[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64416-64420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30606]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-351-605]


Silicon Metal From Argentina; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Termination in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, and Termination in Part.

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

SUMMARY: On August 9, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Argentina, and its 
termination in part (60 FR 40566). Since petitioners withdrew their 
request for review of Andina Electrometalurgical (Andina) within 90 
days from the date of publication of the notice of initiation in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5), and no other party requested a 
review of Andina, we terminated the review with respect to this firm. 
This review covers Silarsa, S.A. (Silarsa), a manufacturer/exporter of 
this merchandise to the United States. We have now completed this 
review and have continued to assign to Silarsa the BIA rate of 24.62 
percent for the period September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994.
    We gave interested parties the opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have concluded that Silarsa's margin should remain at 24.62 percent

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen McPhillips or John Kugelman, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 9, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 40566) the preliminary results of its administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Argentina (56 FR 
48779, September 26, 1991). The Department has not completed this 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Tariff Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act. Unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the statute and to the Department's 
regulations are in reference to the provisions as they existed on 
December 31, 1994.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this administrative review are shipments of 
silicon metal from Argentina. During this less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, silicon metal was described as containing at least 
96.00, but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. In response to a 
request by petitioners for clarification of the scope of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC), the Department determined that material with a higher 
aluminum content containing between 89 and 96 percent silicon by weight 
is the same class or kind of merchandise 

[[Page 64417]]
as silicon metal described in the LTFV investigation (Final Scope 
Rulings-Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon Metal from the People's 
Republic of China, Brazil, and Argentina (February 3, 1993)). 
Therefore, such material is within the scope of the orders on silicon 
metal from the PRC, Brazil, and Argentina. Silicon metal is currently 
provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and is commonly referred to as a 
metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight 
not less than 99.99 percent of silicon metal and provided for in 
subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not subject to this order. The HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service 
purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the United States, Silarsa, and the period September 1, 
1993 through August 31, 1994.

Best Information Available (BIA)

    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we have 
determined that the use of BIA is appropriate for Silarsa. Our 
regulations that is selecting BIA we may take into account whether a 
party refuses to provide information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). Generally, 
whenever a company refuses to cooperate with the Department or 
otherwise significantly impedes the proceeding, as Silarsa did here, 
the Department uses as BIA the highest rate for any company for the 
same class or kind of merchandise from the current or any prior segment 
of the proceeding. When a company substantially cooperates with our 
requests for information, but fails to provide all the information 
requested in a timely manner or in the form requested, we use as BIA 
the higher of (1) the highest rate (including the ``all others'' rate) 
ever applicable to the firm for the same class or kind of merchandise 
from the same country from the LTFV investigation or a prior 
administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate in the review 
of any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise from the same 
country. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, et. al.; Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 57 FR 28360, 28379 (June 
24, 1992), and Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 
1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
results. We received written comments from American Silicon 
Technologies, Elkem Metals Company, Globe Metallurgical, Inc., and SKW 
Metals & Alloys, Inc., the petitioners, and Silarsa, S.A., a 
respondent. On September 15, 1995, we received written rebuttal 
comments from petitioners and Hunter Douglas, an importer of silicon 
metal from Argentina and an interested party as defined in section 
771(9)(A).

Comments on the Use of BIA

    The petitioners assert that Silarsa's failure to participate in 
this third administrative review occurred within the context of a 
continuing pattern of noncooperation by Silarsa in this proceeding, and 
they point out that their allegation of sales below cost with respect 
to Silarsa in the 1991-1992 period of review (the first administrative 
review) precipitated Silarsa's withdrawal. The Department subsequently 
assigned a BIA rate of 54.67 percent, which was computed from 
constructed value information submitted by the petitioners and 
Silarsa's reported U.S. sales data. The petitioner state that the 
Department explained in the final results of that review that it could 
not ``presume that the highest prior margins {were} the best 
information available and that following the two-tier methodology would 
be significant to induce the respondent to cooperate.'' See Silicon 
Metal from Argentina; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 58 FR 65336 (December 14, 1993) (Argentina Silicon Metal I). On 
remand, the Department recalculated the margin taking into account 
Silarsa's ministerial error allegations, and derived a margin of 24.62 
percent which was affirmed by the Court of International Trade (CIT) on 
March 24, 1994.
    The petitioners note that Silarsa failed to respond by the deadline 
date to the Department's questionnaire for the second administrative 
review, covering the period September 1, 1992 through August 31, 1993, 
and has had no subsequent contact with the Department with respect to 
the second administrative review.
    For this third administrative review the petitioners reiterate 
their objection to Silarsa's request to be ``excused from responding 
to'' the Department's questionnaire because it (1) exported only 331 
metric tons of subject imports during the period of review (POR) in 
October 1993; (2) had stopped manufacturing silicon metal in January 
1994, and had no near-term plans to resume production; (3) would 
contact the Department should it resume production; and (4) did not 
have the personnel to prepare the response. See Letter from Alberto 
Stein, President, Silarsa, to the Department of Commerce (December 29, 
1994) Letter from Silarsa) on file in Central Records, Room B-099. 
Petitioners note that PIERS data and Census Bureau import data indicate 
that Silarsa did import silicon metal into the United States during the 
POR and that a temporary cessation of production does not relieve 
Silarsa of its obligation to respond to the questionnaire.
    Petitioners state that to be an effective tool, the application of 
BIA to a recalcitrant party must result in a margin that is less 
desirable to the respondent than that which would have been obtained 
had the party chosen to cooperate. Citing N.A.R., S.p.A. v. United 
States, 741 F.Supp. 936 (CIT 1990), in support of their argument, 
petitioners assert that the best information rule may be used to 
prevent a respondent from controlling the results of an antidumping 
investigation ``by selectively providing the ITA with information'', 
(Id. at 941). Petitioners state that the Department normally includes 
within the pool of BIA rates (1) the highest rate assigned to any 
company in a previous review of investigation and (2) the highest rate 
for a responding company with shipments during the review period. 
Petitioners contend, however, that the Department has gone beyond these 
rates when the higher of the two was not ``sufficiently adverse to 
induce respondents to submit timely, accurate, and complete responses'' 
(Sodium Thiosulfate From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 58792 
(December 11, 1992) (PRC Sodium Thiosulfate)).
    According to petitioners, Silarsa's failure to cooperate in the 
first, second, and in this third administrative review demonstrates 
that the current rate, the BIA rate from the first administrative 
review, is not sufficiently adverse to induce Silarsa's cooperation. 
Since the rates established in the investigation and prior completed 
reviews are no more adverse than the 24.62 percent deposit rate 
currently in effect, the petitioners assert that the Department must go 
beyond those rates to find a rate sufficiently adverse to induce 
cooperation. Citing Replacement Parts for Self-Propelled Bituminous 
Paving Equipment From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 56 FR 47454 (September 19, 

[[Page 64418]]
1991) (Canadian Replacement Parts) and Krupp Stahl A.G. v. United 
States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993) (Krupp Stahl) as precedent, the 
petitioners believe the Department must expand its choices and include 
the petition rates in its BIA pool.
    The petitioners point out that in Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe 
Fittings From Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 60 FR 41876 (August 14, 1995) (Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings) 
the Department assigned as BIA the average of the petition rates, as 
adjusted by the Department, reasoning that

[in] not responding to our requests for information, [the 
respondent] could be relying upon our normal BIA practice to lock in 
a rate that is capped at its LTFV rate. Such a capped BIA rate would 
allow [the respondent] to practice injurious price discrimination to 
a greater degree than at the time of the LTFV investigation without 
fear of adverse consequences. With such a capped rate, [the 
respondent] would no longer have an incentive to participate in an 
administrative review which would determine the extent to which [the 
respondent] is actually dumping subject merchandise in the United 
States.

The petitioners state that similarly in this review Silarsa's current 
BIA rate is the highest rate established for any respondent in this or 
any prior segment of the proceeding. Therefore, in the petitioners' 
opinion, the Department should assign to Silarsa, as BIA, the average 
of the petition rates, 81.31 percent, or, at a minimum, the lowest 
petition rate of 49.35 percent.
    Silarsa counters that it generally supports the Department's 
preliminary results and urges the Department to assign to Silarsa in 
the final results a rate no greater than the highest rate ever 
established by the Department in Argentine Silicon Metal I, i.e., 24.62 
percent. Silarsa maintains that the Department's use of this rate as 
BIA is firmly rooted in established agency practice and is commonly 
referred to as the two-tiered BIA methodology. In this case the 
Department uses as BIA the highest previous margin ever established by 
the Department in Silicon Metal from Argentina. Silarsa cites Allied 
Signal Co. v. U.S. (996 F.2d 1185, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 28 
F.3d 1188, cert denied, 115 S. Ct. 722(1995)) as evidence that the 
Department's two-tiered BIA methodolgy and its application in 
administrative reviews have been upheld by the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit.
    Silarsa dismisses the petitioners' claim that Silarsa's failure to 
cooperate in the second and third administrative reviews demonstrates 
that the current rate is not sufficiently adverse to induce Silarsa's 
cooperation, contending that this conclusion is clearly refuted by the 
record. In fact, Silarsa maintains that the 24.62 percent margin 
constitutes an insurmountable barrier, which precluded Silarsa from 
participating in the U.S. silicon metal market, and precipitated the 
company's decision to cease production of silicon metal effective 
January 1, 1994. According to Silarsa, economic constraints and the 
lack of a sufficient administrative structure have precluded Silarsa's 
participation in the administrative proceedings, not the petitioners' 
purported ineffectiveness of the margin. Silarsa characterizes the 
petitioners' claim that the use of the 24.62 percent margin as BIA 
would ``reward'' Silarsa for its inability to participate in the 
administrative proceedings as baseless, stating that this margin is not 
``neutral or even favorable'' to Silarsa.
    Silarsa contends that the Department has no basis to assign to 
Silarsa a rate greater than the 24.62 percent rate determined to 
constitute BIA in the first administrative review. Silarsa asserts that 
the petitioners' cite to Canadian Replacement Parts to support the 
application of a rate from the petition as the BIA rate for purposes of 
an administrative review is incorrect. In that case, the Department 
``included the petition rate in the BIA pool,'' as petitioners contend, 
but ultimately rejected this rate and applied the BIA rate in effect 
for the respondent in a preceding review.
    Silarsa states that the petitioners' cite to PRC Sodium 
Thiosulfates is ``equally inapt'' because, unlike that case where the 
petitioner placed on the record documentation indicating that costs and 
prices had changed substantially since the investigation, the 
petitioners in this case have not introduced evidence of increased 
costs or prices that might warrant the application of a higher dumping 
margin. Silarsa also rejects the petitioners' cite to Krupp Stahl, 
where the CIT upheld the Department's choice of the rate established in 
the preliminary phase of the LTFV investigation as BIA. Silarsa points 
out that the administrative review at issue in Krupp Stahl was the 
first review and the only BIA alternatives available to the Department 
were the petition-based preliminary LTFV rate for the respondent and 
the respondent's own final LTFV rate. The Court specified that ``under 
the circumstances of limited BIA data in [that] review,'' the 
Department's use of the only other information available, i.e., the 
preliminary LTFV rate, was not arbitrary. Silarsa argues that this is 
the third administrative review of silicon metal from Argentina and the 
information available to the Department is not ``limited.'' In 
addition, Silarsa notes that the rate used by the Department as BIA in 
Krupp Stahl was a rate established in the preliminary LTFV 
investigation, not a petition rate as proposed by the petitioners in 
this case.
    Silarsa also distinguishes the facts in Brazil Cast Iron Pipe 
Fittings from those in this review. In Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 
there was only one respondent, with a relatively low margin, who failed 
to respond to the Department's questionnaire subsequent to the initial 
LTFV investigation. The petitioner argued that so long as the company 
chose not to respond to the Department's questionnaire, the relative 
low margin for the respondent would not change under the Department's 
regular BIA practice. Silarsa points out that due to the ``unusual 
situation'' in that case the Department deviated from its ``normal BIA 
practice,'' the two-tiered methodology. Silarsa argues that this 
``unusual situation'' is not applicable in this review, where there are 
two companies, there is more than one rate in the selection pool, and 
the rate currently in effect for Silarsa, i.e., 24.62 percent, is a BIA 
rate itself and is more adverse and prejudicial than the calculated 
rate in Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings.
    Silarsa concludes that the petitioners have failed to establish a 
reasonable basis for the Department to deviate from its accepted, 
established methodology to determine a BIA rate for Silarsa. Silarsa, 
therefore, urges the Department to utilize as BIA for Silarsa in the 
final results of this administrative review a rate no greater than the 
BIA rate currently in effect for Silarsa, i.e., 24.62 percent.
    In rebuttal the petitioners argue that Silarsa's characterization 
of its current BIA rate as ``extremely adverse and prejudicial'' does 
not alter the fact that Silarsa failed to cooperate in this review; 
this noncooperation demonstrates that the current rate is not 
sufficiently adverse or prejudicial to achieve the central purpose of 
the BIA rule which is to provide a strong enough incentive to cooperate 
that the respondent will submit the information necessary to determine 
the actual margin of dumping on its U.S. sales. The petitioners urge 
the Department not to rely upon selected, unverified facts submitted by 
an uncooperative respondent as the basis for a decision benefiting that 
respondent. They maintain that the most important of the selective 
facts submitted by Silarsa in its 

[[Page 64419]]
brief was its contention that it had made only one exportation to the 
United States during the POR and, therefore, its current rate should 
not be increased. The petitioners claim that the only reason Silarsa 
provided any information in this review regarding its shipments to the 
United States is the petitioners' challenge to Silarsa's erroneous 
claim that it had made only one shipment of silicon metal to the United 
States during the POR. According to the petitioners, the fact that 
Silarsa is willing to accept the 24.62 percent rate rather than provide 
the requested information demonstrates that the rate is neither adverse 
not prejudicial.
    The petitioners argue that since Silarsa is the only company being 
reviewed in this administrative review, under the Department's normal 
methodology Silarsa's current rate is the highest possible BIA rate. 
The petitioners maintain that it is the Department's practice to go 
beyond the rates specified by its normal methodology when the highest 
of those rates is not ``sufficiently adverse to induce respondents to 
submit timely, accurate, and complete responses'' (PRC Sodium 
Thiosulface, 57 FR at 58792). Since the current rate has proven to be 
too low to induce Silarsa's cooperation, the petitioners conclude that, 
in accordance with Krupp Stahl, the Department must assign a higher BIA 
rate, the petition rate, as BIA for Silarsa. The petitioners cite 
Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, 60 FR at 41878, wherein the Department 
reasoned that ``such a capped BIA rate would allow (the respondent) to 
practice injurious price discrimination of a greater degree than at the 
time of the LTFV investigation without fear of adverse consequences'' 
(id., 41878), as precedent for the Department's use of petition-based 
rates when the only available rate under the Department's standard 
practice is the respondent's own LTFV margin. Since Silarsa's current 
BIA rate is the highest rate established for any respondent in this or 
any prior segment of the proceeding, the petitioners contend that 
Silarsa's rate will be capped at the current rate. Therefore, the 
petitioners reiterate their contention that the Department should 
assign to Silarsa, as BIA, the average of the petition rates (81.31%) 
or, at a minimum, the lowest petition rate (49.35%).
    Hunter Douglas agrees with Silarsa that there is no reason for the 
Department to deviate from its two-tiered BIA methodology in this 
review, stating that the petitioners cannot realistically claim that 
the 24.62 percent rate is not sufficiently adverse when it has 
prevented Silarsa from exporting to the Untied States and also has 
induced Silarsa to discontinue production of silicon metal altogether.
    Hunter Douglas argue that the sole impact of an increase in the BIA 
rate would be to punish unrelated U.S. importers who must actually pay 
the antidumping duties even though they have no control over foreign 
exporters or their decisions about whether to cooperate in the 
Department's antidumping administrative reviews. Therefore, Hunter 
Douglas urges the Department to apply a BIA rate no higher than 24.62 
percent to Silarsa's merchandise in this review.
    Department's Position: We agree with Silarsa. In the preliminary 
results of this administrative review we followed our established two-
tiered methodology, as set out above, and assigned to Silarsa, a 
noncomplying respondent, the highest rate found for any firm for the 
same class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin in the 
LTFV investigation or a prior administrative review. As the petitioners 
explain in their brief, in the final results of Argentina Silicon Metal 
I we assigned to Silarsa, as BIA), a rate of 54.67 percent, computed 
using constructed value information submitted by petitioners and based 
on Silarsa's financial statements and its reported U.S. sales data. On 
remand, the Department recalculated this margin, taking into account 
ministerial error allegations filed by Silarsa, and derived a BIA rate 
of 24.62 percent which was subsequently affirmed by the CIT on March 
24, 1994.
    We disagree with the petitioners that the 24.62 percent BIA rate 
assigned to Silarsa in the first administrative review was not 
sufficiently adverse to induce Silarsa's cooperation in the second and 
third administrative reviews and, therefore, a more adverse rate should 
be assigned in this review to induce the desired cooperation. The BIA 
rate from the first administrative review appears to have precluded 
Silarsa's participation in the U.S. silicon metal market (see Letter 
from Silarsa). Accordingly, there is no need to resort to any higher 
BIA rate, as the petitioners suggest.
    The petitioners are correct in their assertion that the Department 
tries to select an appropriate BIA rate to encourage future compliance 
with the Department's requests for information. However, in the present 
case, Silarsa maintains that it has ceased producing and exporting the 
subject merchandise. As such, in this instance, Silarsa is in no way 
advantaged by the present rate, and use of an even higher BIA rate 
would not induce Silarsa to respond to the Department's questionnaire.
    The petitioners' reliance on Canadian replacement Parts and Krupp 
Stahl to support the use of the petition rates for BIA is misleading. 
In Canadian Replacement Parts we considered the petition rate in the 
pool of possible BIA rates, but ultimately rejected the rate alleged in 
the petition as a BIA rate because the respondent did make ``several 
attempts to respond to our request for data'' and ``the selection of 
the most adverse BIA rate {was} not warranted under {those} 
circumstances'' (see Canadian Replacement Parts, 56 FR 47454), In Krupp 
Stahl the CIT concluded that the Department's choice of BIA (i.e., the 
preliminary LTFV margin) was ``within its discretion'' and ``in 
accordance with law'' given the ``special circumstance of {that} case, 
that is, Krupp's destruction of the records during the process of 
litigation and the limited BIA data available for use'' (Id., 822 F. 
Supp., at 796). There are no parallel ``special circumstances'' in this 
review. There were special circumstances in the first administrative 
review which persuaded the Department to go beyond the two-tiered BIA 
methodology and use the rate the petitioners derived from Silarsa's own 
financial statements and submitted sales information. That rate is 
currently the highest rate for any respondent during the investigation 
and in subsequent administrative reviews. There are no special 
circumstances in this third administrative review that warrant 
rejecting that rate and going beyond the standard two-tiered BIA 
methodology.
    The petitioners' fear that the Department's use of the traditional 
two-tiered methodology in this instance would result in a ``capped BIA 
rate'' which ``would allow {the respondent} to practice injurious price 
discrimination to a greater degree than at the time of the LTFV 
investigation without fear of adverse consequences'' (Brazil Cast Iron 
Pipe Fittings, 60 FR at 41876) is unwarranted. While the Department did 
find it appropriate to use a higher petition-based rate as BIA in the 
Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings review, there is no need to do so here. 
Unlike Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, there are other exporters of the 
subject merchandise which may receive a higher rate in subsequent 
proceedings. Moreover, as discussed above, Silarsa attests that it is 
no longer producing or exporting the subject merchandise. There is no 
evidence to indicate that,if Silarsa resumes production, the current 
rate is insufficient to ensure Silarsa's cooperation in a subsequent 
review. Therefore, we believe that Silarsa's BIA 

[[Page 64420]]
rate from the first administrative review is sufficient for the 
purposes for which BIA is intended. There is no indication that Silarsa 
is engaging in injurious price discrimination to a greater degree than 
at the time of the first administrative review. Should such evidence 
come to light in a future review, and the Department determines that a 
BIA rate is appropriate, it is not precluded from evaluating the rate 
in order to assign one that would accomplish the purpose for which a 
BIA rate is intended.
    Finally, we also disagree with the petitioners' argument that PRC 
Sodium Thiosulfate supports the conclusion that a higher BIA rate is 
warranted in this instance. In PRC Sodium Thiosulfate the Department 
reconsidered the BIA rate because the petitioner presented evidence 
that costs and prices in the industry had changed substantially since 
the investigation, making the BIA rate from the investigation ``no 
longer sufficiently adverse.'' See PRC Sodium Thiosulfate: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 12934 (March 
8, 1993). That is not the case in this review. There is no evidence on 
the record that costs or prices have changed, let alone changed 
substantially, that would warrant a reconsideration of the current BIA 
rate assigned to Silarsa.
    As explained above, the present BIA rate is sufficiently adverse to 
Silarsa. Therefore, since we see no reason to deviate from our well-
established two-tiered BIA methodology in this review, we have 
continued to use 24.62 percent as Silarsa's first-tier BIA rate for 
this third administrative review.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of comments received, we have not revised our 
preliminary results. Therefore, we determine that the following margin 
exists for the period September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silarsa, S.A.................................................     24.62 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Furthermore, the 
following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of 
this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments 
of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company, Silarsa, will be the rate listed above; (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; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers 
or exporters will be 17.87 percent, the ``all other'' rate established 
in the final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, 
American Alloys, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 91-10-00782, p. 4 
(April 7, 1995).
    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 Sec. 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 the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibilities 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to 
comply is a violation of the APO. 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.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)(B)) as 
amended and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: December 7, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-30606 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M