6140 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–806, A–484–801]

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From

Japan and Greece: Notice of Extension

of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits for preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is extending the time limit for the

preliminary results of the antidumping

duty administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on electrolytic

manganese dioxide from Japan and

Greece. The period of review is April 1,

1998, through March 31, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Tabash, Hermes Pinilla or Richard

Rimlinger, AD/CVD Enforcement,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5047,

(202) 482–3477 or (202) 482–4477,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (URAA). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department’s)

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351

(1998).

Extension of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results

The Department has received a

request to conduct administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty orders

on electrolytic manganese dioxide from

Japan and Greece. On May 20, 1999, and

June 30, 1999, the Department initiated

these administrative reviews covering

the period April 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999 (64 FR 28973 and 64 FR 35124,

respectively).

On December 28, 1999, we extended

the preliminary results for both cases

from December 31, 1999, to February 14,

2000. Because it is not practicable to

complete these reviews by February 14,

2000, due to the complexity of the

issues involved (see Memoranda from

Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland,

Extension of Time Limit for

Administrative Reviews of Electrolytic

Manganese Dioxide from Japan and

Greece, February 1, 2000), the

Department is extending the time limits

for the preliminary results by 75 days

from the current deadline of February

14, 2000. Thus, the extended deadline

for issuance of the preliminary results is

May 1, 2000. The Department intends to

issue the final results of reviews 120

days after the publication of the

preliminary results. This extension of

the time limit is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213(h)(2).

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2848 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A–557–805

Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On November 8, 1999, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia. This

review covers four manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States (Filati Lastex Sdn.

Bhd., Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn.

Bhd., Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd., and Rubfil

Sdn. Bhd.). The period of review is

October 1, 1997, through September 30,

1998.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We have based our

analysis on the comments received and

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

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

0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 8, 1999, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of the 1997–1998

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia (64 FR

60766). The Department has now

completed this administrative review, in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

extruded rubber thread. Extruded rubber

thread is defined as vulcanized rubber

thread obtained by extrusion of stable or

concentrated natural rubber latex of any

cross sectional shape, measuring from

0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140

gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch

or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded

rubber thread is currently classifiable

under subheading 4007.00.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (POR) is October

1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Act, are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (1999).

Facts Available

A. Use of Facts Available for Rubfil Sdn.

Bhd. (Rubfil)

In accordance with section

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

that the use of facts available is

appropriate as the basis for Rubfil’s

dumping margin. Paragraphs

776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act

provide, respectively, that if an

interested party: (A) withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department; (B) fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, subject to

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act;

(C) significantly impedes a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6141

determination under the antidumping

statute; or (D) provides such information

but the information cannot be verified,

the Department shall, subject to

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. Specifically,

Rubfil failed to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire, issued in

December 1998. Because Rubfil did not

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, paragraphs A through C

of section 776(a)(2) of the Act apply.

Moreover, Rubfil was advised that

failure to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire would be considered a

deficiency which would result in the

use of facts available. In light of Rubfil’s

continued failure to respond and in

accordance with sections 776(a) and

782(d) of the Act, we must use facts

otherwise available to determine

Rubfil’s dumping margin.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used

with respect to a party that has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information. See Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

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

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

of Rubfil to reply to the Department’s

questionnaire demonstrates that it has

failed to act to the best of its ability in

this review and, therefore, an adverse

inference is warranted.

As adverse facts available for Rubfil,

we have used the highest rate for any

respondent in any segment of this

proceeding. That rate is 52.89 percent.

We find that the rate of 52.89 percent,

which was assigned in a prior

administrative review, is sufficiently

high as to effectuate the purpose of the

adverse facts available rule (see

Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 12752

(Mar. 16, 1998) (Thread Fourth

Review)).

B. Corroboration of Secondary

Information

As facts available in this case, the

Department has used information

derived from a prior administrative

review, which constitutes secondary

information within the meaning of the

SAA. See SAA at 870. Section 776(c) of

the Act provides that the Department

shall, to the extent practicable,

corroborate secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The SAA provides that

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value. See SAA at 870.

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike for other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from the

same or a prior segment of the

proceeding, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of the margin for

that time period. 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 may not be appropriate,

the Department will attempt to find a

more appropriate basis for facts

available. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers

from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22,

1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers) (where the

Department disregarded the highest

margin as adverse best information

available because the margin was based

on another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin).

For Rubfil, we examined the rate

applicable to extruded rubber thread

from Malaysia throughout the course of

the proceeding. With regard to its

probative value, the rate specified above

is reliable and relevant because it is a

calculated rate from the 1995–1996

administrative review. There is no

information on the record that

demonstrates that the rate selected is

not an appropriate total adverse facts

available rate for Rubfil. Thus, the

Department considers this rate to be

appropriate adverse facts available.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

extruded rubber thread from Malaysia to

the United States were made at less than

normal value (NV), we compared the

export price (EP) to the NV for

Rubberflex, as specified in the ‘‘Export

Price and Constructed Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,

below. We compared the constructed

export price (CEP) to the NV for Filati

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

Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd (collectively

Heveafil), and Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd.

(Rubberflex), also as specified in those

sections.

When making comparisons in

accordance with section 771(16) of the

Act, we considered all home market

sales of extruded rubber thread that

were in the ordinary course of trade for

purposes of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Where there were no sales in the

ordinary course of trade of identical

merchandise in the home market, we

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most

similar foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade, based on the

characteristics listed in sections B and

C of our antidumping questionnaire.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade as EP or CEP. The

NV level of trade is that of the startingprice sales in the comparison market or,

when NV is based on CV, that of the

sales from which we derive selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level

of trade is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from the

exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP

sales, we 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 level of trade and

the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of price differences between the

sales on which NV is based and

comparison-market sales at the level of

trade of the export transaction, we make

a level-of-trade adjustment under

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally,

for CEP sales, if the NV level is more

remote from the factory than the CEP

level and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

the levels between NV and CEP affects

price comparability, we adjust NV

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, 61732–33 (Nov. 19, 1997).

Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex

claimed that they made home market

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

to original equipment manufacturers

(OEMs)). According to these

respondents, no level of trade

adjustment was warranted. Although

Filati claimed that the home market

level was different, and more remote,

than the level of trade of the CEP, we

6142 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

have found the levels of trade to be the

same.

In order to determine whether NV was

established at a level of trade which

constituted a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP, we compared the selling functions

performed for home market sales with

those performed with respect to the CEP

transaction, which excludes economic

activities occurring in the United States.

In examining the record, we found that

all sales in the home market for all

respondents were in a single channel of

trade (i.e., to OEMs) constituting a single

stage of marketing. Moreover, we found

that Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex

performed essentially the same selling

functions in their sales offices in

Malaysia for all home market and U.S.

sales. Therefore, the respondents’ sales

in Malaysia were not at a more

advanced stage of marketing and

distribution than the constructed U.S.

level of trade, which represents an FOB

foreign port price after the deduction of

expenses associated with U.S. selling

activities. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2).

Because we find that no difference in

level of trade exists between markets,

we have not granted a CEP offset to any

of the respondents. For a detailed

explanation of this analysis, see the

concurrence memorandum issued for

the preliminary results of this review,

dated November 1, 1999.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For Rubberflex, we based the U.S.

price on EP, in accordance with section

772(a) of the Act, when the subject

merchandise was sold directly to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and CEP

methodology was not otherwise

indicated.

In addition, for all companies, we

based the U.S. price on CEP where sales

to the unaffiliated purchaser took place

after importation into the United States,

in accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act. We also based U.S. price on CEP for

Filati and Heveafil where the

merchandise was shipped directly to

certain unaffiliated customers because

we found that the extent of the affiliates’

activities performed in the United States

in connection with those sales was

significant. For further discussion, see

Comment 1 in the ‘‘Analysis of

Comments Received’’ section of this

notice.

A. Filati

We calculated CEP based on the

starting price to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. In

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

the Act, we added an amount for

uncollected import duties in Malaysia.

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for rebates. In

addition, where appropriate, we made

deductions for foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S.

brokerage and handling expenses, U.S.

inland freight, and U.S. warehousing

expenses, in accordance with section

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

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for

commissions, credit expenses and U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including U.S.

inventory carrying costs, in accordance

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

disallowed an offset claimed by Filati

relating to imputed costs associated

with financing antidumping and

countervailing duty deposits, in

accordance with the Department’s

practice. See Extruded Rubber Thread

from Malaysia; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 12967, 12968 (Mar. 16,

1999) (Thread Fifth Review; Thread

Fourth Review, 63 FR at 12754; and

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden

and the United Kingdom; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 54043, 54075 (Oct. 17,

1997) (AFBs). Also see Comment 2 in

the ‘‘Analysis of Comments Received’’

section of this notice, for further

discussion.

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

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit, to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by Filati and its affiliate on their sales

of the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

B. Heveafil

We calculated CEP based on the

starting price to the first unaffiliated

customer in the United States. In

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

the Act, we added an amount for

uncollected import duties in Malaysia.

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for rebates.

We also made deductions for foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling expenses, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. customs duty,

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,

U.S. inland freight, and U.S.

warehousing expenses, in accordance

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

We made additional deductions to

CEP, where appropriate, for credit

expenses and U.S. indirect selling

expenses, including U.S. inventory

carrying costs, in accordance with

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

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

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit, to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by Heveafil and its affiliate on their

sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States and the foreign like

product in the home market and the

profit associated with those sales.

C. Rubberflex

We based EP or CEP, as appropriate,

on the starting price to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions from the

starting price, where appropriate, for

rebates. We also made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S.

inland freight, and U.S. warehousing

expenses, in accordance with section

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

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for credit

expenses and U.S. indirect selling

expenses, including U.S. inventory

carrying costs, in accordance with

section 772(d)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to

section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further

reduced the starting price by an amount

for profit, to arrive at CEP. In

accordance with section 772(f) of the

Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate

using the expenses incurred by

Rubberflex and its affiliate on their sales

of the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was during the POR a sufficient volume

of sales in the home market to serve as

a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,

the aggregate volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product was

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared the

volume of each respondent’s home

market sales of the foreign like product

to the volume of U.S. sales of subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on

this comparison, we determined that

each respondent had a viable home

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6143

market during the POR. Consequently,

we based NV on home market sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act, there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that Filati,

Heveafil, and Rubberflex had made

home market sales at prices below their

costs of production (COPs) in this

review because the Department had

disregarded sales below the COP for

these companies in the most recent

administrative review. See Thread Fifth

Review, 64 FR at 12969. As a result, the

Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether the respondents

made home market sales during the POR

at prices below their respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for SG&A

and packing costs, in accordance with

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

We compared the COP figures to

home market prices of the foreign like

product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

home market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, and

rebates.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we 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 in the normal

course of trade. 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 at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product were at prices below

the COP, we found that sales of that

model were made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time (as defined in section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In

such cases, we also determined that

such sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

the below-cost sales. Where all sales of

a specific product were at prices below

the COP, we disregarded all sales of that

product.

We found that, for certain models of

extruded rubber thread, more than 20

percent of each respondent’s home

market sales within an extended period

of time were at prices less than COP.

Further, the prices did not provide for

the recovery of costs within a reasonable

period of time. We therefore disregarded

the below-cost sales and used the

remaining sales as the basis for

determining NV, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those

U.S. sales of extruded rubber thread for

which we were unable to make

comparisons with home market sales,

we compared CEP to CV, in accordance

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and

U.S. packing costs. In accordance with

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

SG&A and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by each

respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

Company-specific calculations are

discussed below.

A. Filati

In all instances, NV for Filati was

based on home market sales.

Accordingly, we based NV on the

starting price to unaffiliated customers.

For all price-to-price comparisons, we

made deductions from the starting price

for rebates, where appropriate. We also

made deductions, where appropriate,

for foreign inland freight, pursuant to

section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act, we also made deductions for

home market credit expenses and bank

charges. Where applicable, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we

offset any commission paid on a U.S.

sale by reducing the NV by the amount

of home market indirect selling

expenses and inventory carrying costs,

up to the amount of the U.S.

commission.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to

NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

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

CFR 351.411.

B. Heveafil

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers. We made

deductions from the starting price for

discounts. We also made deductions for

foreign inland freight and foreign inland

insurance, pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to

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

also made deductions for home market

credit expenses.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to

NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

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

CFR 351.411.

For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses, in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

C. Rubberflex

In all instances, NV for Rubberflex

was based on home market sales.

Accordingly, we based NV on the

starting price to unaffiliated customers.

We made deductions from the starting

price for foreign inland freight, pursuant

to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act, we also made a circumstanceof-sale adjustment for credit expenses.

For all price-to-price comparisons, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in

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

Act. Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

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

CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

We 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.

Section 773A of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

6144 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received

comments from North American Rubber

Thread (the petitioner) and two

respondents, Filati and Rubberflex. We

also received rebuttal comments from

the petitioner.

A. Filati

Comment 1: Treatment of Direct

Container Sales

During the POR, Filati shipped some

thread directly from the factory in

Malaysia to its U.S. customers. The

Department treated these ‘‘direct

container’’ shipments as CEP sales for

purposes of the preliminary results.

Filati argues that this treatment was

incorrect, based on the Department’s

criteria for determining whether a sale

is an EP transaction (rather than a CEP

sale). According to Filati, whenever

sales are made prior to the date of

importation through an affiliated sales

agent in the United States, the

Department concludes that EP is the

most appropriate determinant of the

U.S. price where all of the following

factors are present:

• The merchandise in question is

shipped directly from the manufacturer

to the unaffiliated buyer without being

introduced into the physical inventory

of the selling agent;

• Direct shipment from the

manufacturer to the unaffiliated buyer is

the customary channel for sales of the

subject merchandise between the parties

involved; and

• The selling agent in the United

States acts only as a processor of salesrelated documentation and a

communication link with the

unaffiliated U.S. buyer.

See, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod

from Korea, 63 FR 40404, 40418 (July

29, 1998) (Korean Steel); and Certain

Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 18547,

18551 (Apr. 26, 1996) (Carbon Steel

from Korea).

Filati contends that each of these

criteria was met with respect to its

direct container sales. Specifically,

Filati states that, because the date of sale

was prior to entry, the direct container

sales were made prior to importation. In

addition, Filati asserts that the first and

second criteria were met, since: (1) The

subject merchandise was shipped

directly to the U.S. customer without

being introduced into the physical

inventory of Filati USA; and (2) direct

shipments have been a normal

commercial channel for the customer

involved.

Regarding the third criterion, Filati

argues that the Department erroneously

found in the preliminary results that the

activities carried out by its U.S. affiliate,

FLE–USA, exceeded those of a

document processor and

communication link. Filati contends

that the selling activities performed by

FLE–USA are within the range of

activities previously determined by the

Department to be consistent with EP

classification.

Filati acknowledges that FLE–USA

takes title to the merchandise, invoices

the customer, and in some cases,

arranges and pays for delivery from the

port of entry. However, Filati contends

that FLE–USA has only limited

authority to set prices in the United

States. As support for this assertion,

Filati cites to the U.S. sales verification

report issued in the prior administrative

review, where the Department noted

that prices are quoted in accordance

with a window that is set based on

consultations with the parent company.

(See Memorandum from Irina Itkin to

Louis Apple regarding Verification of

the Sales Questionnaire Responses of

Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd. and Filati Lastex

Elastofibre in the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review on Extruded

Rubber Thread from Malaysia, dated

Oct. 7, 1998, at page 4 (FLE–USA

Verification Report).)

In addition, Filati asserts that the

Department has accorded EP treatment

to sales by respondents who performed

selling functions that were more

significant than those performed by

FLE–USA. Filati cites to AK Steel Corp.

v. United States, Slip Op. 98–159 at 10–

12 (Court of International Trade (CIT),

Nov. 23, 1998) (AK Steel) and Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from the Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 11825, 11828 (Mar. 10,

1999) (Dutch Steel) in support of its

position. Filati asserts that, in the

former, the CIT upheld the Department’s

EP classification of U.S. sales where the

U.S. affiliate: (1) took title to the

shipment; (2) acted as importer of

record; (3) made initial contact with the

direct shipment customer; (4) negotiated

price based upon predetermined factors;

(5) received purchase orders from the

customer and forwarded them to the

exporter/producer for confirmation; (6)

invoiced the customer; (7) conducted

market research and economic planning;

(8) found customers; (9) arranged and

paid for post-sale warehousing,

transportation, U.S. Customs duties,

brokerage, handling, and other

expenses; (10) extended credit to and

accepted payment from direct container

customers; and (11) maintained

relationships with those customers.

Regarding the latter, Filati asserts that

the Department found that sales were

properly classified as EP transactions

where the U.S. affiliate: (1) arranged

visits and accompanied the foreign

producer/exporter on visits to U.S.

customers; (2) relayed customer price

and quantity quotes to the producer and

the producer’s reply to the customer; (3)

advised the producer whether the price

quotes were reasonable based on market

research; (4) drafted and signed sales

contracts on behalf of the foreign

producer; (5) processed U.S. customs

declarations and made arrangements

with U.S. freight forwarders; (6) acted as

importer of record; (7) received payment

from the customer; and (8) provided

some after-sale support functions, such

as facilitating visits by the producer’s

service technician.

Finally, Filati notes that the

Department found that Filati’s direct

container shipments were EP

transactions in the second and third

reviews of this proceeding. Filati

contends that, because its method of

making these shipments has not

changed since the time of those reviews,

the Department should continue to treat

direct container sales as EP transactions

in the instant review.

The petitioner contends that the

Department correctly treated Filati’s

direct container shipments as CEP

transactions. According to the

petitioner, Filati concedes that its U.S.

subsidiary negotiates U.S. prices, albeit

within the constraints of a ‘‘window.’’

The petitioner asserts that Filati has

failed to adequately define this window,

including how it is determined, whether

it changes from sale to sale, or whether

FLE–USA can in fact determine what

the window is. Thus, the petitioner

asserts that the Department should

continue to classify the sales in question

as CEP sales.

DOC Position

In the preliminary results of this

review, we examined the facts of this

case in light of the statutory definitions

of EP and CEP sales. Section 772(b) of

the Act, as amended, defines CEP as

‘‘the price at 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

such merchandise or by a seller

affiliated with the producer or exporter,

to a purchaser not affiliated with the

producer or exporter, as adjusted’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6145

(emphasis added). Section 772(a) of the

Act defines EP as ‘‘the price at which

the subject merchandise is first sold (or

agreed to be sold) before the date of

importation by the producer or exporter

of the subject merchandise outside of

the United States to an unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States, or to an

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to

the United States, as adjusted’’

(emphasis added).

As the statutory definitions state,

sales before importation can be

classified as either EP or CEP sales. The

decisive factor for classifying sales made

prior to importation is where the selling

activity takes place (i.e., inside or

outside of the United States).

Distinguishing EP and CEP transactions

based on where selling activity takes

place is consistent with the purpose of

ensuring that, where appropriate,

expenses related to selling activity in

the United States are deducted to reach

a constructed ‘‘export’’ price.

It is the Department’s practice to

examine several criteria to determine

whether sales made prior to importation

through a sales agent to an unaffiliated

customer in the United States are EP

sales, including: (1) whether the

merchandise was shipped directly from

the manufacturer to the unaffiliated U.S.

customer; (2) whether this was the

customary commercial channel between

the parties involved; and (3) whether

the function of the U.S. selling agent

was limited to that of a ‘‘processor of

sales-related documentation’’ and a

‘‘communications link’’ with the

unaffiliated U.S. buyer. Where all three

criteria are met, indicating that the

activities of the U.S. selling agent are

ancillary to the sale, the Department has

determined the sales to be EP sales.

Where one or more of these conditions

are not met the Department has

classified the sales in question as CEP

sales. (See, e.g., Viscose Rayon Staple

Fiber from Finland: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 32820, 32821 (June 16,

1998) (Viscose Rayon from Finland);

Certain Cold-Rolled and CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 63 FR 13170 (Mar. 18, 1998).)

The crucial distinction between EP

and CEP treatment in this case lies in

the last factor (i.e., whether the entity in

the United States acted only as a

processor of documentation and a

communication link). See Mitsubishi

Heavy Industries v. United States, 15 F.

Supp. 2d 807, 811–12 (CIT 1998). This

factor entails a fact-based analysis to

determine whether the entity in the

United States is actually engaged in

significant selling activities, in which

case CEP applies, or is merely

performing ancillary functions for a

foreign seller, in which case EP is

appropriate. See Id. The classification of

sales as EP or CEP is not confined to

tallying up the various functions of the

U.S. selling agent. In Industrial

Nitrocellulose From the United

Kingdom: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 6609, 6611 (Feb. 10,

1999), we observed that ‘‘[t]he

Department looks at the totality of the

evidence to determine whether an

agent’s role in the sales process is

beyond the ancillary role.’’ As noted

above, in cases where the U.S. affiliate

or sales agent has a significant role in

making U.S. sales (including setting the

price in the United States and providing

after-sale support), we generally find

that CEP treatment is appropriate. See,

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the

Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30664, 30685–

86 (June 8, 1999); Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod

From Spain, 63 FR 40391, 40395 (July

29, 1998) (SSWR from Spain); and

Viscose Rayon from Finland. 63 FR at

32821.

Our analysis of the facts in this case

indicates that during the POR Filati’s

U.S. affiliate, FLE–USA, played an

extensive role in making direct

container sales. Specifically, FLE–USA:

(1) Made initial contact with the

customer; (2) transmitted the order to

Filati in Malaysia; (3) quoted prices

without consulting the parent company

on a sale-by-sale basis; (4) took title to

the merchandise; (5) invoiced, and

received payment from, the customer;

and (6) arranged and paid for delivery

from the U.S. port to the customer. See

page 9 of the September 13, 1999,

supplemental response and the FLE–

USA Verification Report at page 4.

Thus, the record shows that FLE–USA

was significantly involved in every

aspect of the sales to U.S. direct

container customers, except for

arranging for shipment of the subject

merchandise from Malaysia to the U.S.

port of entry.

FLE–USA’s role in negotiating the

terms of the sales in question is more

significant than that of a conduit of

information between the U.S. customer

and the Malaysian parent. Specifically,

FLE–USA had the authority to contact

U.S. customers directly, and then to

negotiate and accept sales terms and

prices on a case-by-case basis without

Filati’s approval. Both of these functions

contradict Filati’s claim that the U.S.

subsidiary’s role is ancillary. The record

of this case shows FLE–USA’s

involvement in the U.S. sales process is

extensive, as evidenced by the selling

functions described herein. Based on

these facts, we determine that FLE–

USA’s role in making direct container

sales exceeds that of a mere processor of

sales-related documentation and

communication link between the parent

company and U.S. customer.

We also find unpersuasive Filati’s

claim that FLE–USA had limited

authority to set prices because it did so

only within parameters set by Filati. In

similar circumstances, we have found

the U.S. subsidiary’s role in making the

sales at issue to be significant enough to

warrant their treatment as CEP sales. For

example, in SSWR from Spain, we

found that the U.S. subsidiary’s ability

to negotiate prices within the

parameters set by the parent company,

in conjunction with other sale related

activities, was sufficient to warrant

classification of those sales as CEP sales.

In addition, in U.S. Steel Group v.

United States, Slip Op. 98–96 at 26 (CIT

1998), the CIT upheld the Department’s

classification of U.S. sales as CEP

transactions, based in part on the U.S.

subsidiary’s ability to negotiate prices

above the minimum set by the parent

company.

We also find that Filati’s reliance

upon Dutch Steel is misplaced. The

record on which that determination was

based demonstrated that the U.S.

subsidiary performed limited liaison

functions in the processing of salesrelated documentation and held a

limited role as a communication link.

Specifically, the U.S. subsidiary in that

case did not take title to the

merchandise, finance sales, provide

technical assistance, issue order

confirmations or invoices, or accept

payment from customers (except in

extraordinary circumstances). See Dutch

Steel, 64 FR at 11828. Moreover, the

Department stated in its final

determination that the U.S. subsidiary

had no authority to negotiate prices, that

it did not initiate contact with U.S.

customers on its own authority, and that

the preponderance of selling functions

involved in U.S. sales occurred in the

Netherlands. Id. at 11828–29. In the

instant case, because FLE–USA

contacted customers, took title to the

merchandise, quoted prices without

consulting with the parent company on

a sale-by-sale basis, issued invoices, and

accepted payment, we find that FLE–

USA did not act as a mere

communications link or document

processor.

We similarly find Filati’s citation to

AK Steel to be inapposite. In AK Steel,

6146 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

the CIT affirmed the Department’s

initial classification of direct container

sales as EP transactions based on the

fact that there was no evidence on the

record to indicate that the U.S.

subsidiary had the freedom to negotiate

prices. More importantly, the CIT in AK

Steel expressly distinguished its holding

in that case from its prior holding in

U.S. Steel Group, citing to this factual

distinction as the basis for reconciling

the decisions.

Consequently, consistent with the

final results in the most recent reviews

of this proceeding (see Thread Fourth

Review and Thread Fifth Review) and

the Department’s current practice, we

have continued to treat these

transactions as CEP sales for purposes of

the final results.

Comment 2: Offset for Imputed Costs

Associated With AD/CVD Duty Deposits

In its questionnaire response, Filati

reported the opportunity costs

associated with financing its cash

deposits of antidumping and

countervailing duties as an offset to U.S.

indirect selling expenses. Filati

concedes that the Department’s decision

to deny this offset for purposes of the

preliminary results is consistent with

the recent practice articulated in AFBs.

However, Filati contends that the

Department’s change in policy conflicts

with prior decisions made both by the

Department and the CIT. See, e.g.,

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Singapore, and the United

Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR

2081, 2104 (Jan. 15, 1997 (1994–1995

AFBs Reviews); and Federal-Mogul v.

United States, 950 F. Supp. 1179 (CIT

1996).

Specifically, Filati asserts that the

reasoning in AFBs was flawed in two

respects. First, Filati asserts that AFBs

was based on the premise that money is

fungible. According to Filati, however,

this point is irrelevant, just as it is

irrelevant whether a company has

actually obtained loans or has otherwise

financed the antidumping cash deposits,

because the company has incurred a real

expense which it would not have

incurred but for the existence of the

antidumping duty order. Second, Filati

asserts that AFBs was based on the

premise that there is no ‘‘real’’

opportunity cost associated with the

duty deposits. Filati maintains that this

point is also incorrect, because

respondents making cash deposits are

required to divert funds from more

profitable ventures.

In addition, according to Filati, the

Department has correctly held that the

costs associated with antidumping or

countervailing duty deposits are not

‘‘selling expenses.’’ Consequently, Filati

maintains that the antidumping law

does not allow their deduction from

CEP.

Finally, Filati contends that the CIT

has taken a consistent position which

approves of the offset. Filati cites to

Timken Co. v. United States, 16 F.

Supp. 2d 1102, 1105 (CIT 1998)

(Timken), which lists the cases in which

the court has upheld the Department’s

decisions to grant the adjustment and

the cases in which it has remanded

decisions to deny the offset.

Based on the above arguments, Filati

contends that the Department should

allow its offset to indirect selling

expenses for the imputed cost of

financing its cash deposits of

antidumping and countervailing duties

for purposes of the final results.

DOC Position

Consistent with Department’s current

practice, we have continued to deny an

offset to Filati’s U.S. indirect selling

expenses for theoretical expenses

related to financing of antidumping and

countervailing duty cash deposits. For a

discussion of the Department’s

reasoning behind this practice, see

AFBs, 62 FR at 54075 and Thread Fifth

Review, 64 FR at 12973.

We continue to believe that this

practice is valid in general for the

reasons articulated in AFBs and Thread

Fifth Review. However, even were we to

reverse our practice, the record of this

case does not support Filati’s claim.

Specifically, we disagree with Filati’s

argument that it incurred a real expense

that it would not have incurred but for

the existence of the antidumping duty

order. The only expenses relevant to

this question are U.S. financing

expenses. Because the record shows no

evidence of financing activity in the

United States, we find that Filati

incurred no ‘‘real’’ expense, despite its

assertions to the contrary.

Regarding Filati’s argument that

expenses associated with financing cash

deposits of antidumping duties may not

be deducted from CEP, we find that

Filati failed to demonstrate how the

Department’s denial of its offset resulted

in an improper deduction of such

selling expenses. Indeed, because the

Department deducted neither actual nor

imputed financing expenses, nor the

cash deposits themselves, we have in

fact made no deduction for expenses

associated with financing Filati’s cash

deposits. In contrast, we find that

Filati’s scheme to reduce actual

expenses by the amount of a theoretical

offset is contrary to the explicit language

of the Act, which requires the deduction

of all selling expenses incurred by or for

account of the affiliated seller in the

United States in selling the subject

merchandise. See section 772(d) of the

Act.

Finally, regarding Filati’s citation to

Timken, we note that in this decision

the CIT acknowledged that it is the

Department’s current practice to deny

the type of offset in question. While we

concede that Timken references a

number of cases which were remanded

to the Department after denying the

offset, we note that these cases were

decided according to the Department’s

prior practice in this area.

Therefore, in accordance with our

current practice, we have continued to

deny an offset to Filati’s indirect selling

expenses for purposes of the final

results.

B. Rubberflex

Comment 3: Errors in Rubberflex’s Sales

Response

In December 1999, Rubberflex

notified the Department that it had

discovered an error in its home market

database which affected two sales.

Specifically, Rubberflex stated that it

had discovered that one of the sales in

question had been exported to a third

country and the other returned by the

customer. At the Department’s request,

Rubberflex submitted documentation

demonstrating that these transactions

were not in fact home market sales. (See

Memorandum from Shawn Thompson

to The File regarding Submission of

Additional Data and Extension of

Briefing Schedule in the 97–98

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review on Extruded Rubber Thread

from Malaysia, dated December 3,

1999.) Accordingly, Rubberflex

contends that the Department should

disregard these transactions when

calculating NV.

The petitioner maintains that

Rubberflex’s December submission

should be rejected because it was

untimely. Moreover, the petitioner

alleges that Rubberflex has not

demonstrated that the submission

complies with the Department’s

requirements on new submissions—

namely that the nature of the alleged

errors is apparent from the prior record

itself.

DOC Position

It is the Department’s practice to

accept a correction of a party’s clerical

error if certain conditions are met. See,

e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6147

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Sweden, and the

United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 64 FR 35590, 35625 (July 1,

1999). In this case, those conditions

have been met.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.301(c)(2), the Department may

request that a respondent submit factual

information at any time during a

proceeding. Because the Department

requested that Rubberflex submit the

documentation in question, it is not

untimely within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.301.

We find that the documentation

provided by Rubberflex provides clear

evidence that the sales at issue had been

reported in error. Contrary to the

petitioner’s assertions, the Department

does not require respondents to

demonstrate that factual errors in their

data are apparent in the record of a

proceeding. The effect of such a

requirement would be to preclude

respondents, as is the case here, from

notifying the Department of any clerical

errors found in their data. See NTN

Bearing Corp. v. U.S., 74 F.3d 1204,

1207–08 (1995). Consequently, because

Rubberflex provided sufficient proof

that the sales in question were not home

market transactions, we have

disregarded them for purposes of the

final results.

Comment 4: Calculation of U.S. Indirect

Selling Expenses

The petitioner argues that Rubberflex

understated the indirect selling

expenses of its U.S. subsidiary, Flexfil,

because it allocated a certain portion of

these expenses to Canadian sales which

were not invoiced by Flexfil. The

petitioner contends that, if Flexfil had

had significant involvement in the sales,

they would have appeared on Flexfil’s

books. Furthermore, the petitioner

asserts that such ‘‘off the books’’

allocations are inherently unverifiable

and arbitrary. According to the

petitioner, the Department should

reallocate these expenses using only the

sales made by the subsidiary and

recorded in the subsidiary’s books.

DOC Position

In its supplemental questionnaire

response, Rubberflex demonstrated that

Flexfil was actively involved in making

sales to Canada. (See pages 15 and 16,

as well as Exhibit 32, of the September

7, 1999, submission.) Not only did

Flexfil routinely accept orders from

Canadian customers on behalf of

Rubberflex, but it also corresponded

with them regarding the status of these

orders and it handled various problems

which arose during the sales process.

Thus, because the indirect selling

expenses incurred by Flexfil related, in

part, to sales to Canada, we find that it

is appropriate to allocate a portion of

these expenses to Canadian sales. We

note that this treatment of Flexfil’s

indirect selling expenses is in

accordance with our treatment of such

expenses in prior segments of this

proceeding. See, e.g., Thread Fifth

Review, 64 FR at 12976, where the

Department verified Flexfil’s role in

making Canadian sales. Accordingly, we

have accepted Flexfil’s indirect selling

expense allocation for purposes of the

final results.

Final Results of Review

As a result of comments received we

have revised our analysis and determine

that the following margins exist for the

period October 1, 1997, through

September 30, 1998:

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent

margin

Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd .................. 0.45

Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./ ....................... ................

Filmax Sdn. Bhd ........................... 0.17

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd .................... 1.10

Rubfil Sdn. Bhd ............................ 52.89

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated importerspecific assessment rates based on the

ratio of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

to the total entered value of those sales.

These rates will be assessed uniformly

on all entries of that particular importer

made during the POR. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of extruded rubber thread

from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be the rates for

those firms as stated above (except for

Filati and Heveafil the cash deposit

rates will be zero because their margins

are de minimis); (2) for previously

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the 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 15.16

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 the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final 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 notice also serves as 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 351.305(a)(3). Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), section

777(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)),

and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2845 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–703, A–588–707]

Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From

Italy and Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Continuation of

Antidumping Orders: Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy

and Japan.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the