[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14399-14403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7591]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-433-807]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Open-End Spun Rayon 
Singles Yarn From Austria

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

EFFECTIVE DATES: March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Russell Morris, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.

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 Rounds Agreements Act (``URAA'').

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that open-end spun rayon singles yarn 
from Austria is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. 
The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Open-End Spun Rayon Singles Yarn from 
Austria (61 FR 48472, September 13, 1996)), the following events have 
occurred. On October 4, 1996, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary injury 
determination in this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-751; 61 FR 
53760, October 15, 1996).
    On October 4, 1996, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to the following companies identified by petitioners as 
possible exporters of the subject merchandise: Linz Textil GmbH (Linz) 
and G. Borckenstein und Sohn A.G. (Borckenstein). The questionnaire is 
divided into four sections. Section A requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the 
merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the sales of the 
merchandise in all of its markets. Sections B and C request home market 
sales listings and U.S. sales listings, respectively. Section D 
requests information on the cost of production (``COP'') of the foreign 
like product and constructed value (``CV'') of the subject merchandise.
    Borckenstein submitted its response to section A of the 
questionnaire on November 8, 1996 and to sections B and C on December 
3, 1996. As a result of our analysis of Borckenstein's submissions to 
our original questionnaire, we determined that we required additional 
information as well as clarification of the information submitted in 
the responses, and thus we issued a supplemental request for 
information on December 19, 1996, and requests for additional 
supplemental information on January 29, 1997. We received the responses 
to these requests on January 9, 1997, and February 6, 1997 
respectively.
    Linz submitted its questionnaire response to section A on October 
25, 1996 and sections B and C on November 26, 1996. As a result of our 
analysis of Linz's response to our original questionnaire, we 
determined that we required additional information as well as 
clarification of the information submitted in the responses. We issued 
a supplemental request for information on December 12, 1996 and 
requests for additional supplemental information on January 29, 1997 
and February 10, 1997. We received responses to these requests on 
January 6, 1997, and February 6 and 24, 1997, respectively.
    Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, as amended, we 
postponed the date of the preliminary determination of whether sales of 
open-end spun rayon singles yarn from Austria have been made at less 
than fair value until not later than March 18, 1997 (see 62 FR 3003, 
January 21, 1997). We postponed the preliminary determination because 
this investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and because of the 
novel legal and methodological issues in this investigation.
    In their questionnaire responses to Section A, both respondents 
argued that particular market conditions of this case render the home 
market non-viable as a comparison market. Borckenstein argued that 
because there is no demand in the home market for all the same yarn 
counts which it sells in the United States, a third country market, 
Italy, is a more appropriate comparison market. Borckenstein also 
argued that a majority of its sales in the home market were of black 
rayon yarn which is generally a higher-cost, higher-priced product 
compared to the raw white product sold in the United States. Linz also 
argued that because there is no demand in the home market for the same 
yarn counts that Linz sells in the United States, a third country 
market, France, is the more appropriate comparison market. Linz also 
noted that French sales are more appropriate as the comparison market 
for U.S. sales because the customers are similar, the yarns are used in 
a similar fashion, there are similar quantities of sales, and similar 
channels and methods of distribution.
    On November 14, 1996, we determined that the home market was viable 
for each of the respondents. Under section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the 
Department normally considers sales in the home market to be of 
sufficient quantity if they represent five percent of the aggregate 
quantity of sales of the subject merchandise in the United States. Both 
the home market sales of Borckenstein and Linz met that requirement. If 
the sales in the home market met the five percent requirement, the 
Department will only resort to a third country market when unusual 
situations renders the home market inappropriate. The fact that the 
home market may not have identical sales to compare to the sales of the 
subject merchandise in the United States is not an unusual situation 
and thus does not render the home market inappropriate. (For further 
explanation, see the memoranda from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, 
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration dated November 
14, 1996, (public version) on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-
099 of the Department of Commerce.)
    On December 10, 1996, petitioner objected to the use of date of 
invoice as the date of sale. Petitioner argued that given the actual 
sales processes of both respondents, the appropriate date of sale is 
the date of contract and not the date on which the sale is invoiced. 
Petitioner noted that there are no changes in the basic terms of each 
sale after the negotiation of the sales contract, and there is a 
significant lag time between the date of the sales contract and the 
date of the invoice. After a careful review of the petitioner's 
comments and the method by which sales are made in

[[Page 14400]]

both the home market and U.S. market by both Borckenstein and Linz, we 
determined that the date of invoice is the appropriate date of sale in 
this investigation.
    In the proposed regulations (61 FR 7308), section 351.401(i) states 
that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded 
in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale. On March 29, 1996, the change in the 
date of sale methodology specified in the proposed regulations was 
implemented as policy by the Department for all investigations 
initiated after February 1, 1996, and for all reviews initiated after 
April 1, 1996. Therefore, for purposes of deciding the appropriate date 
of sale for this investigation, the new date of invoice policy is to be 
used.
    This new policy still provides the Department with flexibility in 
situations involving certain long-term contracts or situations in which 
there is an exceptionally long lag time between date of invoice and 
date of shipment. Our review of the sales processes of both 
Borckenstein and Linz indicate that sales are made using short-term 
contracts. We also found that there is little lag time between the date 
of shipment and the date of invoice. Also, there is no other 
circumstance present to warrant making an exception to the general rule 
of using date of invoice as the date of sale for both companies for 
purposes of this investigation. Therefore, we determined that the date 
of invoice used by both Borckenstein and Linz is the appropriate date 
of sale for both companies. (For further information, see the memoranda 
from Barbara E. Tillman dated February 24, 1996, (public versions) on 
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of 
Commerce.)
    On December 12, 1996, the petitioner alleged that both Borckenstein 
and Linz had made sales in the home market at prices that were below 
the cost of production, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. After 
analyzing the petitioner's allegation, the Department determined that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market 
sales had been made by Linz at prices below Linz's cost of production. 
Therefore, on January 17, 1997, the Department initiated a cost of 
production (COP) investigation of Linz for sales-below-cost. (See, 
memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman dated January 17, 1997, (public 
version) on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 
Department of Commerce.) The Department declined to initiate a cost of 
production investigation of Borckenstein. See, Id.
    On January 23, 1997, petitioner submitted comments stating that the 
Department made clerical errors in its determination that there was no 
reason to believe or suspect that Borckenstein made sales in the home 
market below COP. We reviewed petitioner's comments and determined that 
additional adjustments were warranted. Based on these additional 
adjustments, we determined that there were reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that home market sales had been made by Borckenstein 
at prices below Borckenstein's COP. Therefore, on March 12, 1997, we 
initiated a COP investigation of Borckenstein. (See, memorandum from 
Barbara E. Tillman dated March 12, 1997, (public version) on file in 
the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.) 
Our final determination will include a COP analysis of Borckenstein's 
home market sales.
    As a result of the Department's cost of production investigation, 
the Department requested that Linz answer Section D of the original 
questionnaire; Linz submitted its response to section D of the 
questionnaire on February 18, 1997. We determined that we required 
additional information as well as clarification of the information 
provided in this response, and thus we issued a supplemental 
questionnaire on February 24, 1997. We received a response to this 
request on March 3, 1997. This preliminary determination includes a COP 
analysis of Linz's home market sales.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on March 14 and 17, 
1997, Linz and Borckenstein requested that in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until not later than 135 
days after the publication of an affirmative preliminary determination 
in the Federal Register. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b) (1995), 
inasmuch as our preliminary determination is affirmative, Borckenstein 
and Linz account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, and we are not aware of the existence of any compelling 
reasons for denying this request, we are granting the request and 
postponing the final determination. Suspension of liquidation will be 
extended accordingly. See, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled from Japan, 61 FR 8029 (March 
1, 1996).

Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is open-end spun singles 
yarn containing 85% or more rayon staple fiber. Such yarn is classified 
under subheading 5510.11.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and for Customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 1995 through June 30, 
1996.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by 
respondents to the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared the Export Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV), described in 
the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of notice. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i), we compared the weighted 
average EPs to weighted-average NVs during the POI. In determining 
averaging groups for comparison purposes, we considered the 
appropriateness of such factors as physical characteristics and level 
of trade.

(i) Physical Characteristics

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the description in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section of this notice, produced in Austria by the respondents and sold 
in the home market during the POI, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market 
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product 
comparisons, we relied on the following criteria (listed in order of 
preference): weight, percentage of rayon fiber, color, denier, finish, 
and luster. All comparisons were based on the same grade of yarn. (For 
further explanation, see the memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman dated 
September 23, 1996, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of 
the Department of Commerce.)

[[Page 14401]]

(ii) Level of Trade

    Neither Borckenstein nor Linz claimed a difference in level of 
trade. Based upon our review of the responses submitted by each of the 
companies, we determine that each company performed essentially the 
same selling activities for all reported home market and U.S. sales. 
Accordingly, we find that no level of trade differences exist between 
any sales in either the home market or U.S. market for either company. 
Therefore, all price comparisons are at the same level of trade and an 
adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is unwarranted.

Export Price

    We calculated EP, in accordance with subsections 772(a) and (c) of 
the Act, for each of the respondents, where the subject merchandise was 
sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
prior to importation and use of constructed export price (CEP) was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:

1. Borckenstein

    For Borckenstein, we calculated EP based on packed, CIF, U.S. port 
prices to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit 
price) for international freight (which included freight from the plant 
to port of export and ocean freight) and marine insurance, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A). We also made a deduction, where 
appropriate, for rebates that had been reported as commissions by the 
respondent. We reclassified the commissions as rebates because the 
commission agent is affiliated with the U.S. customer.
    We have preliminarily rejected petitioner's request to use CEP 
because we do not find the record to indicate that the sole U.S. 
importer and Borckenstein are affiliated parties. The petitioner 
alleged Borckenstein and its U.S. importer were related because both 
parties had entered into a joint venture to establish a production 
facility in the United States and because of a close supplier 
relationship. Pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, we reviewed 
Borckenstein's relationship with its U.S. importer and have determined, 
subject to verification, that petitioner's claim is unwarranted. There 
is no joint venture between Borckenstein and its U.S. importer. In 
addition, the evidence indicates that there is no affiliation between 
the two companies.
    With respect to petitioner's claim of a close supplier 
relationship, section 771(33)(G) of the Act provides, inter alia, that 
parties will be considered affiliated when one controls the other. A 
person controls another person ``if the person is legally or 
operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the 
other person.'' The SAA further states that a company may be in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction through, among other 
things, ``close supplier relationships in which the supplier or buyer 
becomes reliant upon the other.'' SAA at 838. However, we find no close 
supplier relationship to exist between Borckenstein and its U.S. 
importer. Borckenstein reported in its supplemental response that it 
negotiated prices with the importer, that the importer is free to 
purchase rayon yarn from sources other than Borckenstein, that 
Borckenstein is free to sell to any customer in the United States, and 
that Borckenstein's sales to its U.S. importer constitute a small 
percentage of its overall sales. Borckenstein has also stated that 
there is no exclusive long-term sales contract between itself and its 
U.S. importer.
    In sum, Borckenstein and the U.S. importer have not entered into a 
joint venture nor does a close supplier relationship exist between the 
two parties. Therefore, we preliminarily determine the companies are 
not affiliated. (For further explanation, see the memorandum from 
Barbara E. Tillman dated March 17, 1997, (public version) on file in 
the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.)

2. Linz

    We calculated EP based on packed, delivered/duty paid and f.o.b. 
prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit 
price) for the following charges: Austrian inland freight (which 
included brokerage), insurance (which included inland and marine 
insurance), ocean freight, U.S. duty, clearing charges, bond expenses, 
and U.S. freight, in accordance with section 772(c)(2).
    Linz reported that it did not borrow in U.S. dollars during the 
POI. In accordance with the Department's policy (see, e.g., Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, (61 FR 15780, April 9, 
1996)), we recalculated the U.S. imputed credit expense using the 
average short-term lending rates published by the Federal Reserve as 
surrogate U.S. interest rates, for purposes of making the circumstance 
of sale adjustment for this expense.

Normal Value

1. Borckenstein

    We calculated NV based on packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting 
price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act and early payment discounts. We 
also adjusted for differences in circumstances of sale for credit 
expenses and export credit insurance pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In no cases did the difference in 
merchandise adjustment for the comparison product exceed 20 percent of 
the U.S. product's cost of manufacturing. In addition, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we deducted home market 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    Borckenstein also reported an amount upon which to base an 
adjustment for differences in quantities sold in the U.S. and Austrian 
markets, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.55(a). Although Borckenstein claimed 
that it incurred differing manufacturing costs based on quantities 
produced, it was unable to demonstrate, based on information on the 
record, that pricing differences were related to quantity. Our review 
of the submitted prices indicated that prices did not vary based upon 
the quantity sold. Accordingly, we have not made the requested 
adjustment.
    As noted in the ``Case History'' section of this notice, we 
initiated a COP investigation of Borckenstein on March 12, 1997. 
Because the COP investigation was just recently initiated, we are 
unable to include a COP analysis of Borckenstein's home market sales in 
this preliminary determination, however, the final determination will 
include a COP analysis of Borckenstein's home market sales.

2. Linz

 a. Cost of Production Analysis
    As noted in the ``Case History'' section above, based on the 
petitioner's allegations, the Department found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that Linz made sales in the home market at prices 
below the cost of producing the merchandise. As a result, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Linz made 
home market sales during the POI at prices below the COP in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

[[Page 14402]]

    Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP 
analysis described below.
Calculation of COP
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of Linz's reported cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market general and administrative expenses (``G&A'') and 
packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Indirect 
selling expenses are included in the reported G&A expenses.
Test of Home Market Prices
    We used the respondent's adjusted weighted-average COP for the POI. 
We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of 
the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, 
in order to determine whether these sales had been made at below-cost 
prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and 
whether the below-cost prices would permit recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared 
the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges 
and direct selling expenses.
Results of COP Test
    In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at 
prices below COP, we examine: (1) Whether, within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) whether 
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
Where less than 20 percent (by quantity) of a respondent's sales of a 
given product were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product. Where 20 percent (by quantity) or 
more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at 
prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have been made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period; where we determine 
that such sales were also not made at prices that permit recovery of 
cost within a reasonable period, we disregard the below-cost sales.
    Based on our COP test, we found that less than 20 percent (by 
quantity) of Linz's sales of a given product were at prices less than 
COP. Thus, we did not disregard any below-cost sales. Therefore for 
matching purposes, export prices were compared to home market prices 
for all comparisons, and constructed value (CV) was not required.
b. Adjustments to Prices
    We calculated NV based on packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers and prices to affiliated customers where the sales were made 
at arm's length. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and inland 
insurance, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B). In addition, where 
appropriate, we adjusted for differences in circumstances of sale for 
credit expenses, post-sale warehousing, and commissions, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(C). Linz did not report home market indirect 
selling expenses, therefore, we were unable to offset commissions paid 
in the U.S. with home market indirect selling expenses.
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
In no case did the difference in merchandise adjustment for the 
comparison product exceed 20 percent of the U.S. product's cost of 
manufacturing. In addition, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and 
(B), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs.
    Linz also reported for purposes of the difference in merchandise 
adjustment, different manufacturing cost for identical yarns based on 
the machine which produced the yarn. We have recalculated this 
adjustment based on the weighted-average cost for manufacturing 
identical yarns for the POI.
    Linz also reported an amount upon which to base an adjustment for 
differences in quantities sold in the U.S. and Austrian markets. 
Although Linz claimed that it incurred differing costs based on 
quantities produced, it also stated in its January 6, 1997 supplemental 
response that the application of its small quantity price adjustment is 
flexible, made on a case-by-case basis, and is meant only as a 
guideline. Therefore, Linz was unable to demonstrate, based on 
information on the record, that pricing differences were related to 
quantity. Accordingly, we have not made the requested adjustment.
    Linz was instructed to provide sales made to affiliated weaving 
mills in Austria. Sales not made at arm's-length were excluded from our 
LTFV analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, 
we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and 
packing. We utilized the 99.5 percent benchmark ratio used in the 1993 
carbon steel investigations (see below). Where no related customer 
price ratio could be constructed because identical merchandise was not 
sold to unrelated customers, we were unable to determine that these 
sales were made at arm's-length and, therefore, excluded them from our 
LTFV analysis. See, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina 
(58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993.))

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales. The 
official rates are based on rates certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.
    Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to convert 
foreign currencies based on the dollar exchange rate in effect on the 
date of sale of the subject merchandise, except if it is established 
that a currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an 
export sale. When a company demonstrates that a sale on forward markets 
is directly linked to a particular export sale in order to minimize its 
exposure to exchange rate losses, the Department will use the rate of 
exchange in the forward currency sale agreement.
    Section 773A(a) also 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 exists, we substitute the benchmark rate for 
the daily rate, in accordance with established practice. Further, 
section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60-day adjustment 
period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement. A sustained 
movement has occurred when the weekly average of actual daily rates 
exceeds the weekly average of benchmark rates by more than five percent 
for eight consecutive weeks. (For an explanation of this method, see 
Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 
1996.)) Such an adjustment period is required only when a foreign 
currency is appreciating against the U.S. dollar. The use of an 
adjustment period was not warranted in this case because the Austrian 
schilling did not undergo a sustained appreciation.

[[Page 14403]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the export price, as indicated in the 
chart below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain 
in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
                   Exporter/Manufacturer                        margin  
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Borckenstein und Sohn...................................         4.77
Linz Textil GmbH...........................................        10.83
All Others.................................................         7.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine, before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final 
determination, whether these imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than June 16, 1997, and rebuttal briefs no later than June 23, 
1997. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues 
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such summary 
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In 
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing 
will be held on June 26, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. in room 1414 at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within ten days of the 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 the issues to be 
discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the 
briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination no later than 135 days after the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act.

    Dated: March 18, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-7591 Filed 3-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P