Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Sweden; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-401-603]

Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Sweden; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of two administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel hollow

products (SSHP) from Sweden. We have completed these reviews and

determined the margins for Sandvik AB, AB Sandvik Steel, and Sandvik

Steel Company (collectively, Sandvik) to be 3.65 percent for the period

May 22, 1987 through November 30, 1988, and 1.33 percent for the period

December 1, 1988 through November 30, 1989.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mason Jr. or Richard Herring,

Office of Countervailing Duty Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202) 482-3389.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 3, 1987, the Department published in the Federal

Register an antidumping duty order on SSHP from Sweden (52 FR 45985, as

amended, 57 FR 52761). On December 5, 1988, pursuant to the

Department's notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''

(53 FR 48004) of the order for the period May 22, 1987 through November

30, 1988, Sandvik requested that the Department conduct an

administrative review. On December 19, 1989, pursuant to the

Department's notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''

(54 FR 52436) of the order for the period December 1, 1988 through

November 30, 1989, Sandvik again requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review.

On December 30, 1993, the Department published the preliminary

results of these administrative reviews (58 FR 69332). We gave

interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary

results. On March 16, 1994, we received comments from Sandvik. The

Department has completed these administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Reviews

The merchandise covered by these reviews is stainless steel hollow

products, including pipes, tubes, hollow bars and blanks of circular

cross section, containing over 11.5 percent chromium by weight. This

merchandise is currently classified under subheadings 7304.41.00 and

7304.49.00 of the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS). Prior to January 1,

1989, this merchandise was classified under subheadings 610.5130,

610.5202, 610.5229 and 610.5230 of the Tariff Schedules of the United

States Annotated (TSUSA). Although the HTS and TSUSA subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description

of the scope of these reviews remains dispositive.

Analysis of the Comments Received

Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have changed

the results from those presented in the preliminary results of these

reviews as discussed below in the comments section of this notice. In

addition, where we found clerical errors, we made appropriate

corrections.

Comment 1: Sandvik contends that the Department should grant a

level of trade adjustment in those situations in which sales to

distributors are compared with sales to end-users. In support of its

argument, Sandvik states that 19 CFR 353.58 (1994) provides that, when

comparisons at the same level of trade are not possible, the Department

will ``make appropriate adjustments for differences affecting price

comparability.'' Sandvik notes that the Department has correctly made

comparisons of merchandise at the same level of trade, where possible,

and that it should make a level of trade adjustment where sales to

distributors are matched with sales to end-users.

Sandvik also asserts that, contrary to the Department's contention

that the company failed to ``demonstrate that it incurred different

indirect selling expenses on sales to different levels of trade in the

German market,'' the company demonstrated, in significant detail, that

discounts were granted exclusively to German distributors to compensate

these distributors for their cost of holding a stock of Sandvik

products. Sandvik claims that the fact that these distributor discounts

were granted is undisputed in the case record.

Finally, contrary to the Department's traditional reliance on cost

differences as the basis for the adjustment, Sandvik contends that

other methods of valuing the adjustment may also be used since the

Department's regulations do not expressly limit the grant of the

adjustment to those instances in which cost differences are present.

Rather, Sandvik argues that the regulation simply ``requires a level of

trade adjustment whenever prices are not comparable.'' According to

Sandvik, the distributor discount in this case is exactly the amount by

which the sale price at the distributor level of trade varies from the

price of an identical sale at the end-user level of trade. Sandvik

concludes that the distributor discount is the best basis, if not the

only basis, for valuing the level of trade adjustment. Accordingly,

since the company has shown that ``the discount is uniformly provided

in all German distributor sales'', the Department must make the level

of trade adjustment whenever sales at different levels of trade are

compared.

Department's Position

To determine whether a level of trade adjustment is warranted when

sales to distributors are matched with sales to end-users, we compared

the reported unit sale prices to distributors with reported unit prices

to end-users for the same product, month of sale, and quantity bracket.

Based upon our examination of these prices in both reviews, we found

wide price fluctuations without any discernible pattern. Moreover, in

some instances, we found that prices to distributors exceeded prices to

end-users. Based upon these facts, Sandvik has not demonstrated that

there are differences affecting price comparability relating solely to

the fact that sales are made at different levels of trade. Thus, the

Department maintains that there is insufficient justification to make a

level of trade adjustment in those situations where distributor and

end-user sales are compared.

Comment 2: Sandvik contends that two separate and distinct

exporters are under review in the first administrative review, and

therefore, the Department should calculate separate rates for these

companies. According to Sandvik, it sold to an unrelated Canadian

distributor a small volume of hollow bar, most, if not all, of which

has never been sold into the United States. Sandvik contends that the

Department incorrectly assumes these sales have entered the United

States since the dumping calculation is based on Sandvik's sales to the

Canadian company, not on the Canadian company's subsequent sales into

the United States.

Second, Sandvik maintains that the Department has an established

practice of calculating a separate margin for each manufacturer/

exporter investigated in an antidumping duty action provided the firms

operate as separate and distinct entities. In discussing its position,

Sandvik addresses Certain Granite Products from Italy (53 FR 27187,

July 19, 1988), where the Department collapsed firms with common

ownership and boards of directors and similar production facilities

such that the firms would not have to retool in order to produce

jointly; Certain Granite Products from Spain (53 FR 24337, June 28,

1988), where the firms shared sales opportunities, manufacturing

decisions, and were billed jointly; and Certain Granite Products from

Italy (53 FR 27189, June 28, 1988) where the firms acted in concert in

the marketplace. Sandvik claims, in contrast to these cases, that it

and the Canadian company are independently owned, possess no corporate

or other close relationship, and never operated closely or in concert

for the production or sales of hollow bar.

Finally, citing Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate and Hot-Rolled Carbon

Steel Sheet from Brazil (49 FR 3104, January 25, 1984), Sandvik

contends that the only other situation in which the Department may

consider calculating a single margin for two companies involves

entities with cooperative sales operations or firms that do not

separately negotiate prices with U.S. customers. Once again, Sandvik

maintains that the facts in this case do not warrant such treatment.

Sandvik argues that it maintained separate sales operations at all

times. Moreover, Sandvik asserts that in those instances in which the

Canadian company made sales to the United States, it directly competed

with Sandvik. Sandvik further maintains that each firm separately

negotiated prices with potential U.S. customers.

As a final point, Sandvik contends that the Department has

consistently published separate rates for sales made through unrelated

third-country trading companies or resellers. According to Sandvik,

that practice should apply in this case as the Canadian company is an

unrelated third-country reseller.

Department's Position

We normally treat sales by a respondent to an unrelated purchaser

as sales to the United States where the seller knows that the

merchandise is being sold for export to the United States. This is true

of sales to trading companies in the country of origin or those in

third country locations. (Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F.Supp 1322,

1341 (CIT 1989); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden, (52 FR 37819, 37813,

October 9, 1987); see also Urea from USSR; Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value (52 FR 19560, May 26, 1987) and Fuel Ethanol

from Brazil; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (51

FR 5573, February 14, 1986).

The antidumping duty rate calculated for Sandvik in the first

administrative review pertains to Sandvik's sales of the subject

merchandise (1) made directly to the United States and (2) destined for

consumption in the United States. In its response, Sandvik stated that

the Canadian company ``was authorized to sell the merchandise in the

U.S.'' and that the merchandise was intended for ultimate importation

into the United States (Sandvik's April 5, 1989 response at 10).

Accordingly, we have continued to treat Sandvik's sales to the Canadian

company as sales to the United States because they were made with the

knowledge that the merchandise was destined for consumption in the

United States. Therefore, we believe that such sales properly belong in

the calculation of Sandvik's antidumping duty rate.

Comment 3: Sandvik contends that it was inappropriate for the

Department to apply, as best information available (BIA), the

antidumping duty rate from the less than fair value (LTFV)

investigation for those instances in which constructed value was not

available for comparison to U.S. sales. Instead, according to Sandvik,

in several recent administrative reviews the Department has found that,

where a gap existed in the record for certain U.S. sales, and the

Department had to use ``other information,'' not ``BIA,'' it could use

a neutral and reasonable surrogate to bridge the gap. Sandvik argues

that the Department derives its authority to use reasonable, ``other

information'' from its own inherent authority to administer the U.S.

antidumping law in a fair and equitable manner.

Sandvik further points out that in this case the Department has

already calculated margins on the overwhelming majority of Sandvik's

U.S. sales transactions. Therefore, Sandvik maintains that, rather than

apply the rate from the LTFV investigation as BIA, the Department

should apply the weighted-average margin derived from the pool of sales

with calculated margins as the more appropriate rate for unmatched

sales in this review.

Department's Position

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to apply BIA

``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to produce

information requested in a timely manner or in the form required, or

otherwise significantly impedes an investigation.'' When a company

substantially cooperates with our requests for information, but fails

to provide the information requested in a timely manner or in the form

required, 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 either the LTFV investigation or a prior

administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this

review for any firm for the class or kind of merchandise from the same

country of origin (Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Revocation in Part of An Antidumping Duty Order (referring

to Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) And Parts

Thereof from France; et al.) (58 FR 39729, 39739, July 26, 1993); and

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) And Parts

Thereof from France; et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, (57 FR 28360, 28379. June 24, 1992)).

In cases where a firm failed to supply certain FMV information

(e.g., corresponding home market sales within the contemporaneous

window or constructed value data for a few U.S. sales), we apply the

BIA rate as outlined above, and limit its application to the particular

transactions involved.

In this case, Sandvik substantially cooperated with the Department

in furnishing the requested information. Therefore, for those few sales

in which we found it necessary to use partial BIA, we applied the rate

of 20.47 percent from the LTFV investigation, which is the highest rate

ever applicable to Sandvik for the same class or kind of merchandise

from either the LTFV investigation or a prior administrative review.

Comment 4: Sandvik contends that the Department's use of mean

average shipment, entry, and payment dates to represent missing

shipment, entry, and payment dates imposes an unjustified penalty on

the company. According to Sandvik, there were a number of sales for

which this particular information could not be furnished because, at

the time the response was prepared, payment, shipment and entry had not

yet occurred.

Sandvik claims that the use of mean shipment and entry dates

greatly and arbitrarily increases the size of any adjustments based on

such dates. In particular, Sandvik notes that the time the merchandise

is in inventory and the days for which credit is extended are both

greatly overstated through the application of these mean dates.

Accordingly, Sandvik urges the Department to adopt the company's

earlier proposal of using the substituted date of June 1, 1989, the

date on which the first review tape was prepared, as the shipment date.

According to Sandvik, this proposal is reasonable even though it still

overstates these adjustments.

Department's Position

We note that since the June 1, 1989, date of preparation of the

computer tape, Sandvik received subsequent opportunities to submit

these missing data when replacement tapes were requested by the

Department. Sandvik, however, provided no additional data for these

missing values. Accordingly, we have continued to apply mean values as

BIA for these missing data.

Comment 5: With respect to warranty expenses, Sandvik maintains

that the Department based its calculation of U.S. warranty expenses on

the mistaken belief that Sandvik failed to report U.S. warranty

expenses in its response. Contrary to the Department's belief, Sandvik

maintains that all warranty-related costs, consisting of the cost of

reworking defective merchandise and the transportation costs associated

with returning the merchandise to the factory and reshipping the

reworked merchandise, were included in the cost and expense data

submitted in its responses.

According to Sandvik, reworking costs are indistinguishable from

normal production costs and are accumulated in cost centers with other

costs associated with further manufacturing. Thus, Sandvik maintains

that reworking costs are fully accounted for in the direct labor and

factory burden components of Sandvik's conversion costs. Accordingly,

Sandvik argues there is no need to create a separate adjustment for

costs incurred in reworking defective merchandise. With respect to the

freight expenses for returned merchandise and reshipment of reworked

merchandise, Sandvik claims that these expenses were included in its

total freight calculation. Thus, to the extent the Department deducted

total freight expense from the U.S. price (USP), it must not deduct

separate freight expenses pertaining to return of defective and

reshipment of reworked merchandise.

In addition, Sandvik characterizes the Department's calculation of

warranty expense as inappropriate since it is based on the total value

of returned defective merchandise and the cost of reworking defective

merchandise. Sandvik maintains that the value of returned merchandise

does not constitute an expense incurred by the company because

defective merchandise is not discarded or scrapped at the company's

expense, but rather is reworked and either returned to the customer or

placed in inventory for sale to another customer. Thus, Sandvik claims

that the company only incurs the cost of reworking the merchandise and

the cost of return freight, which therefore constitute the entire

amount of U.S. warranty expenses. Sandvik claims that these warranty-

related expenses were fully reported and have been deducted elsewhere

in the cost and expense data. Thus, any additional deduction would be

unfair and impermissible double-counting of warranty expenses for U.S.

sales.

Department's Position

To the extent that freight expenses, pertaining to the return of

defective merchandise and reshipment of reworked merchandise, were part

of Sandvik's total freight expense, we agree that such expenses should

not be included in U.S. warranty expenses since they have already been

deducted from USP. Thus, we have adjusted the warranty expense

accordingly.

We disagree with Sandvik, however, that USP need not be adjusted

for the cost of reworking the defective merchandise based upon

Sandvik's contention that these costs are already part of the total

cost of production. Inclusion of reworking costs in the cost of

production by itself has no impact on the calculation of dumping

margins. Rather, dumping margins are primarily price-based

calculations, and therefore prices net of warranty expenses are

essential for apples-to-apples comparisons. Hence, the Department has

adjusted USP for warranty expenses. In addition, since Sandvik did not

separately report the cost of reworking defective merchandise, we

continued to use, as BIA, the value of the returned merchandise to

represent Sandvik's warranty expenses.

Comment 6: Sandvik claims that the Department incorrectly treated

expenses pertaining to transportation of merchandise from the U.S. port

to Sandvik's U.S. factory as an element of further manufacturing

contributing to U.S. value added, rather than as a cost of the imported

input. Sandvik claims that, by attributing these movement expenses to

U.S. further manufacturing costs rather than to the cost of the

imported redraw hollow, the Department artificially increased the

amount of U.S. value added, and thus allocated too large a share of

profit to U.S. further manufacturing.

Second, Sandvik maintains that this method of allocation is

inconsistent with the antidumping statute and the Department's

regulations. Citing both section 772(e)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.41(e), Sandvik contends that both authorities direct the Department

to reduce exporter's sales price (ESP) by any increased value

``resulting from a process of manufacture or assembly performed on the

imported merchandise,'' which does not specifically include the cost of

moving the component or product from the port to its factory.

Third, Sandvik contends that according to the Court of

International Trade (CIT) ruling in Sandvik AB v. United States (721 F.

Supp. 1322, 1335 (CIT 1989)) the Department must calculate profit based

on the ``increased value'' as defined in the statute. Sandvik maintains

that movement of a product or component does not constitute performance

of a ``manufacture or assembly'' process on the imported merchandise.

Thus, Sandvik concludes that movement expenses may not be considered

part of the U.S. value added.

Department's Position

The Department's standard practice is to subtract from USP any

increased value added to the merchandise by a process performed after

importation and before sale to the first unrelated customer (see e.g.,

Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from Japan; Final Results of

Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding (48 FR 51801, November 14,

1983), and Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (54 FR 48011,

November 20, 1989). Accordingly, the Department correctly included the

costs of transporting the product from the port to the U.S. factory as

an element of further manufacturing. Contrary to respondent's claims,

this practice is consistent with the statute and the Department's

regulations, which allow for adjustments to USP for any increased value

resulting from a process of manufacture or production, or assembly (see

19 USC Sec. 1677a(e)(3) and 19 CFR 353.41(e)). The Department treats

the costs of moving the product to the factory as part of the process

of further manufacturing because, were it not for the further

manufacturing, these costs would not be incurred. Furthermore, the

Department's regulations allow for inclusion of transportation costs in

calculating value added adjustments. Specifically, 19 CFR 353.41(e)(3)

states that the Secretary ``generally will'' consider many factors,

including ``other expenses,'' in the determination of ``increased

value.'' Thus, the Department's practice is consistent with its

authority to assess the costs of port to factory movement expenses in

determining value added adjustments.

Sandvik's reliance on the CIT case, Sandvik AB v. United States

(721 F. Supp. 1322, 1335 (CIT 1989) (Sandvik)), to support its

contention that the movement of a product does not constitute

performance of a ``manufacture or assembly'' process is misplaced. In

Sandvik, the CIT held that the Department can deduct from the USP the

profit associated with further manufacturing. In making this decision,

the CIT simply quoted the relevant portions of the statute and

regulations at issue, but never addressed the precise meaning of the

statute or the issue of movement expenses.

Moreover, the Department's approach to these movement expenses is

in accordance with longstanding practice (see Gray Portland Cement and

Clinker from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (56 FR 48826, September 20, 1983, as amended, 58 FR 53705, April

21, 1983) (the Department included freight from the U.S. port to the

U.S. plant in the U.S. further manufacturing costs); see also,

Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (57 FR 21389, 21392, May 20,

1992)). Finally, in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks from

Japan (57 FR 3167, 3169, January 28, 1992), the Department included

transportation of merchandise as part of U.S. value added. Although

these were delivery charges incurred in the transportation of the goods

from the factory, this case nonetheless illustrates the Department's

practice of including movement expenses as part of the costs of further

manufacturing.

Therefore, the Department has included the costs of transporting

the product from the port to the factory as an element of further

manufacturing.

Comment 7: According to Sandvik, the company imposes a service

charge for cutting each piece of hollow bar sold in Sweden to the

length desired by each Swedish customer. Sandvik points out that since

none of the hollow bar sold in the United States was cut to length,

sales of hollow bar in the home market carry a selling expense that

U.S. sales do not. Accordingly, Sandvik requests that the Department

reduce the home market price by the amount of the service charge.

In support of its position, Sandvik contends that both the

Department's regulations and current practice establish that Sandvik is

entitled to a circumstance of sale adjustment for the service of

cutting hollow bar to length. According to Sandvik, 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2)

sets forth the types of differences in circumstances of sale for which

the Department may normally make reasonable allowances, which includes

``those involving differences in * * * servicing.'' Thus, Sandvik

contends that the company's service charge is properly characterized as

a circumstance of sale adjustment.

In addition, Sandvik cites cases demonstrating that the requested

adjustment is supported by Department practice. In the antidumping duty

investigation on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from

the Republic of Korea (Pet Film) (56 FR 16305, April 22, 1991), Sandvik

claims the Department granted a circumstance of sale adjustment to

account for slitting costs when respondent cut its merchandise to the

width desired by each home market customer. According to Sandvik, no

such expenses were incurred for U.S. sales. Thus, Sandvik claims Pet

Film is analogous to the situation in the present review on SSHP.

Moreover, Sandvik states that the Department previously determined

in the LTFV investigation of SSHP that the service charge for cutting

hollow bar to length should properly be treated as a circumstance of

sale adjustment. Sandvik stresses that the Department, during its

verification in the LTFV investigation, found that hollow bar sold in

Sweden was in fact cut to length, while hollow bar sold in the United

States was not. Sandvik claims that nothing has changed since the LTFV

investigation to warrant a change in the treatment of the expense.

Based upon Department practice and in particular, the Department's

previous treatment of the service charge in the SSHP case, Sandvik

concludes that the Department should make a circumstance of sale

adjustment under 19 CFR 353.56 to account for the additional selling

expense that Sandvik incurs when it sells hollow bar in the home

market.

Finally, Sandvik contends that, contrary to the Department's claim

in this administrative review that the company ``did not provide * * *

the necessary information to make the adjustment,'' Sandvik asserts

that the record demonstrates otherwise. Specifically, Sandvik cites to

its November 7, 1991, submission which sets forth the cutting charge as

a percentage of total Swedish hollow bar sales.

Department's Position

The Department grants a circumstance of sale adjustment where the

claimed expense is directly related to sales of the subject merchandise

or sales used to represent foreign market value, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(a). In this case, Sandvik calculated a per unit servicing

charge based upon the company's total servicing expense as a percentage

of total sales of hollow bar in Sweden. As indicated in its January 19,

1990, response, the amount charged for cutting hollow bar to length for

customers varies according to the grade and volume of hollow bar which

is purchased. Thus, the service charge varies by sale, and should have

been reported on a transaction-specific basis as specifically requested

in the Department's deficiency questionnaire. We have, therefore,

denied Sandvik a circumstance of sale adjustment in this case.

With respect to treatment of the servicing charge as an indirect

selling expense under 19 CFR 353.56(b), Sandvik calculated the total

servicing expense using the largest fixed percentage of the invoice

price rather than an application of either the grade or volume of the

sales, which would have reduced the amount of the servicing charge.

Therefore, we have denied Sandvik's servicing charge as an indirect

selling expense for these sales because the methodology used to

calculate the charge overstates the total expense by failing to account

for the effect of different grades and volumes on the total amount.

Final Results of Review

The final results of our reviews are as follows:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Sandvik................................. 05/22/87-11/30/88 3.65

Sandvik................................. 12/01/88-11/30/89 1.33

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

The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Furthermore, the

following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication

of this notice of final results of administrative reviews 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 Act: (1) The cash deposit rate

for the reviewed company listed above will continue to be the rate

established in the final results of the third administrative review (57

FR 21389, May 20, 1992); (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 manufacture of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for

all other manufacturers or exporters will be 20.47 percent, the ``all

other'' rate established in the original LTFV investigation by the

Department (52 FR 37810, October 9, 1987; as amended 52 FR 45985,

December 3, 1987), in accordance with the decisions of the CIT in

Floral Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-

Mogul Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also 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.

These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 353.22 of the

Department's regulations.

Dated: August 17, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-20846 Filed 8-24-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P