[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30706-30710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15040]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-823]


Professional Electric Cutting Tools From Japan; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty 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 Black & Decker Inc., the 
petitioner in this case, and Makita Corporation, respondent, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on professional electric cutting 
tools (PECTs) from Japan. The period of review (POR) covers sales of 
the subject merchandise to the United States during the period July 1, 
1996 through June 30, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that the respondent has not sold 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs not to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed 
export price (CEP) and the NV.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Baranowski or Stephen Jacques, AD/
CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1385 or (202) 482-1391, 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 by the 
Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (62 FR 27296; May 19, 1997).

Background

    On July 12, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on PECTs from Japan (58 FR 37461). On July 
21, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping 
duty order (62 FR 38973). On July 29 and 31, respectively, respondent 
and petitioner requested that we conduct an administrative review in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b). We published the notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 28, 
1997 (62 FR 45622).
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of PECTs from Japan. 
PECTs may be assembled or unassembled, and corded or cordless.
    The term ``electric'' encompasses electromechanical devices, 
including tools with electronic variable speed features. The term 
``assembled'' includes unfinished or incomplete articles, which have 
the essential characteristics of the finished or complete tool. The 
term ``unassembled'' means components which, when taken as a whole, can 
be converted into the finished or unfinished or incomplete tool through 
simple assembly operations (e.g., kits).
    PECTs have blades or other cutting devices used for cutting wood, 
metal,

[[Page 30707]]

and other materials. PECTs include chop saws, circular saws, jig saws, 
reciprocating saws, miter saws, portable bank saws, cut-off machines, 
shears, nibblers, planers, routers, joiners, jointers, metal cutting 
saws, and similar cutting tools.
    The products subject to this order include all hand-held PECTs and 
certain bench-top, hand-operated PECTs. Hand-operated tools are 
designed so that only the functional or moving part is held and moved 
by hand while in use, the whole being designed to rest on a table top, 
bench, or other surface. Bench-top tools are small stationary tools 
that can be mounted or placed on a table or bench. The are generally 
distinguishable from other stationary tools by size and ease of 
movement.
    The scope of the PECT order includes only the following bench-top, 
hand-operated tools: cut-off saws; PVC saws; chop saws; cut-off 
machines, currently classifiable under subheading 8461 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); all types of 
miter saws, including slide compound miter saws and compound miter 
saws, currently classifiable under subheading 8465 of the HTSUS; and 
portable band saws with detachable bases, also currently classifiable 
under subheading 8465 of the HTSUS.
    This order does not include: professional sanding/grinding tools; 
professional electric drilling/fastening tools; lawn and garden tools; 
heat guns; paint and wallpaper strippers; and chain saws, currently 
classifiable under subheading 8508 of the HTSUS.
    Parts or components of PECTs when they are imported as kits, or as 
accessories imported together with covered tools, are included within 
the scope of this order.
    ``Corded'' and ``cordless'' PECTs are included within the scope of 
this order. ``Corded'' PECTs, which are driven by electric current 
passed through a power cord, are, for purposes of this order, defined 
as power tools which have at least five of the following seven 
characteristics:
    1. The predominate use of ball, needle, or roller bearings (i.e., a 
majority or greater number of the bearings in the tool are ball, 
needle, or roller bearings;
    2. Helical, spiral bevel, or worm gearing;
    3. Rubber (or some equivalent material which meets UL's 
specifications S or SJ) jacketed power supply cord with a length of 8 
feet or more;
    4. Power supply cord with a separate cord protector;
    5. Externally accessible motor brushes;
    6. The predominate use of heat treated transmission parts (i.e., a 
majority or greater number of the transmission parts in the tool are 
heat treated); and
    7. The presence of more than one coil per slot armature.
    If only six of the above seven characteristics are applicable to a 
particular ``corded'' tool, then that tool must have at least four of 
the six characteristics to be considered a ``corded'' PECT.
    ``Cordless'' PECTs, for the purposes of this order, consist of 
those cordless electric power tools having a voltage greater than 7.2 
volts and a battery recharge time of one hour or less.
    PECTs are currently classifiable under the following subheadings of 
the HTSUS: 8508.20.00.20, 8508.20.00.70, 8508.20.00.90, 8461.50.00.20, 
8465.91.00.35, 85.80.00.55, 8508.80.00.65 and 8508.80.00.90. Although 
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
    This review covers one company, Makita Corporation (Makita), and 
the period July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Makita (sales and cost), using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, 
and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
version of the verification reports.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the CEP to the 
NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2), 
we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these 
to individual U.S. transactions.

Constructed Export Price

    For Makita, we used CEP as defined in section 772(b) of the Act 
because the subject merchandise was first sold in the United States 
after importation into the United States by Makita U.S.A., a seller 
affiliated with Makita. We calculated CEP based on packed, delivered 
prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We 
made deductions for discounts and rebates.
    We deducted Japanese and U.S. inland freight, ocean freight, 
insurance, brokerage and handling pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the 
Act. We also deducted an amount from the price for the following 
expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, which related 
to economic activities in the United States: commissions, direct 
selling expenses, including credit expenses, and indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs. Finally, we made an 
adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    We found at verification that Makita could not provide 
documentation to support its contention concerning the company's 
calculation of spare parts cost for warranty services. Consequently, as 
facts available, we calculated a value using Makita's Parts List Price 
and Cost documents. As this issue involves proprietary information, 
please see the analysis memorandum for a more complete explanation.
    We also found at verification that Makita improperly included 
antidumping duty legal fees in the calculation of indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the United States. See Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. et 
al. v. United States, 13 CIT 253, 269 (1989), Federal Mogul Corp. v. 
United States, 17 CIT 88, __, vacated in part, on other grounds, 18 CIT 
1027 (1994), Zenith Elec. Corp. v. United States, 15 CIT 394 (1991), 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: AFBs and parts 
from France, 57 FR 28360, 28413 (June 24, 1992). As such, we have 
recalculated U.S. indirect selling expenses to exclude antidumping duty 
legal fees. As this issue involves business proprietary information, 
please see the analysis memorandum for a more complete explanation.

Normal Value

    We compared the aggregate volume of Makita's home-market sales of 
the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to 
determine whether the volume of the foreign like product Makita sold in 
Japan was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to 
form a basis for NV. Because Makita's volume of home-market sales of 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like products were 
first sold for consumption in Japan.

[[Page 30708]]

    In calculating NV, we disregarded sales of the foreign like product 
to affiliated customers in the home market where we determined that 
such sales were not made at arm's length. To test whether these sales 
were made at arm's length, we compared the prices, net of all movement 
charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing, of sales of 
the foreign like product to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. 
Where the price to the affiliated party was on average 99.5 percent or 
more of the price to unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales 
made to the affiliated party was at arm's-length. Where no affiliated 
customer ratio could be constructed because identical merchandise was 
not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine that 
these sales were made at arm's length and, therefore, excluded them 
from our 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)). Where the exclusion of such sales 
eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison product based 
on our model-matching hierarchy, we made comparisons to the next most 
similar model.
    We based home-market prices on the packed, delivered prices to 
affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made 
adjustments for discounts and rebates. Where applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, if 
appropriate, we made circumstance of sale adjustments by deducting 
home-market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses, except those deducted from the starting price in calculating 
CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
    For the reasons stated in the ``Level of Trade'' section below, we 
have allowed a CEP offset for comparisons made at different levels of 
trade. To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted from normal value the 
indirect selling expenses on home market sales which were compared to 
CEP sales. We limited the home market indirect selling expense 
deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in 
calculating the CEP under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT 
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when 
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, 
general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, 
the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, 
which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP sales, 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 the 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 consistent 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 
LOT 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 
(November 19, 1997).
    In order to determine whether a LOT adjustment or CEP offset was 
warranted for Makita, we compared the CEP sales to the HM sales in 
accordance with the principles discussed above. For purposes of our 
analysis, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in 
both the United States and Japanese markets, including the selling 
functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses for the company.
    In this review, Makita reported two levels of trade in the home 
market: (1) Sales made at the wholesale/distributor price level; and 
(2) sales made at the retail level. Makita also reported twelve 
channels of distribution covering the two levels of trade in the home 
market. Makita based the channels of distribution on which entity 
(i.e., wholesaler, subwholesaler or retailers) in the distribution 
chain Makita had billed or shipped the merchandise to. Although Makita 
described twelve channels of distribution, upon review we found that 
channels 1 through 7 were sales to the wholesale LOT, and channels 8 
through 12 were at the retail LOT.
    Makita reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market. The CEP sales 
were based on sales made by Makita to its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, 
Makita U.S.A. (MUSA). We determined that these sales constitute a 
single level of trade in the United States. Because Makita's sales to 
the United States were all CEP sales made by an affiliated company, we 
considered only the parent company's selling activities reflected in 
the price after the deduction of expenses and profit, pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act.
    To determine whether sales in the comparison market were at a 
different level of trade than CEP sales, we first compare the relevant 
selling functions made at both home market levels of trade and we then 
examine the relevant selling functions made at the CEP level and 
compare them to the selling functions performed in each home market 
level of trade.
    Overall, Makita listed fourteen separate selling functions which it 
performed in making sales in both markets in its chart in Addendum 1 to 
Section A of Makita's October 27, 1997 questionnaire response. Based on 
our analysis of the reported selling functions (see sales verification 
report dated April 10, 1998), we have determined that there is no 
qualitative difference between the functions listed as freight/delivery 
arrangement and arranging freight to customers. Therefore, in our level 
of trade analysis, we have treated these two reported selling functions 
as one, freight/delivery arrangement to customers.
    In comparing the two home market levels of trade to each other, we 
note that there are nine selling functions that are identical in both 
function and intensity. These functions are market research, after 
sales service and warranties, technical advice, advertising, R&D/
product development, procurement and sourcing, competitive pricing 
(offering discounts, rebates, and other price incentives), pricing 
negotiations with customers, and processing daily order updates. The 
following 4 selling activities only have different levels of intensity 
between the two home market levels of trade: Inventory maintenance, 
freight/delivery arrangement to customers, sales calls and 
demonstrations, and interaction with end-users. There are no instances 
where the functions are entirely different between the two home market 
levels of trade.
    Based on the analysis of the selling functions and corresponding 
levels of intensity, we determine that the home

[[Page 30709]]

market retail level of trade is at a more advanced stage of marketing, 
and hence a different level of trade, than the wholesale home market 
level of trade.
    When we compare the CEP level of trade to the home market wholesale 
level of trade, we note that there is only one selling function which 
is identical in both function and intensity: R&D/product development. 
There are 4 instances in which the selling functions differ only in 
intensity: Inventory maintenance, technical advice, procurement and 
sourcing, and processing daily order updates. There are 8 selling 
functions which exist in the home market but which either are not 
performed for CEP transactions or are negligible: Market research, 
after-sales service and warranties, advertising, freight/delivery 
arrangement to customer, competitive pricing, pricing negotiations with 
customers, sales calls and demonstrations, and interaction with end-
users.
    When we compare the CEP level of trade to the home market retail 
level of trade, we again note that there is only one selling function 
which is identical in both function and intensity: R&D/product 
development. Similarly, there are 4 instances in which the selling 
functions differ only in intensity: Inventory maintenance, technical 
advice, procurement and sourcing, and processing daily order updates. 
There are 8 selling functions which exist in the home market retail 
level but which either are not performed for CEP sales or are 
negligible. These functions are: Market research, after-sales service 
and warranties, advertising, freight/delivery arrangement to customer, 
competitive pricing, pricing negotiations with customers, sales calls 
and demonstrations, and interaction with end-users.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions, which include 
differences in levels of intensities, we find that both home market 
levels of trade are at a more advanced stage of distribution than that 
of the CEP level. Therefore, we agree with Makita's assertion that 
there is no home market level equivalent to the CEP level of trade.
    Therefore, the Department determines for the preliminary results 
that (1) significant differences exist in the selling functions 
associated with each of the two home market levels of trade and the CEP 
level of trade, (2) the CEP level of trade is at a less advanced stage 
of distribution than either home market level of trade; and (3) the 
data available do not provide an appropriate basis for a level-of-trade 
adjustment for any comparisons to CEP. Consequently, we have granted 
Makita's request for a CEP offset for this review.
    We therefore made a CEP offset in our calculation of NV. We applied 
the CEP offset to normal value or constructed value, where appropriate.

Cost of Production Analysis

    On January 3, 1997, the Department published the final results of 
the second administrative review on Professional Electric Cutting Tools 
from Japan (62 FR 386). In that most recently completed review of 
Makita, the Department disregarded sales by Makita at prices below 
cost, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Because the Department 
disregarded sales below the COP in the last completed review, we have 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review 
may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Makita 
made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials 
and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by 
Makita in their questionnaire responses.
    We found at verification that Makita had incorrectly reported the 
amount for fixed factory overhead. Makita had incorrectly reclassified 
certain costs that resulted in the fixed factory overhead being 
overstated. As facts available, we have used the costs reported by 
Makita. As this issue involves proprietary information, please see the 
analysis memorandum and the verification report dated April 10, 1998 
for a more complete explanation.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of the 
subject merchandise were made at prices below COP within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less 
any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates and direct selling 
expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    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 are at prices less 
than COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that the below-cost sales are not made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the 
POR are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales 
because we find such sales to be made in substantial quantities within 
an extended period and were at prices which would not permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time (see section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act). Based on this test, for these preliminary 
results, we disregarded all below-cost sales made by Makita (see the 
Analysis Memorandum dated June 1, 1998).
    On January 8, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit issued a decision in Cemex v. United States, WL 3626 (Fed. 
Cir.). In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the 
Court discussed the appropriateness of using CV as the basis for 
foreign market value when the Department finds foreign market sales to 
be outside ``the ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was not raised 
by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended the 
definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include 
sales below cost. See section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently, the 
Department has reconsidered its practice in accordance with this court 
decision and has determined that it would be inappropriate to resort 
directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis for NV if 
the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise identical or 
most similar to that sold in the United States to be outside the 
``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the Department will use sales of 
similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department will use CV as 
the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales that are 
otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, when 
making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we 
considered all products sold in the home market as described in the 
``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in the 
ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the

[[Page 30710]]

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, based on the information provided by Makita 
in response to our antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented the 
Court's decision in this case to the extent that the data on the record 
permitted.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like 
product in Japan. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of 
the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A 
expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the actual amounts incurred 
and realized by Makita in connection with the production and sale of 
the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for 
consumption in Japan. We used the weighted-average home market selling 
expenses.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences in the 
circumstances of sale (COS). We made COS adjustments by deducting home 
direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, except 
those deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 
30, 1996, through July 1, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makita Corporation.........................................         0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the 
first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the case briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register; rebuttal briefs may 
be submitted not later than 5 days thereafter. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review, including its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not 
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
the Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on the merchandise 
subject to review. Upon completion of this review, the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. We will calculate an importer-
specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales 
made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to 
calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all 
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. This is 
equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which 
are calculated by taking the difference between statutory NV and 
statutory CEP, by the total statutory CEP value of the sales compared, 
and adjusting the result by the average difference between CEP and 
customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Makita will be the 
rate established in the final results of this review, except that no 
deposit will be required for Makita if we find zero or de minimis 
margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent; (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 this 
review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 54.52 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by 
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 also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 351.213, 
and 19 CFR 351.221. This determination is issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15040 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P