Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20233

certain adjustments to EP. We also used

facts available for certain expenses in

the calculation of CV. However, we

intend to take into consideration timely

responses to our requests for additional

information for the final results. Please

refer to the respective analysis

memoranda for a detailed explanation of

the facts available used for the purpose

of calculating dumping margins for each

respondent.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

Eagle Star

Textile Mills,

Ltd. ............. 3/1/94–2/28/95 42.31

Greyfab (Bangladesh),

Ltd. ............. 3/1/94–2/28/95 0.01

Hashem International ...... 3/1/94–2/28/95 0.02

Khaled Textile

Mills, Ltd. ... 3/1/94–2/28/95 0.01

Shabnam Textiles ............ 3/1/94–2/28/95 0.03

Sonar Cotton

(BD), Ltd. ... 3/1/94–2/28/95 0.00

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Parties who submit

argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Rebuttal

briefs, which must be limited to issues

raised in the case briefs, may be filed

not later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments

within 180 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. The final results of

this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. For duty assessment

purposes, we calculated an importerspecific assessment rate by aggregating

the dumping margins calculated for all

U.S. sales to each importer and dividing

this amount by the total quantity of

subject merchandise sold to each of the

respective importers. This specific rate

calculated for each importer will be

used for the assessment of antidumping

duties on the relevant entries of subject

merchandise during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of shop towels from Bangladesh entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rates for reviewed companies

will be the rates established in the final

results of this review; (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 less-than-fair-value

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 shall

be the rate established in the

investigation of sales at less than fair

value, which is 4.60 percent.

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11245 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–811]

Steel Wire Rope 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.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the petitioner, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on steel

wire rope from Korea. The review

covers 25 manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States. The review period is March 1,

1994, through February 28, 1995 (the

POR).

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value (NV). If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of the administrative review, we will

instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the export price (EP)

and the NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument: (1) a statement of the

issues, and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas O. Barlow, Matthew

Rosenbaum, or Michael Rill, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Rounds

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulation published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995

(60 FR 25130).
20234 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

Background

On March 26, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 16398) the antidumping duty order

on steel wire rope from the Republic of

Korea. On March 7, 1995, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (60 FR 12540)

of this antidumping duty order for the

period March 1, 1994, through February

28, 1995. On March 27, 1995, the

petitioner, the Committee of Domestic

Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable

Manufacturers, requested an

administrative review for 25

manufacturers/exporters of steel wire

rope from Korea. We published a notice

of initiation of the review on April 14,

1995 (60 FR 19017). The Department is

now conducting this review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Unlocated Companies

We were unable to obtain addresses

for Atlantic & Pacific, Dae Kyung Metal,

Dong-Il Metal, Dong Yong Rope, Korope

Co., Kwang Shin Industrial, Kwangshin

Rope, and Seo Hae Industrial. In

accordance with our practice with

respect to companies to which we

cannot send a questionnaire, we are

assigning to these companies the ‘‘All

Others’’ rate from the less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, which is

1.51 percent. See Sweaters Wholly or in

Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From

Hong Kong; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 59 FR 13926 (March 24, 1994).

Non-Shippers

Six companies notified us that they

did not have shipments of subject

merchandise during the POR, and we

confirmed this with the United States

Customs Service. One company, Yeon

Sin Metal (Yeon Sin), did not serve its

submission on interested parties, but its

submission was timely submitted to the

public file and provided adequate

opportunity for the Department to

confirm with the U.S. Customs Service

that Yeon Sin did not ship steel wire

rope to the United States during the

POR. Because we were able to confirm

that Yeon Sin had no shipments and its

notification of no shipments was

reasonably available to interested

parties, we have accepted Yeon Sin’s

submission and are treating Yeon Sin as

a non-shipper for this review.

Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc.

(Sungsan) submitted a letter stating that

it did not produce subject merchandise

during the POR and made only one

shipment of subject merchandise

produced by another unrelated

company. We sent a letter to Sungsan

requesting that it confirm that the

manufacturer of this merchandise was

aware that the merchandise was

destined for the United States. Sungsan

replied by confirming that the

manufacturer of the subject

merchandise which it shipped during

the POR was aware that the shipment

was destined for the United Sates. It

also submitted documentation

confirming this assertion. We were able

to confirm with the U.S. Customs

Service that Sungsan made no

shipments of subject merchandise

during the POR other than those

supplied by the unrelated manufacturer,

as mentioned above. Accordingly, we

are treating Sungsan as a non-shipper

for this review.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

steel wire rope. Steel wire rope

encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage

of iron or carbon steel, other than

stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or

made up into articles, and not made up

of brass-plated wire. Imports of these

products are currently classifiable under

the following Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) subheadings:

7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and

7312.10.9090.

Excluded from this review is stainless

steel wire rope, i.e., ropes, cables and

cordage other than stranded wire, of

stainless steel, not fitted with fittings or

made up into articles, which is

classifiable under HTS subheading

7312.10.6000. Although HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

own written description of the scope of

this review is dispositive.

Export Price

For sales to the United States, the

Department used EP as defined in

section 772(a) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold to

unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the

date of importation and the use of

constructed export price was not

indicated by the facts of record.

We calculated EP based on ex-factory,

f.o.b. Korea, f.o.b. customer’s specific

delivery point, c.i.f., c&f, or delivered

prices to unrelated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. We

adjusted these prices for billing

adjustments, where applicable. We

made adjustments, where applicable, for

domestic brokerage and handling, ocean

freight, marine insurance, terminal

handling charges, stevedoring charges,

wharfage expenses, bill of lading issuing

fees, export license fees, export

insurance, domestic inland freight,

containerization expenses and container

taxes, container freight station charges,

and shoring charges in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also

added duty drawback, where applicable,

for Manho Rope and Wire, Ltd. (Manho)

and Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co.,

Ltd. (Chun Kee), pursuant to section

772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. We did not make

any duty drawback adjustments for

Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd., Inc. (Chung

Woo), Kumho Rope (Kumho), and Ssang

Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd., because they

were unable to demonstrate a

connection between imports for which

they paid duties and exports of steel

wire rope, consistent with our practice

in the previous review (see Steel Wire

Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 60 FR 63499

(December 11, 1995) (Steel Wire Rope

Final)).

No other adjustments to EP were

claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, and absent any information

that a particular market situation in the

exporting country does not permit a

proper comparison, we determined that

the quantity of foreign like product each

respondent sold in the exporting

country was sufficient to permit a

proper comparison with the sales of the

subject merchandise to the United

States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the

Act, because each company had sales in

its home market which were greater

than five percent of the U. S. market.

Therefore, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV

on the prices at which the foreign like

products were first sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

Because the Department disregarded

sales below the cost of production (COP)

in the last completed review for Manho

and Chun Kee (see Steel Wire Rope

Final), we had reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of the

foreign product under consideration for

the determination of NV in this review

may have been made at prices below the

COP, as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we initiated COP investigations of sales

by Manho and Chun Kee in the home

market.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based

on the sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and the cost of all expenses
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20235

incidental to placing the foreign like

product in condition packed ready for

shipment. We relied on the home

market sales and COP information

provided by Manho and Chun Kee in

their questionnaire responses.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of steel wire

rope were made at prices below COP

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities, and whether such

prices permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COP to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges, rebates,

and direct selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determined that the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POR were

at prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales

because we determined that the belowcost sales were made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with sections

773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and

because we determined that the belowcost sales of the product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

as defined in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the

Act. Where all sales of a specific

product were at prices below the COP,

we disregarded all sales of that product,

and calculated NV based on CV, in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the

Act, we compared the EPs of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage price of sales of the foreign like

product. We compared EP sales to sales

in the home market of identical or

similar merchandise.

We based NV on the price at which

the foreign like product is first sold for

consumption in the exporting country,

in the usual commercial quantities, in

the ordinary course of trade and at the

same level of trade as the EP, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act. We made adjustments, where

appropriate, for rebates. We increased

home market price by the amount of

U.S. packing costs in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and

reduced it by the amount of home

market packing costs in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We

adjusted for movement expenses in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii)

of the Act. We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for differences in the

physical characteristics of merchandise

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 353.56, we made

circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments

to NV. We deducted home market credit

expenses, inspection fees, warranty and

servicing expenses and, where

appropriate, added U.S. postage fees,

U.S. letter of credit fees, U.S. bank

charges, U.S. credit expenses, U.S.

inspection fees, U.S. warranty and

servicing expenses, and U.S. product

liability insurance. Prices were reported

net of value-added taxes (VAT) and,

therefore, no adjustment for VAT was

necessary.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we used CV as NV for those

U.S. sales for which we could not

determine the NV based on home

market sales pursuant to section

773(a)(1) of the Act either because there

were no appropriate sales or because we

disregarded below-cost sales pursuant to

section 773(b) of the Act. We calculated

CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, as the sum of the cost of

manufacturing (COM) of the product

sold in the United States, home market

selling, general and administrative

(SG&A) expenses, home market profit,

and U.S. packing expenses. The COM of

the product sold in the United States is

the sum of direct material, direct labor,

and variable and fixed factory overhead

expenses. For home market SG&A

expenses and profit, we used the actual

amounts incurred and realized by the

respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country,

in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)

of the Act, unless these actual data were

not available. If these actual data were

not available, we used the actual

amounts incurred and realized by the

respondent in connection with the

production and sale, for consumption in

the foreign country, of merchandise that

is in the same general category of

products as the subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(i)

of the Act. In accordance with section

773(a)(8) of the Act, we made COS

adjustments to CV by deducting home

market direct selling expenses and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, that the use of facts available is

appropriate for Boo Kook Corp., DongIl Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Hanboo Rope,

Jinyang Wire Rope Inc., and Seo Jin

Rope because they did not respond to

our antidumping questionnaire. We find

that these firms have withheld

‘‘information that has been requested by

the administering authority.’’

Furthermore, we determine that,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it

is appropriate to make an inference

adverse to the interests of these

companies because they failed to

cooperate by not responding to our

questionnaire.

Where the Department must base the

entire dumping margin for a respondent

in an administrative review on the facts

available because that respondent failed

to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act

authorizes the Department to use an

inference adverse to the interests of that

respondent in choosing the facts

available. Section 776(b) of the Act also

authorizes the Department to use as

adverse facts available information

derived from the petition, the final

determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Because information from prior

segments of the proceeding constitutes

secondary information, section 776(c) of

the Act provides that the Department

shall, to the extent practicable,

corroborate that secondary information

from independent sources reasonably at

its disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides

that ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that

the Department will satisfy itself that

the secondary information to be used

has probative value. (See H.R. Doc. 316,

Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d sess. 870 (1994).)

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike for other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an
20236 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996)

(where the Department disregarded the

highest margin as adverse BIA because

the margin was based on another

company’s uncharacteristic business

expense resulting in an unusually high

margin)).

In this case, we have used the highest

rate from any prior segment of the

proceeding, 1.51 percent, as adverse

facts available. This rate is the highest

available rate and, to the best of our

knowledge, there are no circumstances

that indicate that the selected margin is

not appropriate as adverse facts

available.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

March 1, 1994, through February 28,

1995:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Atlantic & Pacific ....................... 1.51

Boo Kook Corporation .............. 1.51

Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope

Co., Ltd .................................. 0.01

Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd ....... 0.04

Dae Heung Industrial Co .......... (1)

Dae Kyung Metal ...................... 1.51

Dong-Il Metal ............................ 1.51

Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing

Co., Ltd .................................. 1.51

Dong Young .............................. 1.51

Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc ............ 1.51

Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc ............ 1.51

Korea Sangsa Co ..................... (1)

Korope Co. ................................ 1.51

Kumho Rope ............................. 0.01

Kwang Shin Ind ........................ 1.51

Kwangshin Rope ....................... 1.51

Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd .......... 0.00

Myung Jin Co ............................ (1)

Seo Hae Ind .............................. 1.51

Seo Jin Rope ............................ 1.51

Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co.,

Ltd ......................................... 0.06

Sung Jin .................................... 0.00

Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc .............................. (1)

TSK (Korea) Co., Ltd ................ (1)

Yeonsin Metal ........................... 20.18

1 No shipments subject to this review. The

firm has no individual rate from any segment

of this proceeding. 2 No shipments subject to this review. Rate

is from the last relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Parties who submit

argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) a statement of the issues,

and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments. Rebuttal briefs, which must

be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed not later than 37

days after the date of publication. The

Department will issue a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or at the hearing,

within 180 days from the issuance of

these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. The final results of

this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. For duty assessment

purposes, we calculated an importerspecific assessment rate by aggregating

the dumping margins calculated for all

U.S. sales to each importer and dividing

this amount by the total quantity of

subject merchandise sold to each of the

respective importers. This specific rate

calculated for each importer will be

used for the assessment of antidumping

duties on the relevant entries of subject

merchandise during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of steel wire rope from Korea entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rate for the reviewed companies

will be the rates established in the final

results of administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, the

previous review, or the original

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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 1.51

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation (58 FR 16398,

March 26, 1993).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11250 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–427–078]

Sugar From France: Initiation and

Preliminary Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, and Intent To

Revoke Finding in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation and

preliminary results of changed

circumstances antidumping duty

administrative review, and intent to

revoke finding in part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request made

on March 12, 1996, by BoironBorneman, Inc. (Boiron), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is initiating a changed

circumstances antidumping duty

administrative review and issuing a

preliminary intent to revoke in part the

antidumping duty finding on sugar from

France, the scope of which currently

includes sugar, both raw and refined,

with the exception of specialty sugars.

See Sugar From Belgium, France, and

the Federal Republic of Germany;

Finding of Dumping, 44 FR 33878 (June

13, 1979), and Memorandum For Dick

Moreland From Frank R. Brennan (June

1, 1982). Based on the fact that the

Florida Sugar Marketing and Terminal

Association, Inc., (the petitioner) has

expressed no interest in the importation