```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25190-25194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-557-805]

Notice of Preliminary Results and Termination in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Extruded Rubber Thread From 
Malaysia

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Werker or Shawn Thompson, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and

[[Page 25191]]

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-3874 or (202) 482-1776, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 18, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the Antidumping Duty Order on Extruded 
Rubber Thread from Malaysia (58 FR 53709). In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(a)(2), in October 1993, the following producers and exporters of 
extruded rubber thread requested an administrative review of the 
antidumping order covering the period April 2, 1992, through September 
30, 1993: Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. (``Heveafil''), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. 
(``Rubberflex''), Filati Lastex Elastfibre (Malaysia) (``Filati''), and 
Rubfil Sdn. Bhd (``Rubfil''). On November 17, 1993, the Department 
initiated an administrative review for Rubberflex (58 FR 60600). On 
December 17, 1993, the Department initiated an administrative review 
for Heveafil, Filati, and Rubfil (58 FR 65964).
    On January 26, 1994, the Department issued sales and cost 
questionnaires to the four companies requesting an administrative 
review. On March 8, 1994, Filati and Rubfil withdrew their request for 
administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). 
Accordingly, we are terminating this review for Filati and Rubfil.
    On March 21, 1994, Heveafil submitted a request to withdraw from 
this administrative review with respect to sales made during the period 
April 2, 1992, through August 25, 1992. This request was based on 
Heveafil's assertion that the company was having difficulty in 
collecting information for this period. On March 24, 1994, we rejected 
Heveafil's partial termination request.
    Heveafil and Rubberflex submitted questionnaire responses in April 
1994. We issued supplemental questionnaires in May 1994 (to both 
respondents), in April 1995 (to Heveafil) and in July 1995 (to 
Rubberflex). Responses to these questionnaires were received in June 
1994, May 1995, and August 1995, respectively.
    In July and August 1995, the Department conducted sales and cost 
verifications of Heveafil's questionnaire responses, in accordance with 
19 CFR 353.36(a)(iv), based in part on Heveafil's assertion that it did 
not maintain detailed sales and cost records during the first five 
months of the review period. Regarding Rubberflex, we determined that 
it was unnecessary to conduct verification, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.36, because (1) Rubberflex was involved in the original 
investigation (and therefore had been verified during that proceeding); 
and (2) no data collection problems were indicated for this company in 
the instant proceeding.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is extruded rubber thread. 
Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained 
by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any 
cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 
140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. 
Extruded rubber thread is currently classified under subheading 
4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes. Our written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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.
    We are conducting this administrative review for Heveafil and 
Rubberflex in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act).

Such or Similar Merchandise

    In determining similar merchandise comparisons, in accordance with 
section 771(16) of the Act, we considered the following physical 
characteristics, which appear in order of importance: (1) Quality 
(i.e., first vs. second); (2) size; (3) finish; (4) color; (5) special 
qualities; (6) uniformity; (7) elongation; (8) tensile strength; and 
(9) modulus. With the exception of quality, these characteristics are 
in accordance with matching criteria set forth in the January 26, 1994, 
memorandum to the file. Regarding quality, we have added this 
characteristic in order to address respondents' concerns regarding 
differences in value related to significant differences in quality.
    Regarding color, both respondents assigned separate codes to each 
shade of color. We reassigned color codes to sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with the instructions contained in the 
questionnaire. This resulted in our treating all shades of white as 
equally similar to each other, all shades of black as equally similar, 
etc., instead of treating a specific shade as most similar to another 
specific shade.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia 
to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the 
United States price (USP) to the foreign market value (FMV) for 
Rubberflex and Heveafil, as specified in the ``United States Price'' 
and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this notice.
    Respondents reported bad debt as indirect selling expenses. 
Therefore, because bad debt was included in the indirect selling 
expenses, we disregarded sales to all markets (i.e., United States and 
third country) which were written off as bad debt in order to avoid 
double-counting these transactions.

United States Price

    For sales by both respondents, we based USP on purchase price, in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, when the subject merchandise 
was sold to unrelated purchasers in the United States prior to 
importation and when the exporter's sales price (ESP) methodology of 
section 772(c) of the Act was not otherwise indicated. In addition, 
where sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place after 
importation into the United States, we based USP on ESP, in accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Act.

A. Heveafil

    We removed all sales from the sales database with entry dates after 
the period of review (POR). In addition, at verification, we found that 
certain sales Heveafil had designated as U.S. sales were actually sales 
to a U.S. customer but shipped to Hong Kong to be further manufactured 
into non-subject merchandise before entering the United States. 
Accordingly, the merchandise that eventually entered the United States 
was not subject to the dumping order. Therefore, we consider these 
sales to be third country sales and have eliminated them from the U.S. 
sales listing.
    We based purchase price on packed, CIF prices to the first 
unrelated purchaser in the United States. We revised Heveafil's data 
based on our findings at verification. We made deductions from USP, 
where appropriate, for rebates. In addition, where appropriate, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, harbor maintenance 
and merchandise

[[Page 25192]]

processing fees, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
    At verification, we found that Heveafil did not report certain 
purchase price sales of extruded rubber thread which entered the United 
States during the POR. Because we specifically instructed Heveafil to 
report all entries into the United States during the POR as well as all 
sales made during the POR, we based the margin for these unreported 
sales on the best information otherwise available (BIA) in accordance 
with section 776(c) of the Act. As BIA, we applied the weighted-average 
margin found in the this first administrative review, because it is the 
highest rate ever determined for Heveafil. This is consistent with the 
Department's general application of partial BIA (see, e.g., Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in 
Part of an Antidumping Duty Order; Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al, 60 FR 
10900, 10907 (February 28, 1995) (AFBs)).
    For sales made from the inventory of the U.S. branch office, we 
based USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. In 
addition, we reclassified certain purchase price sales as ESP sales 
because we found at verification that they were canceled by the 
original purchaser after shipment and resold after importation into the 
United States.
    We calculated ESP based on packed, delivered prices to unrelated 
customers in the United States. We revised the reported data based on 
our findings at verification. We made deductions, where appropriate, 
for rebates. We also made deductions for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. brokerage, entry fees, harbor maintenance and processing 
fees, and inspection charges. In accordance with section 772(e)(2) of 
the Act, we made additional deductions, where appropriate, for credit 
and indirect selling expenses.

B. Rubberflex

    We based purchase price on packed, CIF prices to the first 
unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from USP, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage, 
containerization expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
customs duties, harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees, and 
U.S. inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of 
the Act. Rubberflex did not report certain movement charges, although 
the company reported that it incurred them on all purchase price 
transactions. Accordingly, we based the amount of the unreported 
expenses on BIA. As BIA, we used the highest amount reported in the 
purchase price sales listing for each specific charge (see e.g., 
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review 60 FR 48687 (September 20, 
1995)). We disregarded a rebate reported for one purchase price sale, 
because Rubberflex stated in its questionnaire response that the 
company did not grant any U.S. rebates during the POR.
    For sales made from the inventory of the U.S. subsidiary, we based 
USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. We calculated 
ESP based on packed, delivered prices to unrelated customers in the 
United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage, containerization expenses, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, harbor maintenance and 
processing fees, and U.S. inland freight. In accordance with section 
772(e)(2) of the Act, we made additional deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit and indirect selling expenses.
    Rubberflex did not report complete data for certain ESP sales. 
Accordingly, we used BIA to determine these data, as follows: Where 
price and/or credit expense data was missing for sales of second 
quality merchandise, we used the average price and expense data 
reported for other second quality sales. Where the date of sale was 
missing and/or the control number was missing, we applied the weighted-
average margin found in the LTFV investigation, because it is the 
highest rate ever determined for Rubberflex. This is consistent with 
the Department's general application of partial BIA (see, e.g., AFBs).

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether the home market was viable during the 
POR, (i.e., whether there were sufficient sales of extruded rubber 
thread in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
FMV), we compared the volume of each of the respondent's home market 
sales to the volume of its third country sales, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.48. Based on this 
comparison, we determined that neither respondent had a viable home 
market during the POR. Consequently, we based FMV on third country 
sales.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b), we selected the appropriate 
third country markets for Heveafil and Rubberflex based on the 
following criteria: similarity of merchandise sold in the third country 
to the merchandise exported to the United States, the volume of sales 
to the third country, and the similarity of market organization between 
the third country and U.S. markets. Specifically, we chose, as the 
appropriate third country markets, Italy for Heveafil and Hong Kong for 
Rubberflex.
    Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of 
production (COP) for both Heveafil and Rubberflex in the original 
investigation (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 57 FR 38465 (August 25, 
1992)), in accordance with our standard practice, there were reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that both Heveafil and Rubberflex had 
made third country sales at prices below its COP in this review.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, and longstanding 
administrative practice (see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from Korea, 56 FR 16306 (April 22, 1991) and Final Results 
Administrative Review: Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, 59 FR 
9958 (March 2, 1994)), if over ninety percent of respondent's sales of 
a given model were at prices above the COP, we did not disregard any 
below-cost sales because we determined that the below-cost sales were 
not made in substantial quantities. Where we found between ten and 
ninety percent of respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
below the COP, and the below cost sales were made over an extended 
period of time, we disregarded only the below-cost sales. Where we 
found that more than ninety percent of respondent's sales were at 
prices below the COP, and the sales were made over an extended period 
of time, we disregarded all sales for that product and calculated FMV 
based on constructed value (CV), in accordance with section 773(e) of 
the Act.
    In order to determine whether third country prices were above the 
COP, we calculated the COP for each model based on the sum of the 
respondent's cost of materials, labor, other fabrication costs, and 
general expenses and packing. We calculated CV for each model based on 
the sum of respondent's cost of manufacture (COM), plus general 
expenses, profit and U.S. packing. For general expenses, which includes 
selling and financial expenses (SG&A), we used the greater of the 
reported general expenses or the statutory minimum of ten percent of 
the COM.

[[Page 25193]]

For profit, we used the greater of the weighted-average third country 
profit during the POR or the statutory minimum of eight percent of the 
COM and SG&A, in accordance with section 773(e)(B) of the Act.

A. Heveafil

    We made the following adjustments to Heveafil's reported COP and CV 
data based on our findings at verification. We increased direct 
material costs to account for yield loss during production. We 
increased direct labor to include accrued retirement benefits and other 
labor costs that had been excluded from COP and CV. We also 
reclassified certain variable labor costs to fixed overhead. We revised 
Heveafil's net financing costs to account for the financing cost 
incurred by its parent company. We recomputed Heveafil's G&A expense to 
include certain non-production labor costs, general depreciation, the 
write-off of idle equipment, and a portion of Heveafil's parent 
company's G&A expense. For further discussion of these adjustments, see 
the cost calculation memorandum from Stan Bowen and Dennis McClure, 
accountants in the Office of Accounting, to Christian Marsh, Director 
of the Office of Accounting, dated April 30, 1996.
    Where FMV was based on third country sales, as in the original 
investigation, we based FMV on CIF prices to unrelated Italian 
customers in comparable channels of trade as the U.S. customer. 
Specifically, FMV was based on direct sales from Malaysia for purchase 
price sales comparisons, and on sales from the inventory of Heveafil's 
Italian branch office for ESP sales comparisons, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We made adjustments to Heveafil's 
reported sales data based on our findings at verification. We made no 
adjustment to FMV for credits issued by the Italian branch office based 
on our finding at verification that these credits were incorrectly 
reported (see the Italian Branch's sales verification report, dated 
August 30, 1995).
    For third country price-to-purchase price comparisons, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for rebates. We also deducted post-sale 
home market movement charges from FMV under the circumstance of sale 
provision of section 773 (a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. This 
adjustment included Malaysian foreign inland freight, brokerage, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, Italian brokerage, and inland freight to 
Heveafil's unrelated customers in Italy, where appropriate. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments, where 
appropriate, for differences in credit expenses.
    For third country price-to-ESP comparisons, where appropriate, we 
made deductions for rebates and credit expenses. We deducted the third 
country market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying 
costs, pre-sale freight (i.e., foreign inland freight, brokerage, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, Italian brokerage, and Italian freight to 
Heveafil's warehouse) and other indirect selling expenses, up to the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted third country 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1) of the Act. At verification, we found that Heveafil had 
incorrectly reported its third country and U.S. packing material 
expenses. Therefore, we based the adjustment for packing materials on 
BIA. As BIA, we used the lowest packing material expense reported for 
any Italian sale and the highest packing expense reported for any U.S. 
sale (see Concurrence Memorandum to Barbara R. Stafford from Team, 
dated April 30, 1996). In addition, where appropriate, we made 
adjustments to FMV to account for differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(4)(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.57.
    For CV-to-purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses in accordance with 
773 (a)(4)(B) and 19 CFR 353.56.
    For CV-to-ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted the third country market indirect 
selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs and other indirect 
selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
    For all CV-to-price comparisons, we added U.S. packing expenses as 
specified above, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.

B. Rubberflex

    We made adjustments to Rubberflex's reported COP and CV data as 
follows: We recalculated general and administrative expenses, as well 
as interest expenses, based on the data contained in Rubberflex's 
audited financial statements. For further discussion of these 
adjustments, see the cost calculation memorandum from Elizabeth 
Lofgren, accountant in the Office of Accounting, to Christian Marsh, 
Director of the Office of Accounting, dated April 30, 1996.
    Where FMV was based on third country sales, as in the original 
investigation, we based FMV on CIF prices to unrelated Hong Kong 
customers in comparable channels of trade as the U.S. customer. 
Specifically, FMV was based on direct sales from Malaysia for purchase 
price sales comparisons, and on sales from the inventory of 
Rubberflex's Hong Kong subsidiary for ESP sales comparisons.
    For third country price-to-purchase price comparisons, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for rebates. We also deducted post-sale 
home market movement charges from FMV under the circumstance of sale 
provision of 19 CFR 353.56. This adjustment included Malaysian foreign 
inland freight, brokerage and handling charges, containerization, ocean 
freight, and marine insurance. Pursuant to 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 
19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments, where 
appropriate, for differences in credit expenses.
    For third country price-to-ESP comparisons, we made deductions for 
rebates, where appropriate. We also made deductions for credit 
expenses.
    We deducted the third country market indirect selling expenses, 
including inventory carrying costs, bank charges, pre-sale freight 
expenses (i.e., foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling charges, 
containerization, ocean freight, marine insurance, Hong Kong duty and 
brokerage expenses, and freight from the port in Hong Kong to 
Rubberflex's warehouse), and other indirect selling expenses, up to the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
    Regarding Hong Kong duties, Rubberflex reported a combined amount 
for document declaration fees, terminal handling charges, and bank 
charges. Because the Department's practice is to treat bank charges as 
a selling expense (rather than a movement charge), we reclassified bank 
charges as indirect selling expenses and recalculated Hong Kong duties 
accordingly (see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value (LTFV); Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea 60 FR 33561, 33562 
(June 28, 1995) and Final Determination of Sales at LTFV; Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from Korea 
58 FR 15467, 15467-70 (March 23, 1993)).
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted third country 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, where appropriate, we made 
adjustments to FMV to account for

[[Page 25194]]

differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.57.
    For CV-to-purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56.
    For CV-to-ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted third country market indirect 
selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, bank charges, and 
other indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling 
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b)(2).
    For all CV-to-price comparisons, we added U.S. packing expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a). 
All currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Heveafil by using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original source documentation containing relevant information. As 
discussed in the ``Background'' section of this notice, we did not 
conduct verification of the sales and cost data submitted by 
Rubberflex.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period April 2, 1992, through September 
30, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
         Manufacturer/exporter              Review period     (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heveafil Sdn. Bhd......................     4/02/92-9/30/93        22.74
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd....................     4/02/92-9/30/93         1.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request a disclosure within 5 days of 
publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days of 
the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 
days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs, 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 the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such case briefs.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia 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 rates for Heveafil 
and Rubberflex will be the rates established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, the cash 
deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the 
``all others'' rate, as set forth below.
    On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), in 
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and 
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), 
decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, 
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department 
has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is 
appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping 
findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from 
the original investigation, the Department has determined that it is 
appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first 
final results of administrative review published by the Department (or 
that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result 
of litigation) as the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of 
establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative 
reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty 
order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 
15.16 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice 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: May 10, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12501 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```