Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From Hong Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-582-802]

Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From Hong

Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on sweaters wholly or in chief weight of man-made fiber from

Hong Kong. The review covers 29 manufacturers/exporters and the period

April 27, 1990 through August 31, 1991.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We have analyzed the comments received, and have

changed the method in which the sample rate is calculated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery,

Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 24, 1990, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (55 FR 39036) the antidumping duty

order on sweaters wholly or in chief weight of man-made fiber (MMF

sweaters) from Hong Kong. On September 30, 1991, the petitioner, the

National Knitwear & Sportswear Association (NKSA), requested that we

conduct an administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act) and 19 CFR

353.22(a). We published the notice of initiation of the antidumping

duty administrative review on October 18, 1991 (56 FR 52254), covering

the period April 27, 1990 through August 31, 1991. On December 3, 1993

the Department published the preliminary results in the Federal

Register (58 FR 63913). The initiation notice named 31 companies. Of

these 31 companies, we terminated the review of two companies, which

had requested review of their own shipments, but later withdrew those

requests. (See ``Termination of Review in Part'' section of the

preliminary results notice.) Of the remaining 29 companies the

following four companies were selected to be analyzed, using sampling

techniques: Apace Knitting Factory (Apace), Bond Manufacturing Co.,

Ltd. (Bond), Hayward Knitters (Hayward), and LaMagma, Ltd. (LaMagma).

The other companies covered by this review preliminarily received a

rate which was the simple average of the margins of these four

companies.

Four exporters, Peninsula Knitters Ltd. (Peninsula), Fang Brothers

Knitting Limited (Fang), Sun Hing Knitting Factory Limited (Sun Hing)

and Comitex Knitters Limited (Comitex), and the Hong Kong Woollen &

Synthetic Knitting Manufacturers' Association, (Peninsula et al.)

submitted a joint case brief. Susan Bristol, Inc. (Bristol) an

importer, submitted a case brief. No party submitted a rebuttal brief.

The Department has now completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of MMF sweaters from

Hong Kong. MMF sweaters are defined as garments for outerwear that are

knitted or crocheted, in a variety of forms including jacket, vest,

cardigan with button or zipper front, or pullover, usually having

ribbing around the neck, bottom, and cuffs on the sleeves (if any),

encompassing garments of various lengths, wholly or in chief weight of

man-made fiber. The term ``in chief weight of man-made fiber'' includes

sweaters where the man-made fiber material predominates by weight over

each other single textile material. This excludes sweaters 23 percent

or more by weight of wool. It includes men's, women's, boys', or girls'

sweaters, as defined above, but does not include sweaters for infants

24 months of age or younger. It includes all sweaters as defined above,

regardless of the number of stitches per centimeter, provided that,

with regard to sweaters having more than nine stitches per two linear

centimeters horizontally, it includes only those with a knit-on rib at

the bottom.

Garments which extend below mid-thigh or cardigans that contain a

sherpa lining or heavy-weight fiberfill lining, including quilted

linings, used to provide extra warmth to the wearer, are not considered

sweaters and are excluded from the scope of the order. Also

specifically excluded from the scope are sweaters assembled in Guam

that are produced from knit-to-shape component parts knit in and

imported from Hong Kong and entering under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item number 9902.61.

The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item

numbers 6110.30.30.10, 6110.30.30.15, 6110.30.30.20, 6110.30.30.25,

6103.23.00.70, 6103.29.10.40, 6103.29.20.62, 6104.23.00.40,

6104.29.10.60, 6104.29.20.60, 6110.30.10.10, 6110.30.10.20,

6110.30.20.10, and 6110.30.20.20. This merchandise may also enter under

HTS item numbers 6110.30.30.50 and 6110.30.30.55. The HTS item numbers

are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written

description remains dispositive.

Sampling Methodology

We applied our sampling methodology in the following manner. First,

each of the 18 companies included in the sample pool was assigned

points according to its percentage share of total export sales, by

volume, to the United States. One point was given for each \1/2\

percent of U.S. sales. (Each company received a minimum of one point.)

Each company was represented in the sample pool in proportion to the

number of points it received. For example, a company that comprised 25

percent of exports to the United States would receive 50 points and go

``into the hat'' 50 times. A company that comprised one percent of

total exports would receive two points and go ``into the hat'' twice.

In this way, the company with a greater volume of exports had a greater

chance of being selected than a company with a smaller volume of

exports. There was a total of 203 points in the pool. We then selected

random numbers between one and 203 corresponding to the points until

four separate companies were selected. (In all, we selected seven

points, four of which corresponded to the same company.)

For the preliminary results, the companies in the sample pool that

were not selected to be analyzed received a rate which was the simple

average of the margins of the four selected companies. For the final

results we have determined that it is more appropriate to weight the

sample by the points drawn from the pool. Since each point represents a

percentage of the total sales volume, each time we randomly selected a

point we were, in effect, selecting a segment of the sales volume as

representative of the entire pool. Each volume segment had an equal

chance for selection, and each segment is equally representative of the

pool. Therefore, each segment should be given equal weight in

calculating the sample pool rate. Four points assigned to Hayward were

drawn; therefore, Hayward's rate of 5.86 percent has entered the sample

rate calculation four times. Points assigned to Apace, Bond and LaMagma

were drawn only once; therefore, their rates of 115.15 percent, 5.86

percent, and zero percent have each entered the sample rate once. The

sample rate for these final results is 20.64 percent.

Analysis of the Comments Received

Comment 1

Peninsula et al. contend that the Department does not have legal

authority to utilize sampling to select respondents in administrative

reviews. Peninsula et al. argue that the provision in the Trade

Agreements Act of 1979 dealing with sampling was not intended to permit

the Department to use sampling in selection of respondents, but in the

calculation of foreign market value (FMV). They argue that, while the

Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 expanded the Department's authority with

regard to sampling, it did not give the Department the authority to

sample respondents.

Peninsula et al. argue that the statute and legislative history

indicate that Congress intended to extend the authority for sampling to

the calculation of U.S. price and other variables within the databases

of a particular respondent, rather than to a group of respondents. They

claim that when the Department restricts its review to a sample of the

respondents named by the domestic industry, those respondents not

selected for active participation are ipso facto excluded from the

administrative process, and their fate is entirely in the control of

their competitors. Peninsula et al. further contend that because the

consequences of sampling are so dire, it should not be assumed, in the

absence of an explicit statutory provision, that Congress intended that

the Department investigate anything less than the entire universe of

named parties in an administrative review.

Peninsula et al. further contend that there is no judicial

precedent to support the Department's sampling authority. They argue

that in the one case where the Court of International Trade (CIT)

considered the Department's exercise of sampling for respondent

selection in an administrative review, Floral Trade Council v. United

States, 775 F. Supp. 1492, 15 CIT 497 (1991), the Court assumed that

the Department had the authority to use representative samples, and

that the argument was therefore untested.

Department's Position: We disagree. Section 777A of the Tariff Act

provides the Department with broad authority to apply sampling

techniques in administrative reviews (19 U.S.C. 1677f-1). The

legislative history of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 indicates that

this provision grants the Department the discretion to apply sampling

to any aspect of an antidumping review:

Section 109 [of H.R. 4784] authorizes sampling and averaging

techniques utilized by the administering authority in determining

foreign market value under the present antidumping law also to be

used in determining United States price in dumping investigations

and in all aspects of the annual review of outstanding

countervailing and antidumping duty orders. (emphasis added) (H.R.

Rep. No. 98-725, 98th Cong., 2nd. Sess., Reprinted in 1984 U.S.

AAN., 5127, 5135.)

The only criteria for using the sampling provision of section 777A

are that a significant volume of sales be involved or a significant

number of adjustments to prices be required, and that such samples

shall be representative of the transactions under review. (See 19

U.S.C. 1677f-1.) Those criteria were met in this case. (See comment 4.)

We have employed sampling techniques to select respondents to be

analyzed in past administrative reviews. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut

Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, Partial Termination of Administrative Review and

Intent To Revoke Order (In Part) (58 FR 65329, December 14, 1993) Fresh

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (58 FR 17380, April 2, 1993),

and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (55 FR 20491, 20495-96, May 17,

1990).

The CIT has reviewed and upheld the Department's sampling

methodology in the context of an antidumping duty review. (See Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 1492 (1991) (Floral Trade

II).) In that case, the Court acknowledged Commerce's authority, which

was unchallenged, to use sampling techniques (which in this case

involved sampling among manufacturers/exporters). The decisions in

Floral Trade II and numerous other cases support the proposition that

the only limitations on Commerce's authority to use sampling techniques

are the criteria in Section 777A, noted above. (See also Asociacion

Colombiana de Exportadores v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1114 (CIT

1989); Floral Trade Council v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 233 (CIT

1988) (Floral Trade I).)

Comment 2

Peninsula et al. argue that, assuming the Department does have the

authority to sample, the Department should not have done so in this

review, as the statute mandates that the Department must use a

generally accepted statistical method to conduct sampling. Peninsula et

al. assert that, as reflected in the December 16, 1991 letter and

December 13, 1991 sampling memorandum that the Department issued, the

decision to sample was based simply on the total number of respondents

requested by petitioners for the three concurrent MMF Sweater reviews

(Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea), without regard to whether the total

number of respondents in each individual country was amenable to

sampling under generally recognized principles of statistical theory.

Peninsula et al. contend that there is no evidence on the record

which demonstrates that the Department made any effort to decide how

large a sample was necessary to reduce the sampling error to an

acceptable level. They argue that statistical theory does not permit

sampling to be undertaken in all instances where there is a multitude

of objects to be studied, and point out that required sample size

should be directly proportional to the population variance. They argue

that there is no analysis on the record which demonstrates that the

Department considered how many firms, from the sample pool of 18,

needed to be investigated in order to bring the sampling error to an

acceptable level, and that Peninsula and Fang noted this in their

December 23, 1991 letter to the Department.

Department's Position: As in similar cases in the past, the

Department's decision to sample was based on the large number of

respondents in the three concurrent MMF sweater reviews, and the

resource constraints that existed at the time these reviews were

initiated. We have employed sampling in the past based on a large sales

volume and the resulting burden that analyzing all sales would place

upon us. In Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Termination

of Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Order (In Part) (58 FR

65329, December 14, 1993), we noted the large number of firms and

transactions under review, and in Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of

Germany; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews (56 FR 11200, March

15, 1991) we noted the large number of transactions and the resulting

administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for

all of these transactions. Furthermore, the CIT has upheld the use of

sampling based on the cumulative burden resulting from simultaneous

cases. (See, e.g., Floral Trade I.) In the present case, we initiated

reviews on 128 firms from Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and, due to the

significant sales volume, we sampled firms. (We later eliminated from

the sample pools companies which did not respond to our sampling

questionnaire, had no shipments, or could not be located.)

We also disagree with Peninsula et al. regarding the information we

had concerning the firms in the sample, at the time we made the

decision to sample. We received from the Hong Kong government a list of

quota holders and their allocated export quantities on November 11,

1994, more than a month before our decision to sample. Based on that

information, we were able to assess the approximate volume of the Hong

Kong MMF sweater manufacturers/exporters before making our decision to

sample in the three cases. The Hong Kong sample constituted 22 percent

of the firms in the sample pool, and captured approximately 60 percent

of the sales volume. We therefore concluded that the sample was

adequate.

Comment 3

Peninsula et al. argue that sampling was inappropriate because the

sample pool was too small. They cite the December 23, 1991 letter from

NKSA to the Department, in which NKSA pointed out that the Department

had not sampled respondent companies in other administrative reviews

that had involved a greater number of companies. They also cite a 1991

submission from Peninsula and Fang, in which Peninsula and Fang argued

that the 17 companies which had, at that time, responded to the

preliminary questionnaire, accounted for only 204,742 dozen sweaters

worth $19 million, and that, in reviews of other antidumping duty

orders, the Department had reviewed transactions of single respondents

with much greater values and volumes.

Peninsula et al. argue that even the results of the review

demonstrate that the pool was too small, noting that the presence of a

single BIA respondent drove the sample rate from 5.86 to 31.72 percent.

They point out that in Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 58 FR 65329 (December 14,

1993), a BIA margin of 72.35 percent was applied to two firms and was

included in the sample pool margin, but that the effect of the

inclusion of these firms was a margin of 5.71 percent. They also argue

that the Department did not seem to verify that the four companies

which claimed no shipments did not export to the United States during

the period of review.

Department's Position: We disagree with Peninsula et al. that the

size of the sample was too small to be appropriate. As mentioned above,

our sample captured approximately twenty-two percent of firms and sixty

percent of all sales. While we have at times been able to review

companies with greater value and volume, given that we simultaneously

initiated reviews on 128 firms from three countries, and that there

were scarce resources available to us at the time, the decision to

sample was justified. In Hong Kong alone, the sample pool was 18 firms,

a greater number than in most antidumping reviews. Furthermore, given

the differences in selling practices generally found among companies,

and the necessity of conducting a separate analysis of each company

selected, it is less of an administrative burden to analyze a large

number of sales from a few companies, than a smaller number of sales

spread among a greater number of companies.

Regarding the companies which claimed no shipments, we did verify

their claims with the U.S. Customs Department. (See e-mail from the

U.S. Department of Commerce to U.S. Customs, dated July 2, 1992.)

Comment 4

Peninsula et al. argue that the Department's methodology was

erroneous because the sample was not representative. They point out

that Peninsula and Fang, in a December 23, 1991 letter to the

Department, argued that the pool of respondents was not homogeneous,

and displayed clear biases related to company size. Peninsula et al.

state that the Department presumed that it was dealing with a

homogenous universe of potential respondents. They present a chart

which shows quantity, value, and average per unit value for each of the

firms in the pool, which, they argue, shows that there is an inverse

correlation between volume of sales and unit price. They claim that the

selected firms were predominantly large-size, low-unit-value firms, and

the results for these big firms are being applied to the smaller,

higher-unit-value firms. Peninsula et al. cite the Department's January

6, 1992 memorandum, in which we noted that the Korean respondents were

theoretically correct in their argument that the sampling methodology

was biased towards small firms, although the potential bias was

minimal.

Department's Position: Because of the way our sample was

structured, firms with the largest volumes were more likely to be

chosen. We assigned one point for every 0.5 percent of total sales

volume within the sample, then randomly drew numbers, corresponding to

the assigned points. Firms with less than 0.5 percent of total sales

volume were assigned one point. As larger firms had more points

assigned to them, they were more likely to be chosen. However, the

theoretical statistical bias was actually in favor of the selection of

the smallest firms, because there were five firms with less than 0.5

percent of sales volume, all of whom received one point. None of these

low volume firms were selected for the sample, so this theoretical bias

had no practical effect.

We chose our sampling methodology because it was both

representative and efficient. When we issued our proposed sampling

methodology and invited interested parties to comment thereon, we asked

that the parties focus on methodology rather than the decision to

sample. In their submissions, NKSA, as well as Fang and Peninsula,

objected to sampling, but did not suggest an alternative to the

sampling methodology we proposed. Where, as here, the sampling

methodology is legally adequate and the results have not been shown to

be unrepresentative, the CIT has upheld the sampling of representative

firms. In Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. U.S., the

CIT upheld the Department's sampling of respondent firms in a less than

fair value investigation, noting that ``the sampling methodology was

legally adequate and the results of the sampling have not been shown to

be unrepresentative.'' (704 F. Supp. 1114, 1122 (1989).)

We also disagree that sales price should be used as the basis of

stratification, as Peninsula et al. now suggest. Whether a company's

price to the United States is high or low is not in itself indicative

of the existence or level of dumping. Rather, dumping is measured by a

comparison of U.S. prices to the home market or third country prices,

or to constructed value. A company that sells at higher prices than a

second company could have a higher margin of dumping, depending on the

FMVs of the two companies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to

group respondents on the basis of price, or a surrogate for price, as

Peninsula et al. suggest.

Comment 5

Peninsula et al. argue that given the technical deficiencies in the

sampling protocol, the Department should have allowed respondents who

were not selected to participate voluntarily, without such firms'

results going into the sample-rate calculation. They argue that

Peninsula and Fang, in their December 23, 1991 letter, suggested that

respondents not selected as questionnaire recipients be able to

participate voluntarily without the rates for such firms being

incorporated in the sample rate.

Department's Position: We disagree. Every MMF sweater manufacturer/

exporter in Hong Kong had ample opportunity to request that it be

reviewed during the anniversary month of the antidumping duty order,

should it have wanted its own rate. Peninsula and Fang, as well as

other companies in the sample pool, chose not to request a review of

their sales.

Comment 6

Peninsula et al. argue that the best information available (BIA)

outlying rate of 115.15 percent should have been excluded from the

sample rate calculation. Rather, the fourteen firms in the sample pool

should be subject to a sample rate of 3.91 percent. Bristol similarly

argues that the companies in the sample pool were unfairly punished by

the inclusion of Apace, the firm which received the 115.15 percent

rate. Bristol contends that the fourteen companies in the sample pool

indicated a willingness to cooperate with the Department by submitting

sampling questionnaire responses. Bristol further argues that had Apace

not responded to the sampling questionnaire, it would have been

assigned the 115.15 percent BIA rate, but would not have been included

in the sample pool, thereby punishing itself, but not the others in the

pool.

Department's Position: We disagree with Peninsula et al. and

Bristol regarding the appropriateness and fairness of including Apace

in the sample pool. Removal of Apace from the sample pool would have

jeopardized the integrity of the sample, as the sample margin would be

skewed towards firms with low margins. We note that the sample rate of

the four firms includes not one, but three firms with BIA rates. It is

as reasonable for us to assume that Apace's rate of 115.15 percent

represents one-seventh of the volume of sampled firms as it is to

assume that LaMagma's zero percent rate represents one-seventh of that

volume.

Bristol is correct in its assertion that had Apace not responded to

the sampling questionnaire, it would have received an uncooperative BIA

rate of 115.15 percent, and would have not been included in the sample

pool. However, once the sample universe is defined, and the sample

selected, we cannot then discard the results of the sample for any

particular selected company. There is no reason to believe that Apace's

failure to respond to the antidumping questionnaire was not

representative of other companies that answered the sampling

questionnaire.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following margins

exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)

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

Apace Knitting Factory............... 04/27/90-08/31/91 115.15

Bond Manufacturing Company, Ltd...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 5.86

Hayward Knitters..................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 5.86

LaMagma.............................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 0.00

Sample pool:

Chung Cheung Knitting Factory.... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Comitex Knitters, Ltd............ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Everest Knitwear, Ltd............ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Fang Brothers Knitting, Ltd...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Fortuna Knits.................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Gee Cheung Knitting.............. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Just Fashions International...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Ken Shing Knitting Factory....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Peninsula Knitters, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Sun Hing Knitting Factory, Ltd... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Union Knitting Factory Co., Ltd.. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Wai Tai Knitwear................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Wing Yick Knitting Factory....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

Wiseknit Factory................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64

No shipments:

Afasia Knitting Factory, Ltd..... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86

Esquel Enterprises, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86

King Ah Knitting Factory......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86

Shui Ling Industries Co., Ltd.... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86

Did not respond to Sampling

Questionnaire:

Kent Phone....................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15

Ko Tang Knitting Factory......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15

Simee Knitting Factory, Ltd...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15

Tai Wah Garment & Knitting....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15

Excluded from the sample:........

Great Wind....................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \4\5.86

Liaoning Knitwear................ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \4\5.86

Maurice Knitters................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \4\5.86

All Others........................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 5.86

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

\1\Not selected from the sample pool; rate is the average of the margins

for the four selected companies, weighted by the number of times each

company was selected from the sample pool.

\2\No shipments during the period; rate is (1) the firm's calculated

margin from the LTFV investigation or, (2) if not covered in the

investigation, the ``all others'' rate, 5.86 percent.

\3\Did not respond to the sampling questionnaire; the uncooperative BIA

rate is 115.15 percent, the highest rate from the LTFV investigation.

\4\No address found; rate is the all others rate from the LTFV

investigation, 5.86 percent.

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of

the date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on

each exporter directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all

shipments of MMF sweaters from Hong Kong entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies will be those established in the final

results of this administrative review; (2) for previously investigated

companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for the LTFV investigation; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be

the rate established in the LTFV investigation for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other

manufacturers or exporters will be the ``all other'' rate established

in the final notice of LTFV investigation of this case (see 55 FR

30733), in accordance with the Court of International Trade's decisions

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

Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op.

93-83. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 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 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 subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). 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)) and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: March 12, 1994.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-6974 Filed 3-23-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P