[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37334-37338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18446]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-580-807]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the 
Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 6, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film sheet, and 
strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997.
    As a result of comments we received, the dumping margin has changed 
from that presented in our preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Heaney, or Linda Ludwig, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4475, or 3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 6, 1998, (63 FR 11214), the Department published the 
preliminary results of administrative review and recission in part of 
the antidumping duty order on PET film from the Republic of Korea, 56 
FR 25669, (June 5, 1991).
    This review covers one manufacturers/exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the United States: SKC Co., Ltd, (SKC), and the period 
June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997.
    The Department has concluded this review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw, 
pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this 
review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at 
least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a 
performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 
inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. Roller transport cleaning film which 
has at least one of its surfaces modified by the application of 0.5 
micrometers of SBR latex has also been ruled as not within the scope of 
the order.
    PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is provided for 
convenience and for U.S. Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.
    The review covers the period June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 353 (1997).

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results 
of this administrative review. On April 6, 1998, we received timely 
comments from the respondent, SKC and the petitioners (E.I. DuPont de 
Nemours & Company, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, and ICI America's 
Inc.) (Petitioners). SKC and the Petitioners submitted their reply 
briefs on April 13, 1998 and April 14, 1998 respectively.
    Comment 1: SKC contends that the payment dates for some of the U.S. 
sales reported in its December 8, 1997 letter were incorrectly 
transcribed, thereby overstating its U.S. credit expense. SKC contends 
that the Department should accept the corrected payment dates set forth 
in its March 16, 1998 letter. SKC further contends that the correct 
payment dates are discernible from the record, and that the error in 
question is clearly clerical in nature.
    SKC argues that the Department's established practice is to accept 
corrections following the preliminary results when (1) the error in 
question is demonstrated to be a clerical error; (2) the corrective 
documentation provided in support of the clerical error allegation is 
reliable; (3) the respondent availed itself of the earliest reasonable 
opportunity to correct the error; (4) the clerical error allegation, 
and any corrective documention, is submitted to the Department no later 
than the due date for the respondent's administrative case brief; (5) 
the clerical error does not entail a substantial revision of the 
response; and (6) the respondent's corrective documentation does not 
contradict information previously determined to be accurate at 
verification. (See e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, (Colombian Flowers) 
61 FR 42833, 42834 (August 19, 1996).)
    SKC asserts that the corrected information meets the criteria 
outlined in Colombian Flowers because the error contained in its 
December 8, 1997 response is demonstrably clerical, can reliably be 
discerned from the data on

[[Page 37335]]

record, and was brought immediately to the Department's attention upon 
receipt by SKC of its disclosure materials. Moreover, SKC argues that 
correction of this error would not entail a substantial revision of its 
response. Finally, SKC notes that the data provided in its March 16, 
1998 submission does not contradict any previously verified 
information.
    Department's Position: We agree with SKC. The Department will 
accept a respondent's clerical corrections so long as it fulfills the 
criteria first articulated in Colombian Flowers. (See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Termination in Part, 20585, 20610 (April 27, 1998) (citing NTN Bearing 
Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and Colombian 
Flowers).) The formatting error resulted in the uniform transcription 
of ``9'' as ``0'' for certain U.S. sales. For example, payments made on 
March 5, 1997 were incorrectly read as ``070305'' rather than 
``970305''. This error is clearly clerical in nature. Further, SKC 
provided reliable documentation supporting its correction of that 
clerical error. SKC corrected the clerical error five days after 
receipt of its disclosure materials, and provided the corrective 
documentation prior to submission of its case brief. Finally, 
correction of this clerical error does not constitute a substantial 
revision of SKC's response, and does not contradict previously verified 
information. Thus, consistent with the position established in 
Colombian Flowers, we have used SKC's corrected payment dates in these 
final results.
    Comment 2: Consistent with previous administrative reviews of this 
case, SKC objects to the Department's equal allocation of scrap costs 
to A-grade and B-grade film. SKC contends that its allocation 
methodology is reasonable and consistent with widely accepted 
accounting concepts. In support of its argument, SKC cites to the March 
5, 1996 case brief filed in the second and third administrative reviews 
of this case. (See Attachment 1 of SKC's April 6, 1998 case brief.)
    SKC states that allocating the cost of scrap film equally to A-
grade and B-grade films improperly overstates the cost of B-grade films 
while understating the cost of A-grade films. SKC contends that its 
methodology of initially allocating costs equally among A-grade film, 
B-grade film, and scrap, and then reallocating the cost of scrap to the 
cost of A-grade film is consistent with accepted cost accounting 
methodologies.
    SKC also asserts that its methodology is consistent with the 
Department's treatment of jointly produced products in numerous other 
antidumping proceedings, wherein the Department recognized that a pure 
quantitative, or physical measures approach to cost allocation is 
unreasonable where there is a significant difference in the value of 
the jointly produced products.
    SKC cites Elemental Sulphur from Canada, 61 FR 8239, 8241-8243 
(March 4, 1996) (Sulphur from Canada); Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
Argentina, 60 FR 33539, 33547 (June 28, 1995) (OCTG from Argentina); 
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29560 (June 5, 1995) 
(Pineapple from Thailand) in support of its position.
    SKC maintains that it is the Department's well-established practice 
to calculate costs in accordance with a respondent's normal cost 
accounting system unless the system results in an unreasonable 
allocation of costs, and cites Pineapple from Thailand as support for 
this assertion. SKC states that its reported cost of manufacturing 
(COM) data were calculated in accordance with its normal and long-
established management cost accounting system. SKC notes that in the 
first review of this case (covering the period November 30, 1990 
through May 31, 1992), the Department allocated all of the costs 
associated with the production of scrap film to A-grade film. SKC 
contends that this methodology was recently upheld by the Court of 
International Trade (CIT). (See E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., et al. v. 
United States, No. 98-35, Slip. Op. at 12-14 (CIT March 26, 1998 
(DuPont).) Based upon the foregoing, SKC concludes that the Department 
should allocate all scrap costs to A-grade film.
    Petitioners argue that SKC has not provided justification for the 
Department deviating from its current practice which is to allocate 
costs equally between prime- and off-grade merchandise. Petitioners 
note that the allocation of scrap film has been a contentious issue 
from the LTFV investation of this case. Petitioners further note that 
the Department's method of allocating yield losses equally between A-
grade and B-grade film is consistent with the ruling of the U.S. Court 
of Appeal for the Federal Circuit in IPSCO v. United States, 965 2d. 
1056 (Fed Cir., 1992) (IPSCO). Petitioners contend that the methodology 
employed by the Department in this review is consistent with that 
employed in the second (June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993) and third 
(June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994) reviews of this case. Additionally, 
Petitioners assert that the decision by the CIT in DuPont does not 
require the Department to employ the allocation methodology used in the 
first review of this case. Petitioners contend that in accepting SKC's 
reported costs for the first review, the Department predicated its 
acceptance of SKC's allocation methodology on the understanding that 
SKC had applied ``a cost methodology that assigns equal costs to the 
prime and off-grade PET film in accordance with the Ipsco Appeal.'' 
(original emphasis). (See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and 
Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 42835, 42839 (August 17, 1995).) 
Petitioners assert that this indicates that the Department believed 
that ``SKC's reported cost allocation system was based on allocating 
equal costs'' to A-grade and B-grade film. Petitioners contend that the 
allocation methodology set forth by SKC does not allocate scrap costs 
equally to A-grade and B-grade film, and thus should be rejected by the 
Department.
    Additionally, Petitioners challenge SKC's characterization of its 
proposed allocation methodology as ``normal and long-established.'' 
Petitioners cite to their April 14, 1997 reply brief filed in the fifth 
administrative review (June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996) of this case 
in which Petitioners contend that SKC had historically assigned equal 
costs to all PET film and devised its current cost system only after 
the initiation of this dumping case.
    Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners and disagree with 
SKC. As we explained in the final results of previous reviews of this 
order, we have determined that A-grade and B-grade PET film have 
identical production costs. Accordingly, we continue to rely on an 
equal cost methodology for both grades of PET film in these final 
results (See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Review and Notice of Revocation in 
Part 61 FR 35177, 33182-83 (July 5, 1996) (Second and Third Reviews); 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of 
Korea; Final results of Review and Notice of Revocation in Part 61 FR 
58374, 58375-76, (November 14, 1996) (Fourth Review); and Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Review, 62 FR 38064, 38065-66, (July 16, 1997) (Fifth 
Review).)

[[Page 37336]]

    Moreover, as noted in the final results of the second through the 
fifth reviews, the CIT has also ruled that our allocation of SKC's 
production costs between A-grade and B-grade film is reasonable (see 
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. et al. v. United States, 932 F. 
Supp. 296 (CIT 1996)).
    As Petitioners have indicated, our acceptance of SKC's allocation 
of scrap costs in the first review of this case was based upon our 
understanding that SKC had properly allocated the costs of A-grade and 
B-grade film. In that review, we did not verify SKC's costs data. We 
determined that no verification of SKC was necessary because SKC was 
verified in the original investigation. Second and Third Reviews, 60 FR 
at 42839. Based upon the evidence existing in the record during that 
proceeding, we accepted SKC's computations because we were satisfied 
that it had calculated actual costs consistent with the IPSCO decision.
    During the second and third administrative reviews, however, we 
carefully examined SKC's allocation methodology and conducted a 
thorough verification of SKC's accounting records. We determined that 
the allocation methodology employed by SKC fails to capture the actual 
production costs of A-grade and B-grade film. Based upon this 
determination, we have consistently required SKC to allocate yield 
losses equally between A-grade and B-grade film since the second review 
of this case. Further, we have determined that A-grade and B-grade film 
undergo an identical production process that involves an equal amount 
of material and fabrication expenses. The only difference in the 
resulting A- and B-grade film is that at the end of the manufacturing 
process a quality inspection is performed during which some of the film 
is classified as high quality A-grade product while other film is 
classified as lower quality B-grade film (see Fourth Review (covering 
the period June 1, 1994 through May 31, 1995), 61 FR at 58375).
    Finally, SKC's argument that DuPont affirmed SKC's allocation 
methodology is without merit. DuPont does not require the Department to 
accept an allocation methodology that does not accurately capture the 
actual cost of A-grad and B-grade film. In DuPont, the CIT concluded 
that the Department's acceptance of SKC's calculations was supported by 
substantial evidence. The Court further concluded that the calculations 
properly reflected SKC's actual costs of production. The CIT, however, 
did not affirm SKC's allocation methodology. It merely accepted the 
allocations resulting from the methodology because those allocations 
(based upon record evidence) reflected actual production costs as 
required by IPSCO.
    In the four previous reviews of this case, the Department has 
determined that SKC's allocation methodology fails to capture the 
actual cost of A-grade and B-grade film. We continue to maintain that 
SKC's reliance on Sulphur from Canada. Pineapple from Thailand, and 
OCTG from Argentina is misplaced. Those cases concerned the appropriate 
cost methodology for products manufactured from a joint production 
process. SKC has mischaracterized the continuous production process of 
PET film as a joint production process. A joint production process 
occurs when ``two or more products result simultaneously from the use 
of one raw material as production takes place.'' (See, Management 
Accountants Handbook, Keeler, et al., Fourth Edition at 11:1.) A joint 
production process produces two distinct products and the essential 
point of a joint production process is that ``the raw material, labor, 
and overhead costs prior to the initial split-off can be allocated to 
the final product only in some arbitrary, although necessary, manner.'' 
Id. The identification of different grades of merchandise does not 
transform the manufacturing process into a joint production process 
which would require the allocation of costs. In this case, since 
production records clearly identify the amount of yield losses for each 
specific type of PET film, our allocation of yield losses to the films 
bearing those losses is reasonable, not arbitrary (Fourth Review, 61 FR 
at 58575-76).
    It is the Department's practice to calculate costs in accordance 
with a respondent's management accounting system. Where that system 
reconciles to the respondent's normal financial and cost accounting 
records and results in a reasonable allocation of costs. Management 
accounting deals with providing information that managers inside an 
organization will use. Managerial accounting reports typically provide 
more detailed information about product costs, revenue and profits. 
They are used to identify problems, objectives or goals, and possible 
alternatives. In order to respond to the Department's questionnaires, 
SKC officials devised a management accounting methodology for 
allocating costs incurred in the film and chip production cost centers 
to individual products produced during the period of investigation. SKC 
adopted this cost accounting system to reflect a management goal (i.e., 
to respond to the Department). Under this system, SKC assigns the yield 
loss from the production of A- and B-grade films exclusively to the A-
grade films. This methodology helps management to focus on the film 
types with low yields. However, notwithstanding SKC management's 
concern that it accurately portray the cost of their A-grade products, 
this managerial accounting methodology is not appropriate for reporting 
the actual costs of A- and B-grade products. As previously noted, A-
grade and B-grade films undergo an identical production process. B-
grade film is made using the same materials, on the same equipment, at 
the same time as the A-grade film. As such, scrap costs must be 
allocated equally to A- and B-grade films. It is within the 
Department's mandate to accept or reject the allocation methodologies 
devised by respondents. In this instance, we have continued to rely on 
an equal cost allocation methodology which reflects the actual costs 
incurred for both A-grade and B-grade film.
    Comment 3: SKC asserts that the Department double counted inventory 
carrying costs in its calculation of COP and CV. SKC contends that all 
COP interest expenses were included in the variable RCOP, and that all 
CV interest expenses were included in the variable INTEXCV.
    Department's Position: We agree with SKC. In these final results, 
we have revised the computer program to eliminate the double-counting 
of inventory carrying costs in our calculation of COP and CV.
    Comment 4: SKC asserts that the Department failed to include U.S. 
indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market for purposes of 
calculating CEP profit. SKC contends that the Department should adjust 
its calculation of CEP profit to account for all U.S. selling expenses. 
regardless of where they were incurred.
    Department's Position: We agree with SKC. Consistent with our 
established practice, we have not distinguished ``activities in the 
United States from other selling expenses'' in our calculation of CEP 
profit. (See Import Administration Policy Bulletin No. 97/1. 
Calculation of Profit for Constructed Export Price Transactions 
(September 4, 1997).)
    Comment 5: SKC contends that the Department should offset interest 
revenue against imputed credit in building up the pool of U.S. selling 
expenses used to allocate profit to CEP sales. SKC notes that the 
Department made this offset in the final results of the fifth review. 
(See Final Analysis

[[Page 37337]]

Memorandum for SKC from Analyst to the file, June 30, 1997.)
    Department's Position: We agree with SKC. In these final results, 
we have offset SKC's interest expense with the interest revenue 
realized by SKC.
    Comment 6: Petitioners contend that the Department should revise 
SKC's imputed credit expenses on sales to Anacomp. Petitioners assert 
that SKC's calculation of credit expense is inconsistent with the 
ruling of the Federal Circuit in LMI-LaMetalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. 
United States. (LMI) 912 F.2d 455 (Fed. Cir. 1990) because SKC has not 
based its calculation of U.S. credit expense upon ``usual and 
reasonable commercial behavior.'' (LMI at 461.)
    Petitioners contend that the Department's calculation of SKC's U.S. 
imputed credit expense should consider Anacomp's ``poor financial 
condition and the unusual trade credit term that SKC provided to 
Anacomp.'' Petitioners note that Anacomp declared bankruptcy just prior 
to the period of review, and emerged from bankruptcy in June 1996. 
Petitioners point to Anacomp's debt-to-equity ratio as another 
indication of the company's poor financial condition. Petitioners also 
note that the interest rate incurred by SKC on borrowings in the U.S. 
is below the U.S. prime rate. Petitioners assert that Anacomp's 
financial condition ``is shaky at best,'' and that credit expenses on 
sales to Anacomp should reflect Anacomp's poor financial condition. 
Petitioners further contend that the Department should use a rate 
higher than the rate used to calculate SKC's interest revenue on sales 
to Anacomp. Petitioners note that in DuPont, the CIT granted the 
Department's request for a remand to consider Anacomp's financial 
condition in determining the short-term interest rate to be utilized on 
SKC's U.S. sales. DuPont at 24.
    SKC contends that the purpose of making an adjustment for U.S. 
credit expenses is to account for the opportunity cost that the seller 
incurs in waiting for payment from the buyer. SKC argues that the 
Department requested a remand in DuPont only because the issue had not 
been addressed on the record of that review. SKC further contends that 
the cost of extending credit can only be measured by the cost that the 
seller incurs in borrowing funds. SKC argues that bad debt expense (and 
not credit) represents the costs associated with not receiving payment. 
SKC further argues that Departmental practice is to base bad debt 
expense upon the actual expenses realized by the company. SKC notes 
that is has included its actual U.S. bad debt expenses in its 
calculation of U.S. indirect selling expenses. Finally, SKC contends 
that Petitioners' reliance on LMI is misplaced. SKC notes that in LMI, 
the Court instructed the Department to base U.S. interest expense upon 
the costs associated with borrowing funds in the United States. SKC 
notes that is based its calculation of U.S. credit expense upon the 
costs that it incurred in borrowing funds in the United States.
    Department's Position: We agree with SKC and disagree with 
Petitioners. The Department has adopted a policy of using a short-term 
interest rate tied to the currency in which the sales are denominated. 
(See Import Administration Policy Bulletin No. 98.2, Imputed Credit 
Expenses and Interest Rates (February 23, 1998).) Subsequent to the LMI 
decision we established a practice of matching the short-term interest 
rate to the currency because we view this measure as accurately 
reflecting the cost of providing credit to the customer. (See, e.g.; 
AIMCOR v. United States, Nos. 96-1502, 97-1009, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 
7077, at * 40 (Fed. Cir. April 9, 1998) (AIMCOR); Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods From 
Austria, 60 FR 33551, 33555 (June 28, 1995); Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden; Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 15772, 15780 (April 9, 1996).) Moreover, 
in the second and third administrative reviews where the respondent had 
borrowings in the same currency as the transaction we used the 
weighted-average borrowing rates realized in that particular currency. 
(See Second and Third Reviews at 35184.) In these final results we have 
continued to base our calculations of SKC's credit expense upon the 
interest rate incurred on SKC's borrowings in the United States. This 
approach is consistent with the Court of Appeals' decision in LMI. In 
that case the Federal Circuit reversed the Department's calculation of 
U.S. imputed credit expenses which used home market borrowing rates 
because the respondent had actual U.S. loans at a much lower rate. (LMI 
at 460-61.) Inasmuch as the respondent's actual borrowing experience 
demonstrated its ability to secure financing in the United States at a 
lower rate, the Federal Circuit reasoned that use of the higher 
interest rates did not reflect the commercial reality of the 
respondent's borrowing experience in the United States.
    Petitioner' arguments make clear that they have confused credit and 
bad-debt expenses. Bad debt represents the risk that the seller incurs 
of not receiving payment, and was separately reported by SKC in its 
calculation of indirect selling expenses. In contrast, credit expenses 
represents the opportunity cost incurred by the seller in awaiting 
payment. The extension of credit constitutes an expense to the firm, 
because it obligates funds which would otherwise be available for other 
business activities. Anacomp's financial status and condition has no 
bearing on SKC's imputed credit expenses computations because imputed 
credit expense reflects the opportunity cost experienced by the seller 
(See AIMCOR, at *7-8). Anacomp's poor financial condition is irrelevant 
in this instance because it has no bearing upon the opportunity costs 
incurred by SKC due to delayed payment. Similarly, neither Anacomp's 
declared bankruptcy nor it's interest rate in the commercial market 
place are reflective of the opportunity costs incurred by SKC in 
extending credit. Finally, we note that if we were to adopt the 
approach advanced by Petitioners, the distinction between credit 
expenses and bad debt would cease to exist.
    SKC misapprehends the LMI decision. In LMI, the Federal Circuit 
reversed the Department for basing U.S. imputed credit costs upon the 
cost of borrowing funds in the home market, as opposed to the market in 
which the sales where made. SKC's calculation of U.S. credit, however, 
is based upon borrowings undertaken by SKC in the United States. SKC's 
calculation is therefore consistent with LMI and the Department's 
established practice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that a weighted-average 
margin of 0.36 percent exists for SKC.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumpting duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the 
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results for all shipments of 
PET film from the Republic of Korea within the scope of the order 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: 
(1) no cash deposit shall be required for SKC because the weighted 
average margin is less than 0.5 percent and therefore de minimis; (2) 
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the

[[Page 37338]]

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be 21.50 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the remand redetermination of the 
LTFV investigation, as explained below. These deposit requirements 
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 353.26 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 subsequent assessment 
of double antidumping duties.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a 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 353.34(d). Timely written 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. Timely 
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: July 2, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18446 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M