[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 199 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60905-60909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-469-807]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain

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

ACTION: Notice of the preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by Roldan S.A. (``Roldan''), the sole 
respondent in this review, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel wire rod (``SSWR'') from Spain.

[[Page 60906]]

The review covers sales for the period March 5, 1998 through August 31, 
1999 (the ``period of review'' or ``POR'').
    The Department has preliminarily determined that Roldan did not 
sell subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV''). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, the Department will instruct the Customs Service 
to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from Roldan without regard 
to antidumping duties.
    The Department invites interested parties to comment on the 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Smith or Timothy Finn, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4, Group 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-
5193, and 482-0065, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 Agreements Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

Case History

    On September 15, 1998, the Department published the antidumping 
duty order on SSWR from Spain (see Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain, 63 FR 49330). On September 
9, 1999, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this antidumping duty order (see Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 64 FR 48980). On 
September 30, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the 
respondent, Roldan, requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise 
into the United States during the POR. The Department initiated a 
review of Roldan's sales on October 28, 1999 (see Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 64 FR 60161 (November 4, 1999)).
    The Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Roldan 
on November 19, 1999 and received Roldan's response thereto on January 
18, 2000. In addition, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Roldan during March and May, 2000 and received 
Roldan's responses thereto during April, May, and June, 2000.
    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may 
extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit of 245 days. On May 8, 2000, the Department 
extended the time limits for the preliminary results until September 
29, 2000 in accordance with the Act (see Stainless Steel Wire Rod From 
Spain: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 26582).
    During June and July, 2000, the Department conducted verifications 
of Roldan and its affiliates, Acerinox, S.A. (``Acerinox'') and 
Acerinox, U.S.A. (``Acerinox-USA'')
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this review, SSWR comprises products that are hot-
rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, 
squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be 
coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime, or oxalate. SSWR is 
made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of 
carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other 
elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-
rolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold 
in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR 
sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed 
and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or 
small-diameter bar.
    The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 
inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is 
produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing 
machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in 
the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. 
Two stainless steel grades, SF20T and K-M35FL, are excluded from the 
scope of the review. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  SF20T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon....................................  0.05 max.
Manganese.................................  2.00 max.
Phosphorous...............................  0.05 max.
Sulfur....................................  0.15 max.
Silicon...................................  1.00 max.
Chromium..................................  19.00/21.00.
Molybdenum................................  1.50/2.50.
Lead......................................  added (0.10/0.30).
Tellurium.................................  added (0.03 min).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 K-M35FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon....................................  0.015 max.
Silicon...................................  0.70/1.00.
Manganese.................................  0.40 max.
Phosphorous...............................  0.04 max.
Sulfur....................................  0.03 max.
Nickel....................................  0.30 max.
Chromium..................................  12.50/14.00.
Lead......................................  0.10/0.30.
Aluminum..................................  0.20/0.35.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope 
of this review is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is March 5, 1998 through August 31, 1999.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted 
verifications of the information provided by Roldan. The Department 
used standard verification procedures including: On-site inspection of 
the manufacturers' facilities, examination of relevant sales, cost, and 
financial records, and selection of relevant source documentation as 
exhibits. Verification findings are detailed in the sales and cost 
verification memoranda dated September 29, 2000, the public versions of 
which are on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of the Main 
Commerce building (CRU-Public File).

Fair Value Comparison

    In order to determine whether Roldan sold SSWR to the United States 
at less than NV, the Department compared the constructed export price 
(``CEP'') of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV 
of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of 
trade (see section

[[Page 60907]]

777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). 
The methodology used to compare sales and to calculate CEP and NV are 
described in the ``Comparison Methodology'', ``Constructed Export 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Comparison Methodology

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, the Department 
considered all products within the scope of this review that Roldan 
produced and sold in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign 
like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to SSWR sold in the United States. The Department 
determined that the home market is the appropriate comparison market 
because the aggregate quantity of Roldan's home market sales of foreign 
like product is more than five percent of the aggregate quantity of its 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act). The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home 
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from 
three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise made in the home 
market in the ordinary course of trade, the Department compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. In making product comparisons, the Department 
selected identical and most similar foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by Roldan in the following order of 
importance: grade, diameter, further processing, and coating.

Constructed Export Price

    Roldan reported that it made sales in the United States through 
three channels of distribution. In U.S. channel one, Roldan sold SSWR 
to customers in the United States through its U.S. affiliate, Acerinox-
USA. Roldan classified its U.S. channel one sales as export price 
(``EP'') transactions and its U.S. channel two and three sales as CEP 
transactions. The Department has preliminarily determined that Roldan's 
channel one sales should also be classified as CEP transactions because 
these sales occurred in the United States. Section 772(b) of the Act 
defines CEP transactions as those in which the subject merchandise is 
first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after 
the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of subject merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter. In determining whether sales were made in the 
United States, the Department examines the totality of the 
circumstances surrounding the U.S. sales process. Neither the magnitude 
of the indirect selling expenses incurred by the U.S. affiliate nor the 
fact that the U.S. affiliate performs a particular type of selling 
activity is, by itself, a controlling factor in making a CEP 
determination. The record in the instant review characterizes the POR 
sales process for U.S. channel one as follows: (1) all communication 
required to effectuate sales is between Acerinox-USA and unaffiliated 
customers; (2) Acerinox-USA negotiates the terms of sales based on 
guidelines established by Roldan and the terms of recent sales; \1\ (3) 
once the terms of sale are agreed upon by Acerinox-USA and the 
customer, Acerinox-USA accepts the customers' orders and transmits the 
orders through Acerinox (Roldan's parent corporation) to Roldan; (4) 
Acerinox arranges for transportation of the subject merchandise to the 
United States; (5) Acerinox-USA arranges for transportation of the 
subject merchandise from the U.S. port to the U.S. customer; (5) 
Acerinox invoices customers in U.S. channel one in Roldan's name; and, 
(6) U.S. customers remit payment to Acerinox-USA which subsequently 
transfers the payments to Roldan by wire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum to The File from Howard Smith and Timothy 
Finn regarding the Verification of the Sales Response of Roldan, 
S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod from Spain dated September 29, 2000 in the public of 
the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the record shows that during the POR, Acerinox-USA was 
involved in every aspect of the sales process except for arranging for 
shipment of SSWR to the United States and invoicing U.S. customers. 
Moreover, Acerinox-USA's involvement in the sales process was extensive 
when compared to that of Roldan or Acerinox. Because the preponderance 
of selling functions incurred to sell Roldan's SSWR to U.S. customers 
occurred in the United States, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that the sales through U.S. channel one were made in the 
United States, and, thus, are CEP transactions.
    The Department calculated CEP in accordance with section 772 of the 
Act. Specifically, the Department calculated CEP based on packed, 
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. The 
Department made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, 
for billing adjustments and early payment discounts. The Department 
also made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and 
insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. 
brokerage and Customs fees, U.S. Customs duty, U.S. warehousing 
expenses, U.S. inland freight, and other U.S. transportation expenses 
pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted those selling expenses 
associated with economic activity occurring in the United States, 
including credit expenses, indirect selling expenses, and inventory 
carrying costs. In addition, the Department reduced the U.S. starting 
price by further manufacturing costs as required by section 772(d)(2) 
of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(e), the Department also reduced 
the U.S. starting price by the actual selling expenses incurred by 
Roldan's U.S. affiliate rather than the commissions that Roldan paid 
the affiliate. Finally, the Department made an adjustment for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Based on verification 
findings, the Department made the following adjustments to Roldan's 
U.S. sales related charges: (1) corrected invoice-specific figures for 
billing adjustments, U.S. duty, brokerage and handling, and other U.S. 
transportation costs; (2) recalculated U.S. credit expense for channel 
two and three sales based on actual payment and shipment dates; (3) 
recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States; 
and (4) recalculated inventory carrying cost incurred in the home 
market for one control number.

Normal Value

    As noted above in the ``Comparison Methodology'' section of this 
notice, the Department determined that the home market is the 
appropriate comparison market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the Department based NV on the prices at 
which Roldan first sold usual commercial quantities of foreign like 
product for consumption in the home market in the ordinary course of 
trade. In addition, to the extent practicable, the Department based NV 
on sales of foreign like product at the same level of trade as that of 
the U.S. sales to which they are being compared.

Disregarded Sales

    The Department did not base NV on sales to affiliated home market 
customers that were not at arm's length because such sales are outside 
the ordinary course of trade (see 19 CFR 351.102). The Department 
determined that sales to affiliated home market customers were not 
arm's-length sales where the weighted-average sales price to the 
affiliated party was less than 99.5

[[Page 60908]]

percent of the weighted-average sales price to unaffiliated parties. 
See Usinor Sacilor v. United States, 872 F. Supp. 1000, 1004 (CIT 
1994).
    Furthermore, in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, the 
Department did not base NV on home market sales made at prices below 
the cost of production (``COP'') that failed the cost test. The 
Department examined whether Roldan sold SSWR in the home market at 
prices below the COP because in the investigation of SSWR from Spain 
the Department disregarded home market sales by Roldan which failed the 
cost test. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Wire Rod From Spain, 63 FR 40391 (July 29, 1998). In order to determine 
whether Roldan made home market sales at prices below the COP, the 
Department compared product-specific production costs to the prices at 
which Roldan sold the product in the home market, less any applicable 
movement charges, selling expenses, and packing costs.
    The Department based the cost of producing the foreign like product 
on Roldan's reported material and fabrication costs, general and 
administrative (``G&A'') expenses, and financing expenses pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    In determining whether below cost sales should serve as a basis for 
NV, the Department examined whether such sales were made: (1) In 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time (see section 773(b)(1) of the Act).
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices 
less than the COP, the Department does not disregard any below-cost 
sales of that product in determining NV because the below-cost sales 
were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more 
of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the 
COP, the Department determines that sales of that model were made in 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time and that 
such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time as defined in section 
773(b)(2)(B), (C) and (D) of the Act. Therefore, the Department 
disregards such below-cost sales in determining NV.
    The Department found that more than 20 percent of Roldan's home 
market sales within an extended period of time were made at prices less 
than the COP. Further, the prices did not provide for the recovery of 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department disregarded those below-
cost sales as outside the ordinary course of trade and based NV on the 
remaining above-cost sales.
    For those U.S. sales of SSWR for which there were no comparable 
home market sales in the ordinary course of trade within the 
contemporaneous window, the Department compared CEP to constructed 
value (``CV''), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, the Department calculated CV 
based on the sum of Roldan's cost of materials, fabrication, selling 
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses (including an 
appropriate amount for financing expenses), profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the 
Department based SG&A (including financing expenses), and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized in connection with the production and 
sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for 
consumption in the home market.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale. 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 the 
Department derives SG&A expenses and profit. When U.S. price is based 
on CEP transactions, the starting price 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 CEP sales, the Department examines 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 by 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, the 
Department makes a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) 
of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level of trade is more 
remote from the factory than the CEP level of trade, and there is no 
basis for determining whether any difference between the NV and CEP 
levels of trade affects price comparability, the Department adjusts NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    The U.S. Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has held that the 
Department's practice of determining levels of trade for CEP 
transactions after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. 
Supp. 2d 1221, 1241-42 (CIT 1998) (``Borden''). The Department 
believes, however, that its practice is in full compliance with the 
statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgement in Borden on 
the level of trade issue. See Borden Inc. v. United States, Court No. 
96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The government has 
filed an appeal of Borden which is pending before the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Department has 
continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting CEP under section 
772(d) of the Act prior to starting a level of trade analysis, as 
articulated by the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.412.
    Based upon an analysis of the information on the record, the 
Department has determined that there is a single level of trade in the 
home market and a single level of trade in the U.S. market which are 
dissimilar. See the memorandum regarding the Level of Trade Analysis in 
the 1998-1999 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel 
Wire Rod From Spain--Preliminary Results dated September 29, 2000 
(``LOT Memorandum'') in the public file of the CRU. Because Roldan did 
not make home market sales at the level of trade of its CEP sales, the 
Department cannot compare CEP sales to home market sales (i.e., NV) at 
the same level of trade. Moreover, because there is only one level of 
trade in the home market, any difference in the NV and CEP levels of 
trade cannot be quantified. Furthermore, the Department does not have 
information which would allow it to examine pricing patterns based on 
Roldan's sales of other products and there are no other respondents or 
other information on the record upon which such an analysis could be 
based. Therefore, a level of trade adjustment is not possible.
    Because all of Roldan's U.S. sales are CEP transactions and a level 
of trade adjustment is not possible, the Department examined whether to 
adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

[[Page 60909]]

(the CEP offset provision). In order to determine whether the NV is at 
a more advanced level of trade than that of the CEP transactions, the 
Department compared the selling functions performed for home market 
sales with those performed for CEP transactions after deducting the 
expenses identified in section 772(d) of the Act which are associated 
with selling activities occurring in the United States. After making 
these deductions, the Department found that fewer selling functions 
were performed for CEP sales than for home market sales. Thus, the 
Department has found that Roldan's sales in the home market are at a 
more advanced stage of marketing and distribution (i.e., more remote 
from the factory) than the level of trade of CEP sales and, therefore, 
has applied the CEP offset to NV. See the LOT Memorandum.

Calculation of Normal Value

    The Department calculated monthly weighted-average NVs based on the 
starting prices of home market sales to unaffiliated customers and the 
starting prices of arm's-length home market sales to affiliated 
customers. The Department based NV on the starting price reduced, where 
appropriate, by billing adjustments and inland freight and insurance 
(less freight revenue). In addition, in calculating NV the Department 
adjusted the starting price by credit expenses in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. As noted above, the Department 
applied the CEP offset to NV. The CEP offset reduced NV by the amount 
of home market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying 
costs and other indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales. Finally, in calculating NV the 
Department subtracted home market packing costs from the starting price 
and added U.S. packing costs. Based on verification findings, the 
Department made the following adjustments to Roldan's home market sales 
related charges: (1) Corrected the foreign inland freight expense 
reported for one sales observation; (2) recalculated home market credit 
expense for one sales observation using the correct payment date; and 
(3) corrected the inventory carrying cost for four control numbers.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, the Department made 
currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in 
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines 
that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
        Manufacturer/Exporter                  Period           Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roldan, S.A.........................  3/5/1998-8/31/1999.....       0.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice, the Department will disclose to the 
parties in this proceeding the calculations performed in determining 
the above dumping margin. An interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c)(1999). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary results of this review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the 
public version of those comments. The Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in interested party comments, within 
120 days of publication of the preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the 
entered value of the merchandise. The Department will calculate the 
duty assessment rate based upon the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the examined sales. The rate will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries made during the POR. Where appropriate, in 
order to calculate the entered value, the Department will subtract 
international movement expenses and U.S. duty from the gross sales 
value.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of SSWR from Spain 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 rate for Roldan will be the rate established 
in the final results of this administrative review except if the rate 
is de minimis, then no cash deposit will be required; (2) for 
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the 
original 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, the 
cash deposit rate will be 4.73 percent, the ``all-others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of administrative review for a 
subsequent review period.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 29, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-26383 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P