a fictitious market,'' it is possible 
that we may determine in the future that a fact pattern other than 
price movements within a foreign like product constitutes a fictitious 
market. However, the fact pattern before us, involving a single 
respondent that lowered its home market prices during the POR, is 
insufficient to make such a determination and, in fact, would conflict 
with a basic tenet of the dumping law were we to do so. As noted in the 
Timken Remand, a respondent may reduce or eliminate dumping either by 
raising its U.S. prices or by lowering its home market prices of 
merchandise subject to the order. A finding that ISL has created a 
fictitious market based solely on ISL's lowering of its home market 
furfuryl alcohol prices would contradict this basic proposition.
    Second, regarding the petitioner's argument that CIT's decision in 
PQ Corp. requires a different result, we agree with the petitioner that 
the court indicated that a fictitious market could exist when the price 
of merchandise ``does not reflect its actual price.'' However, we 
disagree that the information on the record indicates that ISL's home 
market sales fail to meet this standard. Rather, ISL's home market 
sales were bona fide transactions involving a significant number of 
customers made during the course of the POR. These customers ordered, 
received, and paid for the merchandise in the normal course of business 
based on prices contained in ISL's price lists. Further, the total 
quantity of ISL's home market sales was far in excess of the viability 
threshold and in our view those South African sales must be considered 
one of the company's primary markets.
    Finally, based on the above facts concerning ISL's home market 
sales, we disagree with the petitioner's assertion that the Department 
is rendering the fictitious market provision a nullity where, as here, 
there was no other form of the foreign like product to which a price 
comparison can be made. Rather, given the facts surrounding ISL's home 
market sales, we have determined that the harm that this provision 
seeks to prevent (artificial pricing leading to the elimination of a 
finding of dumping) is not present in this case. As a result, there is 
no reason in this proceeding to go beyond our normal practice of 
determining the existence of a fictitious market based on a comparison 
of prices of different forms of the foreign like product.
    Comment 2: Home Market Customer Affiliation: The petitioner argues 
that ISL is affiliated with its home market customers due to its self-
described status as the only established producer and seller of 
furfuryl alcohol in South Africa. Citing the SAA's discussion (at 838) 
of possible affiliation in the absence of an equity relationship (in 
elaborating on section 771(33)(G) of the Act), the petitioner states 
that affiliation can result from the ability of one company ``to 
exercise restraint or direction'' over another company through a 
``close supplier relationships in which the supplier or buyer becomes 
reliant upon the other.''
    In addition, the petitioner commented on the following specific 
aspects of the Department's June 30, 1997, Memorandum, which provided 
an analysis of this issue for the preliminary results. In this 
memorandum, the Department noted that: (a) ISL's home market customers 
appear to be free to purchase furfuryl alcohol from any source willing 
to offer it; (b) a 10 percent tariff rate appeared to be the only 
barrier to trade facing furfuryl alcohol; and (c) that it appears that 
furfuryl alcohol based resins compete with phenolic resins.
    The petitioner counters these points by arguing that: (a) as stated 
in the Final Results of Antidumping Duty

[[Page 61086]]

Administrative Review: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Taiwan, 
62 FR 37543, 37550 (July 14, 1997), the Department focuses on actual 
supplier relationships, not putative statements regarding freedom to 
purchase from other suppliers; (b) the 10 percent tariff is significant 
given the absence of furfuryl alcohol imports to South Africa during 
the POR; (c) there is evidence of barriers to trade such as 
insignificant purchasing power, immense transportation distances from 
foreign suppliers, insufficient storage for foreign bulk shipments, and 
the possibility of ISL's customers' damaging their relationship with 
ISL, the sole domestic supplier; and (d) there are in fact no 
substitutes for furfuryl alcohol in its primary uses.
    These facts, the petitioner concludes, demonstrate affiliation 
between ISL and its home market customers, warranting the rejection of 
ISL's home market sales unless they are determined to have been made at 
arm's length.
    ISL responds that the Department was correct in determining, in its 
June 30, 1997, Memorandum at 8, that the petitioner's allegation that 
ISL is affiliated with its home market customers is ``an overly broad 
interpretation of the affiliation via control provision in section 
771(33)(G).'' According to ISL, the fact that it is the sole domestic 
producer of furfuryl alcohol in South Africa is not sufficient to 
support a finding of affiliation with its home market customers. 
Specifically, ISL argues that: (a) None of the home market customers is 
related to ISL by ownership; (b) sales are freely negotiated with home 
market customers using the company's price lists; (c) there are no 
long-term sales or agency agreements with home market customers; (d) 
all home market customers are free to purchase from abroad; (e) there 
are no import barriers on furfuryl alcohol--the tariff rate on this 
product entering South Africa before December 1996 was 10 percent and 
zero thereafter; and (f) the International Trade Commission's (ITC) 
report notes that while there are no precise substitutes for furfuryl 
alcohol itself, phenolic resins compete in the foundry industry with 
furfuryl alcohol's primary downstream products, furan resins. 
Accordingly, ISL contends, there are no indicia of control.
    Finally, ISL notes that the Department has recently considered this 
issue in a number of cases and did not find affiliation between 
domestic producers of the foreign like product and home market 
customers because the requisite control did not exist, citing inter 
alia, Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Open-End 
Spun Rayon Singles Yarn from Austria, 62 FR 43701 (August 15, 1997). 
ISL states that in each case involving this issue, the petitioner 
argued that affiliation existed because of a close supplier 
relationship between the producer and its customer or supplier, and the 
Department declined to find the parties affiliated because the 
requisite control relationship did not exist.
    DOC Position: We disagree with the petitioner's contention that ISL 
is affiliated with all of its home market customers. The basis for 
petitioner's claim, the fact that ISL is the only manufacturer of 
furfuryl alcohol in South Africa, is insufficient for a finding of 
affiliation. Further, the petitioner failed to provide any evidence 
that ISL controls its home market customers. As we stated in the June 
30, 1997, Memorandum at 8, ``ISL's dominant position in the home market 
is not sufficient, in and of itself, to find affiliation between ISL 
and its customers.'' We also noted in that memorandum that the other 
primary evidence that the petitioner provided to support its 
affiliation claim, ISL's POR pricing in the home market, ``does not 
suggest that the company is in a position to exercise restraint or 
control over its customers, since customers will generally seek the 
lowest price possible from their suppliers.'' Id.
    We also do not accept the petitioner's allegation that ISL controls 
its home market customers due to significant barriers to trade, an 
absence of imports during the POR of the subject merchandise, and no 
substitutes for furfuryl alcohol in its primary uses. First, the 
factors proposed by the petitioner would be more relevant to an 
assertion that ISL is controlling its customers through high pricing, 
not low pricing. Second, while we agree with the petitioner that there 
was an absence of imports during the POR, the petitioner's other 
arguments are speculative (e.g., whether a 10 percent tariff is a 
``significant'' barrier to trade). Further, if we were to consider the 
absence of imports as determinative of affiliation, we would in effect 
find affiliation in any sole supplier situation. In sum, these factors, 
whether true or not, do not indicate that ISL controls its customers.
    Comment 3: Particular Market Situation in the Home Market: The 
petitioner disagrees with the Department preliminary determination (as 
detailed in its June 30, 1997, Memorandum) that a ``particular market 
situation'' did not exist in South Africa. Citing this Memorandum, the 
petitioner first notes that this finding was based in part on the 
inapplicability of any of the three illustrative examples of particular 
market situations in the SAA and the absence of any model matching 
complications. Moreover, the petitioner states that the Department 
based its finding on the position that the facts of the case be 
analyzed more appropriately under the below-cost and fictitious market 
provisions of the Act.
    The petitioner disagrees with this finding based on its contention 
that a particular market situation does exist in South Africa due to 
the absence of competitive pricing. It maintains that the SAA makes 
clear that competitive pricing is an important consideration in 
assessing the existence of a particular market situation, citing the 
``government control over pricing'' example of a possible particular 
market situation listed in the SAA (at 822) (i.e., ``where there is 
government control over pricing to such an extent that home market 
prices cannot be considered to be competitively set''). Acknowledging 
that the instant proceeding does not involve government control, the 
petitioner argues that the key element of this example of a particular 
market situation is whether prices are competitively set, not whether 
there is government control of prices. In support of its argument, the 
petitioner cites Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Korea, 62 FR 18404 (April 15, 1997), where the 
Department considered whether pricing practices in an oligopolistic 
market constituted a particular market situation but ultimately found 
competitive pricing, and no particular market situation, in that case. 
Contrary to the Korean oligopoly in question, the petitioner asserts 
that ISL is a monopolist and as such, allowed for no price competition 
of any type in this case.
    Regarding the Department's position that the facts of the case are 
more appropriately analyzed under the fictitious market provision, the 
petitioner argues that both the fictitious market and particular market 
situation provisions are applicable because both are intended to 
preserve the integrity of the Department's analysis by eliminating 
inappropriate sales from consideration. The petitioner affirms its 
claim that, given a correct understanding of the facts of this case and 
of the particular market situation provision, the Department should 
disregard ISL's home market sales and require ISL to submit third 
country sales data.
    ISL responds that the Department should sustain its position in the 
preliminary results that a particular market situation does not exist 
in the

[[Page 61087]]

home market. In its rebuttal brief (at 8) ISL interprets Certain Cold-
Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Product from Korea to mean 
that ``[t]he fact that there are very few, or even one, producer in a 
market is not evidence, per se, that prices are not competitively 
set.'' ISL reiterates its claim, first made in Comment 3, above, that 
there are no import barriers to furfuryl alcohol entering South Africa 
and, therefore, foreign producers are free to compete, just as non-
furfuryl alcohol products compete in the foundry industry with furfuryl 
alcohol's primary downstream products.
    ISL further argues that none of the circumstances of particular 
market situations outlined in the SAA are present in this case. Thus, 
ISL concludes, the petitioner is actually arguing for the creation of a 
new form of particular market situation based on the sole criterion 
that a foreign producer has lowered it home market prices. Accordingly, 
ISL, urges the Department to reject the petitioner's expansive reading 
of the Act.
    DOC Position: Although we agree with the petitioner that the list 
of examples in the SAA regarding what may constitute a particular 
market situation is not exhaustive, we disagree that such a finding is 
warranted under the facts of this case. First, we do not agree with the 
petitioner that the facts of this case are analogous to the 
``government control over pricing'' example in the SAA. In this regard, 
we agree with ISL's interpretation of Cold-Rolled Steel. In that case, 
although we considered whether oligopolistic pricing practices might 
constitute a particular market situation, we ultimately determined that 
prices were competitively set. In fact, we explicitly found that even 
though different pricing patterns may occur in an oligopolistic market, 
such patterns are not evidence, per se, sufficient to establish that 
prices are not competitively set. We conceded that there was 
substantial Korean government involvement in the industry, but did not 
find ``convincing evidence'' of control (Cold-Rolled Steel, 62 FR at 
18412). The Department found that there was price competition based on 
discounts, credit adjustments, and freight equalization. Similarly, the 
fact pattern in the instant proceeding, involving a large volume of 
low-priced sales of furfuryl alcohol sold to a significant number of 
home market customers from price lists, does not indicate an absence of 
competitive pricing.
    As we stated in the June 30, 1997, Memorandum, the facts as 
presented by the petitioner, focusing on a single supplier that has 
lowered its home market prices, are more appropriately analyzed in the 
context of the below-cost and fictitious market provisions of the 
statute. In this regard, the petitioner did not make a below-cost 
allegation in this segment of the proceeding and, as discussed above, 
our analysis of the petitioner's claim in the context of a fictitious 
market allegation indicates that the facts presented by petitioner do 
not warrant such a finding.
    Comment 4: Whether the Antidumping Duty Reimbursement Regulation 
Applies to ISL: ISL argues that the Department's doubling of the 
assessment rate in the preliminary results, which was based on the 
Department's finding that ISL reimbursed its affiliated U.S. importer 
Harborchem, is impermissible because: (1) The reimbursement regulation 
should not apply to affiliated importers; (2) the reimbursement 
provision's focus on raising U.S. prices is improper, since the Act 
itself is not concerned with the absolute level of the price at which 
subject merchandise is sold in the United States; and (3) even if the 
reimbursement provision is valid and can legally be applied to 
affiliated parties, there was no reimbursement of actual duties 
assessed in this case.
    The petitioner disagrees with ISL, stating that: (1) The Department 
can apply the reimbursement regulation to affiliated parties; and (2) 
there is clear evidence in this case that ISL reimbursed its U.S. 
affiliate for AD duties during the POR, citing the Department's 
proprietary preliminary analysis memorandum (Analysis Memorandum to the 
File, June 30, 1997, at 2).
    DOC Position: Since the assessment rate for this review is zero, 
there are no duties to be assessed. Hence, this issue is moot.
    Comment 5: Affiliation of ISL and Harborchem: The petitioner argues 
that ISL and its U.S. importer, Harborchem, are not affiliated parties 
and, accordingly, the Department should base U.S. price on export price 
rather than CEP in the final results. The petitioner maintains that the 
Department's finding in the original investigation that these parties 
are affiliated, on which the Department subsequently relied in stating 
that the facts had not changed in this review, was incorrect. The 
petitioner contends that the record demonstrates that Harborchem is not 
ISL's agent under the law of agency or the four-part test originally 
relied on by the Department.
    The petitioner states that since the Act does not define the term 
``agent,'' the term must give its common law meaning, i.e., ``that an 
agent is to act on behalf of and for the benefit of the principal.'' 
Petitioner Brief at 16. Citing, inter alia, Waterhout v. Associated Dry 
Goods, Inc., 835 F.2d 718 (8th Cir. 1987), the petitioner adds that a 
second tenet of the law of agency is that a determination as to the 
existence of an agency relationship is to be based on the factual 
circumstances at hand and not on a party's characterization of itself 
as an agent.
    The petitioner submits that, in this case, there is no record 
evidence indicating an agency relationship between ISL and Harborchem, 
since ISL merely characterizes Harborchem as its an agent; instead, the 
evidence shows two distinct commercial transactions: one in which 
Harborchem purchases furfuryl alcohol from ISL and another in which 
Harborchem resells the merchandise to a third party. Specifically, the 
petitioner states that:
    (a) ISL negotiates price and quantity with Harborchem;
    (b) ISL sells to Harborchem;
    (c) ISL invoices and receives payment Harborchem; and
    (d) Harborchem then separately stores, markets, ships, and receives 
payment for the merchandise.
    Thus, the petitioner asserts, Harborchem acts on its own behalf, 
and ISL and Harborchem each seek to maximize profits. Moreover, the 
petitioner asserts that mere coordination of certain activities for 
their mutual benefit is not critical in determining an agency 
relationship.
    ISL responds that it is in fact affiliated with Harborchem. First, 
ISL argues that the question of relationship was examined thoroughly in 
the investigation and at on-site verifications of both ISL and 
Harborchem. Second, ISL agrees with the Department's preliminary 
finding that the facts considered by the Department in its original 
determination are the same as those in the current review, namely:
    (a) ISL participated directly with Harborchem in the marketing of 
furfuryl alcohol to ultimate U.S. customers;
    (b) ISL participated directly in pricing and sales negotiations 
with ultimate U.S. customers;
    (c) ISL interacted directly, as well as through Harborchem, with 
ultimate U.S. customers on product testing and quality control;
    (d) ISL and Harborchem communicated on a daily basis on matters 
related to marketing and sales to the ultimate customers;
    (e) ISL exerted a substantial degree of control over Harborchem 
marketing and pricing of furfuryl alcohol to the ultimate U.S. 
customers; and

[[Page 61088]]

    (f) the two parties viewed their relationship as one of principal 
and agent.
    As support for its contention that these facts apply to the POR as 
well as the period of investigation (POI), ISL cites to evidence on the 
record of this review regarding the correspondence between Harborchem 
and ISL on the setting of U.S. prices, the approval by ISL of any 
significant sales and marketing efforts, and the granting of permission 
by ISL on other business decisions.
    Regarding the petitioner's arguments concerning the nature of an 
``agency'' relationship, ISL submits that although the URAA replaced 
the definition of ``related party'' with the definition of 
``affiliation'' based on a ``control'' concept, Congress did not intend 
to narrow the criteria it uses for determining affiliation, and the 
Department has in fact continued to use the same criteria for assessing 
``control'' as was used under the pre-URAA law related party ``agency'' 
provision. In this respect, ISL cites the post-URAA cases Melamine from 
Indonesia and Rayon Singles Yarn from Austria, where the Department 
examined:
    (a) Whether one party controlled pricing of the subject 
merchandise;
    (b) Whether a long-term sales agreement existed;
    (c) Whether there were any restrictions on purchasing from or 
selling to other sources; and
    (d) Whether there were other indicia of affiliation, such as a 
joint venture arrangement.
    ISL asserts that the facts surrounding its relationship with 
Harborchem meet this standard.
    Finally, ISL cites the preamble to the New Regulations as proving 
that, because section 771(33) of the statute refers to a person being 
in a position to exercise restraint or direction, the Department is 
required to examine the ability to control, not the actual exercise of 
control (62 FR 27298). ISL concludes that, based on the facts as stated 
above, the record shows that ISL is in a position to exercises 
restraint over Harborchem.
    DOC Position: We disagree with the petitioner. As both parties 
note, in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, we examined 
this issue in depth at verification (see Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From South Africa, 60 FR 
22550 (May 8, 1995) (Final Determination of Sales at LTFV)). Our 
examination was based on the criteria for determining an agency 
relationship as established in Final Determination of Sales at Not Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts from Japan, 52 FR 
36984, 36985 (October 2, 1987). Contrary to the petitioner's 
assertions, the information on the record in this review again 
indicates that a finding of affiliation between ISL and Harborchem is 
appropriate.
    As noted in our preliminary results, the facts that led to our 
finding in the LTFV investigation have not changed. The petitioner 
provides no evidence that the facts have changed. ISL, on the other 
hand, submitted evidence (at Exhibit A-4 of its September 19, 1996 
response) in response to our questionnaire that indicates that the 
agency relationship between ISL and Harborchem still exists. For 
example, this evidence indicates that ISL and Harborchem routinely 
coordinate marketing and sales activity, including pricing, for sales 
to U.S. customers.
    Rather than provide evidence that the facts have changed during 
this review period, the petitioners are suggesting that these facts are 
not sufficient for a finding of affiliation. We agree with the 
petitioner that although the Act does not define agency, the existence 
of an agency relationship is based on the factual circumstances. The 
four-pronged test relied upon in the LTFV investigation explores the 
factual circumstances of the relationship between ISL and Harborchem. 
At verification, based on correspondence files, we determined that ISL: 
(1) participates directly with Harborchem in marketing furfuryl alcohol 
to U.S. customers; (2) participates directly in pricing and sales 
negotiations with U.S. customers; (3) interacts directly, as well as 
through Harborchem, with U.S. customers on product testing and quality 
control matters; and (4) interacts with U.S. customers directly (Final 
Determination of Sales at LTFV, 60 FR at 22552-53). In the current 
review, ISL provided additional documentary evidence of this 
relationship consistent with our finding in the LTFV investigation. 
Proprietary correspondence documents were submitted by ISL in its 
September 1996 response (Exhibit A-4a and b) that demonstrated that: 
ISL and Harborchem have an exclusive distributor agreement; frequently 
discuss pricing to U.S. customers; and participate in joint marketing 
efforts. Documents submitted also show that ISL maintains direct 
contact with U.S. end-user customers and exerts control over U.S. 
marketing efforts. In addition, documentation concerning the 
arrangement and sharing of profits between the two parties were 
included in Exhibit A-22 of the April 10, 1997, response and 
documentation showing Harborchem seeking and obtaining ISL's approval 
of a purchase of furfuryl alcohol from alternative source, were 
submitted in Exhibit A-23 of the same response. Therefore, we continue 
to find that, based on our four-prong test, ISL and Harborchem maintain 
an agency relationship and are affiliated within the meaning of section 
771(33) of the Act. Consequently, we have used CEP for sales to the 
United States.
    Comment 6: Exclusion of Certain U.S. Sales: ISL requests that the 
Department exclude from its analysis U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
that entered prior to suspension of liquidation, which ISL identified 
using a first-in, first-out (``FIFO'') inventory accounting 
methodology. ISL further asserts that certain of these sales merit 
exclusion regardless of the validity of its FIFO analysis, based on the 
fact that they were shipped prior to the first post-suspension entry of 
merchandise.
    In the preliminary results, the Department rejected ISL's request, 
citing Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or 
Uncured from Italy, 57 FR 8295 (March 9, 1992) (``Industrial Belts''), 
wherein the Department had similarly rejected an exclusion request 
based on a FIFO inventory analysis. ISL states that the preliminary 
results did not sufficiently explain the Department's reasons for 
denying the request. ISL contemplates two possible reasons for this 
rejection: (a) that the Department finds a FIFO matching methodology to 
be inherently unacceptable; or (b) that the Department requires a 
further explanation regarding ISL's FIFO analysis.
    In arguing against the first reason, ISL states that Harborchem's 
normal inventory accounting records use the FIFO methodology employed 
in its exclusion request. ISL also notes that Harborchem uses FIFO to 
match specific entries and sales as part of its internal cost control 
and reporting systems to ensure proper accounting treatment. ISL 
contends that since furfuryl alcohol is a fungible liquid, this is the 
only methodology available for matching pre-suspension entries to 
specific POR sales. ISL notes that the Department verified Harborchem's 
inventory accounting records during the less than fair value 
investigation. Citing Industrial Quimica del Nalon v. United States, 15 
CIT 240, 243-44 (1991), ISL contends that the Department's rejection of 
the only methodology available to link entries to sales would 
constitute an abuse of the Department's discretion and, in the

[[Page 61089]]

words of the ruling, ``fly in the face of established business 
practice.''
    Regarding the second possible reason, ISL provides in its brief a 
further explanation of the methodology employed in the company's 
responses to ensure that the analysis is clear to the Department. In so 
doing, ISL points to worksheets, inventory records, and entry and sales 
data that provide sufficient information to allow the Department to tie 
the sales in question to pre-suspension entries.
    Finally, ISL asserts that even if the Department chooses to reject 
again ISL's FIFO methodology, the company is still entitled to the 
exclusion of certain sales from the antidumping analysis. ISL notes 
that the record shows that the first shipment of furfuryl alcohol to 
enter the United States during the POR, i.e., after suspension, entered 
the United States after sales by Harborchem to U.S. customers had 
already been made and delivered during the POR. ISL states that it is 
therefore physically impossible for those sales to have been made using 
furfuryl alcohol entered during the POR.
    The petitioner responds that the Department should continue to 
reject ISL's exclusion request. It argues that ISL did not sufficiently 
link POR sales to specific pre-suspension entries because the company's 
receipt and inventory records are inconsistent and unreliable, as 
demonstrated by certain discrepancies on the record. Specifically, the 
petitioner notes that ISL, in its April 10, 1997, supplemental 
response, conceded that it made two mistakes in reporting its inventory 
in its initial response. The petitioner asserts that this 
unreliability, together with ``the Department's justifiable reluctance 
to use hypothetical constructions to link U.S. sales to specific pre-
suspension entries,'' necessitates the Department's continued rejection 
of the request.
    DOC Position: We agree with ISL, in part. As discussed below, all 
but one of the POR sales that ISL requested be excluded are not 
appropriately part of our analysis because they involve merchandise 
that entered the United States prior to the suspension of liquidation. 
See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from France, 61 FR 47874, 47875 
(September 11, 1996). Accordingly, we have not included these sales in 
our calculation of ISL's antidumping duty rate for this POR. However, 
we have included one such sale in our analysis because it cannot be 
tied to pre-suspension merchandise.
    We note that the petitioner is correct in pointing out the 
Department's reluctance to use hypothetical constructions to link U.S. 
sales to specific pre-suspension entries. This was demonstrated in 
Industrial Belts, wherein the Department rejected an exclusion request 
based on a FIFO inventory analysis. However, we excluded a majority of 
the sales at issue based not on a FIFO analysis but on the fact that 
these sales were shipped before the first post-suspension entry of 
subject merchandise. See Memorandum from Michelle Frederick and Scott 
Oudkirk to Richard W. Moreland (November 5, 1997) (``November 5, 1997, 
Memorandum''). We have excluded these sales from our analysis because 
it would not be possible for those sales to have been shipped using 
merchandise that entered during the POR.
    We excluded a second group of sales based on a FIFO analysis that 
involves a single POR entry made prior to these sales. For these sales, 
the data contained in ISL's response indicates that the company's 
storage of inventory involved the co-mingling of only one POR entry of 
furfuryl alcohol with a pre-existing inventory of pre-suspension 
furfuryl alcohol. As detailed in the November 5, 1997, Memorandum, 
ISL's inventory, sales, and entry data contained in its responses 
establishes that it had sufficient pre-suspension inventory, prior to 
the one POR entry of subject merchandise at issue, to cover all but one 
of the second group of sales for which ISL requested the exclusion. To 
the extent that we attribute the merchandise involved in such sales to 
this pre-suspension inventory, rather than to the single POR entry that 
occurred prior to these sales, this analysis is based on a FIFO 
methodology. However, given that the fact pattern involves only a 
single POR entry occurring prior to these sales, along with the fact 
that this is a unitary liquid product, it is appropriate under these 
circumstances to determine that these sales involved pre-suspension 
merchandise. We note that, in the unique circumstances of this case, 
the respondent was able to provide supporting documentation regarding 
entry and sales data not only for the claimed exclusions, but also for 
the remainder of the South African-sourced POR sales.
    Finally, we have not excluded one sale (the final chronological 
sale in the second group) because the inventory of pre-suspension 
furfuryl alcohol was insufficient to cover this sale.
    Regarding the petitioner's contention that ISL's inventory records 
are inconsistent and unreliable, we found that an examination of the 
evidence on the record demonstrates that any inconsistencies are 
relatively minor and that the mistakes reported by ISL were corrected 
in supplemental responses (see the memorandum referenced above). 
Therefore, the record as a whole allowed us to sufficiently link 
entries to sales and to exclude sales when appropriate.
    Finally, we note that the petitioner claimed at the public hearing, 
with respect to ISL's counsel's discussion of this issue, that certain 
information presented by ISL was not included in its hearing briefs. We 
have determined that ISL's counsel did not reveal new information 
during the hearing and that it was responding to a question raised by 
the Department regarding this issue. The information that ISL's counsel 
referenced was already on the record in the form of entry dates, sale 
dates, inventory records and location of inventory.
    Comment 7: Level of Trade and CEP Offset: ISL asserts that the 
Department's preliminary determination that the level of trade (LOT) at 
which ISL sold furfuryl alcohol in the home market level is not more 
advanced than the LOT of the CEP sales is incorrect because it ignores 
significant selling functions performed in the home market. In 
particular, ISL states that there is a ``significant difference in the 
level of selling function provided at each LOT.''
    ISL argues that the Department ignored the level or degree of 
selling activities that ISL performed with respect to home market 
versus U.S. sales, as well as the corresponding greater amounts of time 
and energy spent performing these activities in conducting home market 
sales. Further, ISL stated that, whereas ISL itself undertook all of 
these activities in conducting home market sales, it merely supported 
Harborchem, which was principally responsible for marketing and selling 
activities in the United States. For this reason, ISL claims that the 
degree of the selling functions it provides to home market customers is 
greater than that of those provided for Harborchem such that the home 
market LOT is more advanced than the LOT of the CEP. In support of this 
claim, ISL compared the number of customers, the number of shipments, 
and the individual shipment sizes in the home market to shipments to 
Harborchem, noting that ``[t]he average size of a shipment to 
Harborchem was over 30 times as large as a shipment in the home 
market.'' Therefore, ISL claims it is entitled to a CEP offset.
    The petitioner responds that the Department did not ignore specific 
selling functions in the home market but, rather, determined that the 
selling functions performed by ISL for sales in the home market did not 
differ substantially from those performed by

[[Page 61090]]

ISL for sales to Harborchem. The petitioner adds that ISL exaggerates 
the differences between the number of customers and shipments in the 
home market compared with those to Harborchem. Finally, the petitioner 
notes that ISL's contention in its case brief that the company plays a 
supporting, non-principal role for U.S. sales is at variance with 
earlier statements made in support of ISL's claim of affiliation with 
Harborchem, i.e., that ISL plays a joint role with Harborchem in the 
U.S. market.
    DOC Position: We disagree with ISL. We have continued to find that 
a CEP offset is inappropriate because the record evidence indicates 
that ISL's home market sales are not made at a more advanced LOT than 
that of the CEP.
    Section 773(a)(7) of the Act provides that one requirement for 
granting a CEP offset is that the home market sale must be made at a 
more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP. In order 
to determine whether home market sales were at the same, or a 
different, LOT than U.S. sales, we examined whether home market sales 
had been made at a different stage in the marketing process. Section 
351.412(c)(2) of the new regulations defines an LOT as a marketing 
stage ``or the equivalent'' and provides that different LOTs depend on 
one level (or stage) being more remote, characterized by an additional 
layer of selling activities, amounting in the aggregate to a 
substantially different selling function. Substantial differences in 
the amount of selling expenses associated with two groups of sales also 
may indicate that the two groups are at different LOTs.
    Accordingly, as a threshold matter in examining whether home market 
sales were made at a more advanced LOT than the LOT of the CEP, we 
considered the selling activities performed for the home market LOT and 
compared them to the selling activities performed for the LOT of the 
CEP. Specifically, we examined the selling activities performed by ISL 
for setting up, shipping, and delivering furfuryl alcohol destined for 
the U.S. market up to the point of tank storage at the U.S. port of 
entry (selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act). Next, we compared 
the selling activities performed by ISL for home market sales.
    In the preliminary results, we determined that there was one LOT in 
the home market and, furthermore, that the LOT for home market sales 
was comparable to the LOT of the CEP. In other words, we determined 
that the home market LOT did not constitute a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and, therefore, no adjustment to 
price (i.e., LOT adjustment or CEP offset) was necessary. We explained, 
in detail, in the preliminary results our rationale for making this 
determination. 62 FR 36488, 36490 (July 8, 1997). ISL's arguments in 
its case brief do not establish that our analysis in the preliminary 
results was incorrect.
    We disagree with ISL's argument that we ignored the level or degree 
of selling functions performed in the home market. While it is our 
preference to examine selling functions on both a qualitative and a 
quantitative basis, our examination is not contingent on the number of 
customers nor on the number of sales for which the activity is 
performed.
    Thus, having determined that the LOT for home market sales is 
comparable to the LOT of the CEP, we are precluded in this case from 
granting a CEP offset.
    Comment 8: Basis for the Calculation of CEP Profit: The petitioner 
argues that the Department's calculation of CEP profit understates the 
amount of profit that should be deducted from CEP. In the preliminary 
results, the Department relied upon revenue and cost of sales data from 
ISL's 1995 and first-half 1996 financial statements to calculate a 
profit ratio. The figures in those financial statements are 
representative of all ISL products. The petitioner cites the SAA (at 
824-825, regarding section 772(f)(2)(C) of the Act) for the proposition 
that, where the Department has not requested cost data, CEP profit 
information shall be based on ``the narrowest category of merchandise 
sold in the United States and the exporting country which includes the 
subject merchandise or * * * the narrowest category of merchandise sold 
in all countries which includes the subject merchandise.'' The 
petitioner contends that there is information on the record, in the 
form of an internal report, that would allow the Department to base the 
calculation of a CEP profit ratio on a more narrow category of 
merchandise, e.g. excluding sugar, than that contained in ISL's 
financial statements.
    ISL argues that the financial statements on which the Department 
relied in its calculation of profit are audited and, given the 
Department's normal reliance on audited or published data, are the 
proper basis for the calculation of a CEP profit ratio. ISL notes that 
the information that the petitioner advocates is found in an unverified 
internal report used to report gross sales and profit figures. As such, 
it does not take account of reversals, reconciliations, and adjustments 
made only at year-end. Therefore, the Department should continue to use 
the information contained in the audited financial statements in its 
calculation of a CEP profit ratio for the final results.
    DOC Position: We agree with the petitioner in part. Section 
772(f)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that, absent more specific data 
related to expenses incurred in selling subject merchandise in the 
United States or home market, the expenses used in the profit 
calculation should be based on ``the narrowest category of merchandise 
sold in all countries which includes the subject merchandise.'' In this 
review, there is information on the record that would allow the 
Department to base the calculation of a CEP profit ratio on a more 
narrow category of merchandise than that covered by ISL's overall 
profit amount for all products sold by the company. However, contrary 
to petitioner's assertions, the audited financial statements contain 
profit data on a product basis (i.e. by-products) that is sufficiently 
narrow to fulfill the statutory requirements regarding CEP profit.
    Instead of relying on the internal report, we were able to derive a 
more appropriate CEP profit ratio from the audited financial 
statements, thus meeting our obligation to rely on information for the 
``narrowest category of merchandise.'' We were able to discern from the 
audited financial statements the relative amount of profit due to the 
sale of sugar, ISL's primary merchandise, and the profit due to the 
sales of by-products, which includes the subject merchandise sold. 
Thus, we revised the CEP profit ratio for the final results based on 
information from audited financial statements. (See Analysis Memorandum 
to File, November 5, 1997.)
    We note that, given the statutory preference for profit based on a 
narrow category of merchandise, the use of internal financial reports 
may be appropriate where we do not otherwise have sufficiently tailored 
profit data. The preamble of the proposed regulations at 61 FR 7308, 
7332 (February 27, 1996), reflects this, stating ``[p]aragraph (d)(2) 
[of section 351.402] specifies that the Department will not be limited 
to audited financial statements, but may use any appropriate financial 
report, including internal reports, the accuracy of which can be 
verified, if verification is conducted. This provision reflects the 
suggestion of commentators that the Department make clear its 
discretion to use financial reports prepared in the normal course of 
business that are as specific as possible

[[Page 61091]]

to the merchandise under investigation or review.''
    Comment 9: Inclusion of Quality Testing Expenses in the Calculation 
of CEP Profit: The petitioner notes that the Department determined that 
the expense ISL incurs for the quality testing of furfuryl alcohol upon 
its arrival in the United States is an indirect selling expense. The 
Department therefore made a circumstance of sale adjustment to CEP for 
the preliminary results, but the petitioner contends that this quality 
testing expense should also be included as part of total selling 
expenses for the calculation of CEP profit.
    ISL argues that this expense is a movement expense undertaken 
solely for U.S. sales insurance purposes because of the possibility of 
contamination during shipment and because the U.S. Customs periodically 
requires purity reports. Therefore, ISL argues that this expense is not 
an indirect selling expense and, as a movement expense, should not be 
included as part of selling expenses when calculating CEP profit.
    DOC Position: We agree with ISL that the quality testing expense 
that the company incurs upon furfuryl alcohol's arrival in the United 
States is a movement expense undertaken solely for U.S. sales as a 
result of shipment from South Africa. We note ISL's description at page 
84 of its September 19, 1996, response, that, ``Furfuryl alcohol is 
tested on arrival to detect any impurities that may have entered the 
product while in transit * * * [t]he testing is performed * * * at the 
time the product is unloaded from the maritime vessel.'' We also note 
that there is no similar testing done for shipments in the home market; 
all semi-bulk sales of furfuryl alcohol in the home market are made 
f.o.b., so there is no chance of contamination that will result in a 
loss to the company and though drum sales are sometimes made on a 
c.i.f. basis, it is not subject to contamination because it is packed. 
Because contamination only results from transporting furfuryl alcohol 
via a shipping vessel, which carries many other different products, not 
just furfuryl alcohol, we have determined that the quality testing 
expense is associated with the type of transportation, and, thus, is a 
movement expense. Accordingly, we have changed the margin calculation 
to treat this expense as a movement expense, which is not included in 
total U.S. expenses in the calculation of CEP profit.
    Comment 10: Treatment of ISL U.S. Travel Expenses in the Margin 
Calculation: The petitioner claims that the expenses ISL personnel 
incurred for travel to the United States to market furfuryl alcohol are 
indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States. As such, they 
should be deducted from U.S. price when calculating CEP and should be 
included in the total U.S. selling expenses used to derive profit 
attributable to those expenses.
    ISL contends that the expenses in question are already included in 
the South African component of U.S. indirect selling expenses, given 
that most of the expenses associated with U.S. travel of ISL personnel, 
such as airfare and salaries, were incurred and paid for in the home 
market. Therefore, it would be incorrect for the Department to deduct 
these expenses once again.
    DOC Position: We agree with ISL that the expenses ISL personnel 
incurred for travel to the United States to market furfuryl alcohol are 
included in the South African component of U.S. indirect selling 
expenses (DINDIRSU). As such, for the preliminary results, they had 
already been deducted from U.S. price when calculating CEP.
    We do not deduct indirect selling expenses incurred in the home 
market on behalf of U.S. sales, except when such expenses are 
associated with economic activity in the United States. The expenses of 
ISL personnel incurred for travel to the United States are associated 
with economic activity in the United States. Therefore, for these final 
results, we segregated the expenses of ISL personnel incurred for 
travel to the United States from all other indirect expenses incurred 
in the home market on behalf of U.S. sales, and deducted only those 
travel expenses from CEP. See Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Colombia, 62 FR 53287, 53293 (October 14, 1997) (``selling expenses 
incurred in the home market that are not associated with U.S. economic 
activity should neither be deducted from CEP nor included in the basis 
for calculating CEP profit'').
    Comment 11: Addition of Tank Car Rental Credits to CEP: The 
petitioner claims that the U.S. tank car rental expense is reported net 
of credits. Therefore, tank car rental credits should not be added to 
CEP.
    ISL concedes the petitioner's claim.
    DOC Position: We agree that the U.S. tank car rental expense 
reported is net of credits for tank car utilization. Therefore, we have 
deducted these expenses from CEP.
    Comment 12: Conversion of Certain Inventory Carrying Cost Expenses: 
ISL contends that the Department failed to convert the U.S. inventory 
carrying cost expense, which is expressed in rand, to U.S. dollars.
    The petitioner did not comment on this issue.
    DOC Position: We agree with ISL. This expense was expressed in rand 
because the inventory value used in the calculation of this inventory 
carrying cost was the total cost of manufacture in rand. Accordingly, 
we have converted this to U.S. dollars.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following margin 
exists for the period of December 16, 1994, through May 31, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illovo Sugar Ltd...........................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review and 
for future deposits of estimated duties for the manufacturer/exporter 
subject to this review. 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 the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for ISL is zero; (2) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original 
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) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous review or the original 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of 
11.55 percent established in the less than fair value investigation (60 
FR 28840, June 21, 1995). These deposit requirements will remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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

[[Page 61092]]

subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification 
of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply is a 
violation of the APO.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22, and this notice is 
published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 5, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29958 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-25-P