[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30699-30703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-831]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the Republic of Korea: 
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 of stainless steel plate in coils from the 
Republic of Korea.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel plate in coils from the Republic of Korea in response to a 
request from respondent, Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (``POSCO''). 
This review covers imports of subject merchandise from POSCO. The 
period of review (``POR'') is November 4, 1998 through April 30, 2000.
    Our preliminary results of review indicate that respondent POSCO 
has 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 the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess antidumping duties on suspended entries for POSCO.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 
should also submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander, Laurel LaCivita or 
Rick Johnson, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182, (202) 
482-4243 or (202) 482-3818, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    On May 16, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from the 
Republic of Korea (65 FR 31141). On May 31, 2000, petitioners 
(Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, Inc.), J&L 
Specialty Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, Butler-Armco 
Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the United 
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC) and POSCO, a producer and 
exporter of subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b)(1) and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), respectively, requested an 
administrative review of the antidumping order covering the period 
November 4, 1998, through April 30, 2000. On July 7, 2000, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
administrative review of this order (65 FR 41942).
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit. On December 18, 2000, the Department extended the 
time limit for the preliminary results in this review to March 19, 
2001. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the Republic of Korea: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 81488 (December 26, 2000). On March 
7, 2001, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary and 
final results in this review. The preliminary results are now due on 
May 31, 2001. The final results are due 180 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary results. See Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the 
Preliminary and Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 14891 (March 14, 2001).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information provided by POSCO, from February 2, 2001, to February 
14, 2001, and February 19, 2001, to February 23, 2001, respectively, 
using standard verification procedures, including an examination of 
relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and selection of original 
documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results 
are outlined in the public version of the verification report and are 
on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') located in room B-099 of 
the main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or 
without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled 
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in 
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-
rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified 
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope 
of this order is the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that 
is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. In addition, certain 
cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate in 
coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the physical 
characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-reduction 
process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more, 
and has been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction process.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at 
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60,

[[Page 30700]]

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 
7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 
7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether POSCO's sales of subject merchandise from 
South Korea to the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared the constructed export price (``CEP'') to the NV, as described 
in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, 
we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these 
to individual CEP transactions. We made corrections to reported U.S. 
and home market sales data based on the Department's findings at 
verification, as appropriate.

Transactions Reviewed

    We compared the aggregate volume of POSCO'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 POSCO sold in 
South Korea was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act, to form a basis for NV. Because POSCO's volume of home market 
sales of the 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 have based the determination of NV upon 
POSCO's home market sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we based 
NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for 
consumption in South Korea, in the usual commercial quantities, in the 
ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same 
level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP sales.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the Scope of the Review section above, which were 
produced and sold by the POSCO in the home market during the POR, to be 
foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate 
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 next most similar foreign like product on the basis 
of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the 
Department's questionnaire.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price is 
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to 
be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation 
by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise 
or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under 
subsections (c) and (d). For purposes of this review, POSCO has 
classified its sales as export price (``EP'') sales. However, after an 
analysis of POSCO's information on the record, we preliminarily 
determine that POSCO's sales should be classified as constructed export 
price sales.
    POSCO identified two channels of distribution for U.S. sales. For 
U.S. sales channel one (i.e., POSCO sales through Pohang Steel America 
Corp. (``POSAM''), POSCO's wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, to an 
unaffiliated customer in the United States) and for U.S. sales channel 
two (i.e., POSCO sales through POSCO Steel Sales & Services Co., Ltd. 
(``POSTEEL''), POSCO's affiliated trading company in South Korea, to 
POSAM, POSCO's wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, and finally, to an 
unaffiliated customer in the United States), we based our calculation 
on CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act, 
for those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place 
after importation into the United States.
    As noted above, POSCO has indicated that sales through channels one 
and two should be treated as EP sales. Based on the information on the 
record, however, we preliminarily determine that such sales are CEP 
sales. First, POSCO stated that POSAM, and not POSCO, bears the credit 
risk on all subject sales to the unaffiliated U.S. customers. See 
POSCO's October 2, 2000, Section A supplemental questionnaire response, 
at 15. Second, POSAM takes title to the subject merchandise and, when 
it sold the subject merchandise to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, 
POSAM issued an invoice to the U.S. customer. See POSCO's October 2, 
2000, Section A supplemental questionnaire response, at 10. Based upon 
all the information on the record, we find that sales in both channels 
must be considered as having taken place in the United States. These 
facts were also present in the original less than fair value 
investigation in which we determined POSCO's sales through POSAM to be 
CEP sales (see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (``SSPC'') from the Republic of 
Korea, 64 FR 15443, 15453 (March 31, 1999)). Therefore, we determine 
that POSCO's sales are appropriately classified as CEP sales.
    We calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
export, foreign brokerage and Korean customs clearance fees, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, and U.S. 
brokerage and wharfage expenses (classified as other U.S. 
transportation expenses). Also, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we deducted packing expenses because packing expenses are 
included in the constructed export price. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States, including 
direct selling expenses (imputed credit expenses, postage and term 
credit expenses, and letter of credit and remittance expenses) and 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs. For 
POSAM's indirect selling expenses, we adjusted POSCO's imputed credit 
expense calculation to include only the sum of POSAM's imputed credit 
expenses as an offset, as reported in POSCO's Section C U.S. sales 
database. For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Additionally, we added to 
the U.S. price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-

[[Page 30701]]

Constructed Value (``CV'') Comparison'' sections of this notice.

Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

    Because the Department determined that POSCO made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise in 
the investigation and therefore excluded such sales from normal value 
(see, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 
15446 (March 31, 1999)), the Department determined that there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that POSCO made sales in the 
home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in 
this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the 
Department initiated a cost of production inquiry in this case on July 
10, 2000, to determine whether POSCO made home market sales during the 
POR at prices below their respective COPs within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of POSCO's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), interest expenses, and packing 
costs. We used home market sales and COP information provided by POSCO 
in its questionnaire responses, with the following exceptions:
    1. POSCO purchased a major input from an affiliate and used the 
input's transfer prices in its calculation of COP and CV. For the 
preliminary results, we have increased the transfer price of these 
purchases to a market price in accordance with section 773(f)(2) and 
(3) of the Act. This major input is business proprietary information. 
See the May 31, 2001, memo to Neal Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting (proprietary version).
    2. In 1999, POSCO wrote off all of its deferred foreign exchange 
losses through retained earnings. POSCO originally capitalized these 
losses with the intention of recognizing the loss over time on its 
income statement. Subsequently, POSCO expensed these deferred losses 
directly to equity in 1999. Therefore, we adjusted POSCO's reported COP 
to include the entire amount of the remaining deferred foreign exchange 
losses. See the May 31, 2001, memo to Neal Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting (proprietary version).
    3. We adjusted POSCO's reported foreign exchange ratio to include 
gains and losses associated with cash and ``other'' accounts in the 
numerator. See the May 31, 2001, memo to Neal Halper, Director, Office 
of Accounting (proprietary version).

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP from January 1, 1999, through 
March 31, 2000 (``cost reporting period'') for POSCO, adjusted where 
appropriate (see above), to its home market sales of the foreign like 
product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining 
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the 
COP, we examined whether: (1) within an extended period of time, such 
sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made 
at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product within an extended 
period of time are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales are not 
made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the extended period are at 
prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have been made in 
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. The 
extended period of time for this analysis is the POR. See section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because each individual price was compared 
against the weighted average COP for the cost reporting period, any 
sales that were below cost were also at prices which did not permit 
cost recovery within a reasonable period of time. See section 
773(b)(2)(D). We compared the COP for subject merchandise to the 
reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges. Based 
on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales. Where all sales of a 
specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales 
of that product.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated 
POSCO's CV based on the sum of POSCO's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, interest expenses and profit. We calculated the COPs included in 
the calculation of CV as noted above in the ``Calculation of COP'' 
section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by 
POSCO in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign 
country.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
and those affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's length test. 
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    We calculated NV based on the home market prices to unaffiliated 
home market customers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for 
movement expenses (i.e., inland freight from plant to distribution 
warehouse, warehousing expense, and inland freight from either plant/
distribution warehouse to customer) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments or 
deductions for credit, warranty expense and interest revenue, where 
appropriate. In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Also, we added to NV 
an amount for duty drawback.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV 
if we are unable to find suitable home market sales of the foreign like 
product. Where applicable, we would make adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We did not use CV for 
POSCO for these preliminary results of review.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``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 SG&A 
expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For 
CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
affiliated importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of

[[Page 30702]]

distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the 
comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference 
affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make 
an 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 differences in 
the levels between NV and CEP sales affect 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 Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    In the present review, POSCO requested a LOT adjustment or a CEP 
offset if the Department determines that POSCO's sales through POSAM 
are CEP sales. (As noted above, we have preliminarily determined that 
all of POSCO's U.S. sales through POSAM are CEP sales.) To determine 
whether an adjustment was necessary, in accordance with the principles 
discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution 
systems in both the United States and South Korean markets, including 
the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.
    In both the home market (``HM'') and U.S. market, POSCO reported 
one level of trade. See POSCO's August 14, 2000, Section A response, at 
A-11-12. POSCO sold through two channels of distribution in the HM: (1) 
Directly from its mill to unaffiliated end-users/OEM's and affiliated 
and unaffiliated service centers; and (2) through POSTEEL to 
unaffiliated end-users/OEM's and unaffiliated service centers. POSCO 
sold through two channels of distribution in the U.S. market: (1) 
Through POSAM to unaffiliated trading companies; and (2) through 
POSTEEL to POSAM, and then to unaffiliated trading companies.
    For sales in HM channel one, POSCO performed all sales-related 
activities, including arranging for freight and delivery; providing 
computerized accounting and sales systems; market research; warranty; 
sales negotiation; after-sales service; quality control; and extending 
credit. The same selling functions were performed in HM channel two; 
however, it was POSTEEL, not POSCO, which performed all the major 
selling functions. Because these selling functions are similar for both 
sales channels, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the 
home market.
    For U.S. sales through either channel one or two, POSCO or POSTEEL 
performed many of the same major selling functions, such as freight and 
delivery; market research; warranty; sales negotiation; after-sales 
service; and quality control. In addition, for all U.S. sales, POSAM 
performed several sales-related activities, such as invoicing 
customers; extending credit; acting as importer of record; and paying 
U.S. Customs duties and wharfage. Because these selling functions are 
similar for both sales channels, we preliminarily determine that there 
is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the HM and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily determine 
that, despite the additional selling functions (i.e., serving as 
importer of record, paying U.S. Customs duties and wharfage, arranging 
import documents) performed by POSAM on POSCO's U.S. sales, there is 
not a significant difference in the selling functions performed in the 
home market and U.S. market and that these sales are made at the same 
LOT. Therefore, a LOT adjustment or CEP offset is not appropriate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period 
November 4, 1998 through April 30, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/exporter/reseller                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO......................................................         1.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 
to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or 
comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting 
written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of 
those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment

    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. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment 
rates. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by 
the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We 
will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the resulting percentage 
margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise 
on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the 
review period. Upon completion of this review, the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above 
(except that if the rate for a particular product is de minimis, i.e., 
less than 0.5 percent, a cash deposit rate of zero will be required for 
that company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than 
fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all 
others'' rate of 16.26 percent, which is the all others rate 
established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

[[Page 30703]]

Notification to Interested Parties

    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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-14382 Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P