[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63562-63567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-504]


Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Dduty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, Columbian Home 
Products, LLC (formerly General Housewares

[[Page 63563]]

Corporation), the Department of Commerce is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-
steel cookware from Mexico. This review covers Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. and 
Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V., manufacturers/exporters 
of the subject merchandise to the United States and the period December 
1, 1998, through November 30, 1999 (thirteenth review period).
    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dinah McDougall or Rebecca Trainor, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration--Room B099, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-3773 or (202) 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Background

    On October 10, 1986, the Department published in the Federal 
Register, 51 FR 36435, the final affirmative antidumping duty 
determination on certain porcelain-on-steel (POS) cookware from Mexico. 
We published an antidumping duty order on December 2, 1986, 51 FR 
43415.
    On December 14, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period December 1, 1998, 
through November 30, 1999 (the POR), 64 FR 69693. The Department 
received a request for an administrative review of Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. 
(Cinsa) and Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA) from 
Columbian Home Products, LLC (CHP), formerly General Housewares 
Corporation (GHC) (hereinafter, the petitioner). We published a notice 
of initiation of the review on January 26, 2000, 65 FR 4228.
    On January 12, 2000, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Cinsa and ENASA. We issued supplemental questionnaires 
on May 16, and June 19, 2000. On March 13, 2000, June 5, 2000, and July 
5, 2000, we received responses to the original questionnaire and to our 
two supplemental questionnaires. On July 14, 2000, the respondents 
filed a database containing December 1998 home market sales data, which 
the respondents claimed had been unintentionally omitted from their 
prior data submissions. We conducted verification of Cinsa/ENASA's 
antidumping duty questionnaire responses from July 17, 2000 through 
July 28, 2000, and issued our report on September 27, 2000, (see 
Memorandum to the File: Sales and Cost of Production Verification).
    On August 7, 2000, we requested that the respondents submit revised 
home market sales, U.S. sales, and CV/COP databases to reflect certain 
verification findings. See letter dated August 7, 2000, and memo to the 
file dated August 21, 2000, on file in Room B-099 of the Commerce 
Department. On October 3, 2000, we returned respondents' July 14 and 
August 11, 2000 submissions because they contained certain home market 
sales information that was untimely filed. See letter to David Amerine 
dated October 3, 2000, on file in room B-099 of the Commerce 
Department. In accordance with the Department's request in that letter, 
the respondents submitted revised databases on October 5, 2000. The 
Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) 
of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are porcelain-on-steel 
cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained 
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of 
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware 
currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not 
subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Reimbursement

    During the eleventh review period (December 1, 1996 through 
November 30, 1997), the Department found that Cinsa and ENASA's U.S. 
affiliate, Cinsa International Co. (CIC), had been reimbursed for the 
payment of antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise made 
during the fifth and seventh review periods and liquidated during the 
eleventh review period. Based on this reimbursement, the Department 
established a rebuttable presumption that CIC would also be reimbursed 
for its eleventh review entries. Cinsa and ENASA failed to rebut that 
presumption in the eleventh review, but did rebut the presumption 
during the twelfth review, i.e., the most recent prior review. See 
Porcelain-On-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000). For this 
reason, and because there has been no new indication of reimbursement 
since the transfer made during the eleventh review period, the 
Department has not adopted any presumption of reimbursement as to 
entries made during this thirteenth review period.

Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have 
determined that the use of partial adverse facts available is 
appropriate for Cinsa and ENASA in this case, because they did not 
report certain home market sales in a timely manner. In our January 12, 
2000, questionnaire, we instructed the respondents to report all home 
market sales made during the POR, as well as those made three months 
prior to, and two months after, the POR. We reiterated this request in 
our June 19, 2000 supplemental questionnaire, and instructed the 
respondents to revise their databases to include all applicable sales. 
In their July 5, 2000, supplemental questionnaire response, Cinsa and 
ENASA stated that they had complied with this request. On July 14, 
2000, three days before the beginning of verification, the respondents 
submitted for the record the December 1998 home market sales data for 
Cinsa and ENASA, which they stated had been erroneously omitted from 
their prior data submissions. On October 3, 2000, we returned to the 
respondents their submissions of July 14, 2000 and August 11, 2000, 
containing the December 1998 sales data that we determined to be new 
factual information untimely filed. The respondents resubmitted their 
sales data, excluding the December 1998 sales information, on October 
5, 2000.

[[Page 63564]]

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, when selecting the facts 
available, adverse inferences may be used when a party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's requests for information. See also Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 
868-870 (1994) (SAA). For the U.S. sales that would have matched to 
Cinsa's and ENASA's December 1998 home market sales, we have applied an 
adverse assumption, because Cinsa and ENASA did not act to the best of 
their ability in responding to the Department's repeated requests that 
they provide complete home market sales data by the questionnaire 
deadlines. As partial facts available, we have applied margins 
calculated for Cinsa and ENASA in previous segments of the proceeding 
to their U.S. sales that would otherwise have matched to the December 
1998 home market sales. These margins are 17.47 percent for Cinsa, 
calculated in the less-than-fair-value investigation, and 61.66 percent 
for ENASA, calculated in the 10th administrative review. They are the 
highest calculated margins in any segment of the proceeding that have 
not been doubled as a result of a finding of reimbursement. See 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value Investigation, 51 FR 36435 (October 10, 1986) 
and Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 43594 (August 13, 1998). 
For a detailed discussion of our treatment of these sales, see the 
October 16, 2000 Memorandum to the File: Calculation Memo for the 
Preliminary Results (Preliminary Results Calculation Memo) on file in 
room B-099 of the Commerce Department.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as 
the prior review margins for Cinsa and ENASA that we are using here, 
constitute secondary information. The SAA provides that to 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. SAA at 
870. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 
6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will 
examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of 
the information used.
    Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department 
can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from 
a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the 
reliability of the margin for that time period, because it was 
calculated in accordance with the statute.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the 
highest dumping margin as best information available because the margin 
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin. There is no evidence of 
circumstances indicating that the margins we are using as facts 
available in this review are not appropriate. For example, we have 
expressly declined to use the margins from the eleventh review, which 
were doubled because of the reimbursement finding. Therefore, the 
requirements of section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of POS cookware by Cinsa and ENASA to 
the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared 
constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average normal value of 
the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary 
course of trade at prices above the cost of production (COP), as 
discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Cinsa and ENASA covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Review'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the 
contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to 
the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary 
course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 
sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary 
course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we compared 
individual cookware pieces with identical or similar pieces, and 
cookware sets to identical or similar sets. Within these groupings, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by the respondents in the following order: Quality, gauge, 
cookware category, model, shape, wall shape, diameter, width, capacity, 
weight, interior coating, exterior coating, grade of frit (a material 
component of enamel), color, decoration, and cover, if any.

Constructed Export Price

    We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was first sold by CIC after importation 
into the United States. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, 
U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and Mexican brokerage and 
handling expenses, and U.S. duty in accordance with section 772(c)(1) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We made further deductions, where 
appropriate, for credit, commissions, and indirect selling expenses 
that were associated with economic activities occurring in the United 
States, pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b). 
For those sales for which the payment date was not reported, we 
calculated credit based on the average number of days between shipment 
and payment using the sales for which payment information was reported. 
We made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) 
of the

[[Page 63565]]

Act. As a result of our verification findings, we deleted canceled 
sales from the U.S. sales database, recalculated U.S. duties, and 
adjusted the entered value for certain sales. See the Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memo for further detail.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, we based 
normal value on the price (exclusive of value-added tax) at which the 
foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, as noted below.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or CEP 
transaction. The normal value LOT is that of the starting-price sales 
in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed 
value, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For export price, the U.S. 
LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
the exporter to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the level 
of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer, 
after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. To 
determine whether normal value sales are at a LOT different from export 
price or CEP, we examine 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 LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which normal value is based and comparison-market sales at the 
LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the normal value level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level, and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between normal 
value and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust normal value under 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 
19, 1997).
    In this review, Cinsa and ENASA had only CEP sales. They reported 
that comparison-market and CEP sales were made at different LOTs, and 
that comparison-market sales were made at a more advanced LOT than were 
sales to CIC in the United States. The respondents requested that the 
Department make a CEP offset in lieu of a LOT adjustment, as they were 
unable to quantify the price differences related to sales made at the 
different LOTs.
    Cinsa and ENASA reported three channels of distribution in the home 
market: (1) Direct sales to customers from the Saltillo plant, (2) 
sales shipped from their Mexico city warehouse, and (3) sales shipped 
to supermarkets and discount stores. In analyzing the data in the home 
market sales listing by distribution channel and sales function, we 
found that the three home market channels are all handled by Cinsa's 
and ENASA's affiliated distributer, COMESCO, and did not differ 
significantly with respect to selling functions. Similar services were 
offered to all or some portion of customers in each channel. Based on 
this analysis, we find that the three home market channels of 
distribution comprise a single LOT.
    All CEP sales were made through the same distribution channel: By 
the Mexican exporter to CIC, the U.S. affiliated reseller, which then 
sold the merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. The same selling functions/services were provided by Cinsa and 
ENASA to all customers in this distribution channel. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that all CEP sales constitute a single LOT in 
the United States.
    To determine whether sales in the comparison market were at a 
different LOT than CEP sales, we examined the selling functions 
performed at the CEP level, after making the appropriate deductions 
under section 772(d) of the Act, and compared those selling functions 
to the selling functions performed in the home-market LOT.
    In the comparison market, Cinsa and ENASA sold subject merchandise 
to their affiliated distributor, COMESCO, which then resold the POS 
product to unaffiliated customers. In the United States, Cinsa sold its 
and ENASA's subject merchandise to its affiliate, CIC, which then sold 
the subject merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers. Therefore, 
we compared the selling functions and the level of activity associated 
with Cinsa's sales to CIC with the sales by COMESCO to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the Mexican market. We found that several of the 
functions performed in making the starting-price sale in the comparison 
market either were not performed in connection with sales to CIC (e.g., 
market research, order solicitation, after sale services/warranties, 
and advertising), or were only performed to a small degree in 
connection with sales to CIC (e.g., inventory maintenance), thus 
supporting respondents' contention that different LOTs exist between 
comparison-market and CEP sales.
    These differences also support the respondents' assertion that the 
comparison-market merchandise is sold at a more advanced LOT (see the 
Preamble to the Department's Regulations, 62 FR 27295, 27371 (May 19, 
1997) (``Each more remote level must be characterized by an additional 
layer of selling activities, amounting in the aggregate to a 
substantially different selling function.'') Furthermore, many of the 
same selling functions that are performed at the comparison-market LOT 
are performed, not at the CEP LOT, but by the respondents' U.S. 
affiliate. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily conclude that the 
comparison-market and CEP channels of distribution are sufficiently 
different to determine that two different LOTs exist, and that the 
comparison-market sales are made at a more advanced LOT than are the 
CEP sales.
    We note that the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has held 
that the Department's practice of determining LOTs for CEP transactions 
after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of section 
772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 
1221, 1241-42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The Department believes, however, 
that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On June 4, 
1999, the CIT entered final judgement in Borden on the LOT issue. See 
Borden Inc. v. United States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 
(CIT June 4, 1999). The government has filed an appeal of Borden which 
is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
Consequently, the Department has continued to follow its normal 
practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) prior to starting a LOT 
analysis, as articulated by the Department's regulations at section 
351.412.
    Because there is only one LOT in the home market, it is not 
possible to determine if there is a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which normal value is based

[[Page 63566]]

and comparison market (i.e., home market) sales at the LOT of the 
export transaction. Thus, the data available do not provide an 
appropriate basis to calculate an LOT adjustment. Therefore, we made a 
CEP offset to normal value. In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the 
Act, we calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of the following:
    1. The indirect selling expenses on the comparison-market sale, or
    2. The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price 
in calculating CEP.

Cost of Production Analysis

    The Department disregarded certain sales made by Cinsa and ENASA 
for the period December 1, 1997, through November 30, 1998 (the most 
recently completed review of Cinsa and ENASA), pursuant to a finding in 
that review that sales failed the cost test (see Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 65 FR 320068 (May 10, 2000)). Thus, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that respondents Cinsa and ENASA made sales in the home market 
at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current 
review period. As a result, the Department initiated investigations to 
determine whether the respondents made home-market sales during the POR 
at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of Cinsa's and ENASA's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market SG&A and packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Because Cinsa 
and ENASA reported monthly costs, we created an annual average COP on a 
product-specific basis.
    We relied on COP information submitted by Cinsa and ENASA, except 
in the following instances where it was not appropriately quantified or 
valued: (1) Enamel frit prices from an affiliated supplier did not 
approximate fair market value prices; therefore, we increased Cinsa's 
and ENASA's enamel frit prices to account for the portion of the 
reported cost savings to affiliated parties which was not due to 
market-based savings; (2) we excluded Cinsa's and ENASA's negative 
interest expense. See the Preliminary Results Calculation Memo for 
further details.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR 
to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required by 
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales 
were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard 
home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: 
(1) Within an extended period of time, such sales were made in 
substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP (net of selling 
expenses) to the home market prices, less any applicable movement 
charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where twenty percent or more of the respondent's sales of 
a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made 
at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act).
    The results of our cost tests for Cinsa and ENASA indicated for 
certain home market models, less than twenty percent of the sales of 
the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of 
these models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining 
normal value. Our cost tests also indicated that for certain other home 
market models more than twenty percent of home market sales within an 
extended period of time were at prices below COP and would not permit 
the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded the 
below-cost sales of these models from our analysis and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For both respondents, we calculated normal value based on the 
value-added tax-exclusive, home market gross unit price and deducted, 
where appropriate, inland freight, discounts, and rebates in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401. We made a 
deduction for credit expenses, where appropriate, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We also deducted 
commissions and the lesser of comparison-market indirect selling 
expenses and the indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP (the CEP 
offset) pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.412(f). For those comparison-market sales for which the payment 
date was not reported, we calculated credit based on the average number 
of days between shipment and payment using the sales for which payment 
information was reported. We made adjustments to normal value for 
differences in packing expenses. We also made adjustments to normal 
value, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In 
accordance with our verification findings, we deleted canceled sales 
from the home market database, and recalculated inventory carrying 
costs and credit expenses. See the Preliminary Calculation Memo for 
further details.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the period December 1, 1998, 
through November 30, 1999, are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Manufacturer/exporter             Period         Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa...........................    12/1/98-11/30/99                1.99
ENASA...........................    12/1/98-11/30/99                6.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63567]]

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties who submit case briefs 
or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the 
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the 
Customs Service upon completion of this review. The final results of 
this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties 
on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review 
and for future deposits of estimated duties. We will instruct the 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. For 
assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific 
assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount 
by the total entered value of the sales examined.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the original 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 29.52 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
normal value investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    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 is published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: October 12, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-27078 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P