Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Color Negative Photographic Paper and Chemical Components Thereof From the Netherlands

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-421-806]

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination: Antidumping Duty Investigation of

Color Negative Photographic Paper and Chemical Components Thereof From

the Netherlands

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Beck, Office of Antidumping

Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482-3464.

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that color negative photographic paper

and chemical components thereof (CNPP) from the Netherlands are being,

or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value,

as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act). The estimated margin is shown in the ``Suspension of

Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this investigation on September 20, 1993,

(58 FR 50331, September 27, 1993), the following events have occurred.

On October 15, 1993, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)

issued an affirmative preliminary determination.

On November 19, 1993, the Department presented an antidumping duty

questionnaire to Fuji Photo Film B.V. (respondent).

Respondent submitted its responses to the Department's sales and

cost questionnaires in December 1993 and January 1994. The Department

issued deficiency sales and cost questionnaires in February 1994.

Respondent submitted its responses to these deficiency questionnaires

in February and March 1994.

On December 14, 1993, respondent submitted a statement in support

of the Department postponing the preliminary determination in this

investigation. On December 23, 1993, Eastman Kodak Company (petitioner)

requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination

until March 29, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.15(c) (1993). The

Department granted this request on January 6, 1994 (59 FR 1927, January

13, 1994).

On March 2, 1994, petitioner submitted an allegation that critical

circumstances exist with respect to imports of CNPP from the

Netherlands. On March 4, 1994, the Department sent respondent a

critical circumstances questionnaire. On March 18, 1994, respondent

submitted its response to the questionnaire.

On March 8, 1994, respondent requested that, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.20(b), in the event of an affirmative preliminary

determination, the Department postpone the final determination.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, color negative photographic

paper is all sensitized, unexposed silver-halide color negative

photographic paper, whether in master rolls, smaller rolls or sheets.

Chemical components include sensitized (whether chemically or

spectrally) and unsensitized emulsions, couplers, and coupler

dispersions used in making color negative photographic paper.

Unsensitized silver-halide emulsions consist of silver-halide

microcrystals dispersed in a gelatin and water matrix after preparation

and washing to remove soluble salts. Unsensitized emulsions are

naturally sensitive to blue and ultraviolet light, but cannot

efficiently convert light to form a color image without further

processing. Sensitized emulsions have been treated to increase their

sensitivity across the entire spectrum and/or treated by the addition

of spectral sensitizing dyes to make the emulsions selectively

sensitive to specific wavelengths of light. A coupler is a colorless,

water-insoluble chemical capable of reacting with a silver-halide

development product to form a dye. A coupler dispersion consists of a

coupler dispersed in a water-gel solution, and may contain organic

solvents, chemicals to stabilize the coupler and other substances.

Specifically excluded from this investigation are all paper and

chemical products not used in the silver halide process which are used

in other imaging technologies. Products outside the scope include toner

and developer chemicals used in electrostatic or indirect imaging

processes (e.g., xerography), products used in laser printing, and

instant photography products.

Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are paper that is

designed exclusively for use in graphic arts proofing equipment and

does not exceed 160 microns in thickness, and emulsions classified

under subheading 3707.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) that are used in the manufacture of monochrome

graphic arts film or paper that are not used in the production of color

negative photographic paper.

The color negative photographic paper subject to this investigation

is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.3030 and

3703.20.3030. Emulsions are currently classifiable under HTSUS

subheadings 3707.10.0000 and 3707.90.3000. Couplers and coupler

dispersions are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings

3707.90.3000, 3707.90.6000, 2933.19.3000, 2933.90.2500 and

2934.90.2000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope

of this investigation is dispositive.

To avoid suspension of liquidation of non-subject chemicals, those

items entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above, which are not

for use in the color negative photographic paper production process,

must be accompanied by an importer's declaration to the Customs Service

to that effect.

In order to be excluded from the suspension of liquidation ordered

in this notice, all sensitized (whether chemically or spectrally) and

unsensitized emulsions, couplers, and coupler dispersions entered into

the United States must be accompanied by an importer's declaration to

the Customs Service to the effect that they are not for use in the

color negative photographic paper production process and will not be

used in the color negative photographic paper production process.

On February 18, 1994, petitioner and respondent submitted comments

on whether the chemical components are in the same class or kind of

merchandise as color negative photographic paper. Petitioner argues

that the subject merchandise constitutes one class or kind of

merchandise, whereas respondent argues that the merchandise included in

the scope of investigation constitutes two classes or kinds of

merchandise. We determined that color negative photographic paper and

the chemical components constitute one class or kind of merchandise

(see March 24, 1994, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to

Barbara R. Stafford). We based our determination on the criteria set

forth in Diversified Products v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883 (1983)

and Kyowa Gas Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 582 F.

Supp. 887 (1984).

Period of Investigation (POI)

We initiated this investigation using a six-month POI from March 1,

1993, through August 31, 1993. On October 13, 1993, petitioner

requested that the Department expand the POI. We expanded the POI in

order to capture U.S. shipments made pursuant to an October 1, 1991,

contract with the single-largest unrelated purchaser (see December 30,

1993, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R.

Stafford). We instructed respondent to submit foreign sales information

of the subject merchandise for the month of November 1991 to be the

basis for the foreign market value (FMV) comparison to the U.S.

shipments made pursuant to the long-term contract (see January 17,

1994, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R.

Stafford).

Such or Similar Comparisons

In this investigation, we have examined sales of color negative

photographic paper; we have not examined sales of chemical components

because respondent did not make such sales during the POI (see October

22, 1993, memorandum from James Maeder to David Binder). We have

determined for purposes of the preliminary determination that the color

negative photographic paper covered by this investigation comprise a

single category of ``such or similar'' merchandise. Respondent reported

products that are identical according to the Department's matching

criteria but have minor cost differences based on the emulsions

contained in each product. For purposes of the preliminary

determination, we are treating these products as identical and are

making no adjustments for differences in merchandise between the

products as claimed by respondent in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57.

This is because respondent failed to provide a narrative description

for its adjustments for differences in merchandise that explains the

exact nature, source, and size of each difference. We have instructed

the respondent to submit a thorough description of its adjustments for

differences in merchandise so that these adjustments can be considered

for use in the final determination (see February 23, 1994, decision

memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).

Fair Value Comparisons/Multinational Corporation Provision

In its petition, Kodak alleged that all of the criteria for

invoking the multinational corporation (MNC) provision have been met.

To determine whether sales of CNPP from the Netherlands to the United

States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States

price (USP) to the appropriate FMV as required by the MNC provision.

The MNC provision, contained in section 773(d) of the Act, requires

the Department to determine if the following three criteria are met:

(1) Merchandise exported to the United States is being produced in

facilities which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a

person, firm or corporation which also owns or controls, directly or

indirectly, other facilities for the production of such or similar

merchandise which are located in another country or countries;

(2) The sales of such or similar merchandise by the company

concerned in the home market of the exporting country are nonexistent

or inadequate as a basis for comparison with the sales of the

merchandise to the United States; and,

(3) The FMV of such or similar merchandise produced in one or more

of the facilities outside the country of exportation is higher than the

FMV of such or similar merchandise produced in the facilities located

in the country of exportation. (In this comparison, we must adjust the

FMVs for any differences between the costs of production in the two

countries (including taxes, labor, materials and overhead), pursuant to

section 773(d) of the Act).

If the above criteria are met, then the MNC provision instructs the

Department to compare USP to the FMV of such or similar merchandise

produced in one or more facilities outside the country of exportation.

Regarding the first criterion, Fuji Photo Film B.V. is wholly owned

by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. in Japan. Further, Fuji Photo Film Co.,

Ltd. produces the subject merchandise in Japan. Thus, Fuji Photo Film

B.V. meets the first criterion.

Regarding the second criterion, we compared the volume of home

market sales of color negative photographic paper to the volume of

third country sales of color negative photographic paper, in accordance

with section 773(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.48(a), in order to

determine whether there were sufficient sales of color negative

photographic paper in the home market to compare to sales of color

negative photographic paper to the United States. We found that the

Netherlands home market was not viable for comparison to sales to the

United States (see January 11, 1994, memorandum from Richard W.

Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).

We determined, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.49, that Germany is the most

appropriate third country market for purposes of the comparison of FMVs

under the MNC provision because:

(1) Germany is the largest single third country market;

(2) The type of merchandise sold in Germany is more similar to

Dutch exports of color negative photographic paper to the U.S. than the

type of merchandise sold elsewhere; and

(3) The channels of distribution in Germany are most similar to

those for color negative photographic paper from the Netherlands sold

in the United States (see December 30, 1993, memorandum from Richard W.

Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).

Regarding the third criterion, we compared German and Japanese

FMVs. To calculate the FMVs, we first compared the German and Japanese

prices to U.S. price (see the ``Foreign Market Value'' section of this

notice for a complete description of how we calculated the German and

Japanese FMVs).

Once we had calculated the two FMVs, we calculated a comparison

adjustment for each product-specific FMV to determine whether any of

the observed differences in value between the FMV of products produced

in Japan and the FMV of products produced in the Netherlands and sold

in Germany were attributable to differences in costs of production. The

comparison adjustment included the costs of materials, labor, fixed and

variable overhead, general and administrative expense and interest

incurred in producing the product.

For the German adjustment, the Department relied on the submitted

cost information except in the following instances where the costs were

not appropriately quantified or valued:

(1) We excluded income from investment grants as this generally

relates to income tax credits which are not considered a production

cost;

(2) We did not include foreign exchange gains or losses resulting

from sales transactions as they are not related to production costs;

and,

(3) We reallocated CNPP specific research and development costs to

reflect the benefits experienced by facilities in Japan and the

Netherlands.

For the Japanese adjustment, the Department relied on the submitted

cost information except in the following instances where the costs were

not appropriately quantified or valued:

(1) We excluded losses from the disposal of fixed assets as these

costs did not appear to relate to the subject merchandise;

(2) We did not include foreign exchange gains or losses resulting

from sales transactions as they are not related to production costs;

(3) We reallocated CNPP specific research and development costs to

reflect the benefits experienced by facilities in Japan and the

Netherlands; and,

(4) We excluded the enterprise tax in our calculation of general

and administrative expenses because this tax is based on income and is

not considered a production cost.

In calculating the FMVs, Japanese prices included a consumption tax

and German prices did not. Thus, we adjusted the Japanese FMV by

deducting the consumption tax.

Next, we deducted the German comparison adjustment from the German

FMV and the Japanese comparison adjustment from the Japanese FMV. We

multiplied the resulting amount for each product by the quantity of

U.S. merchandise to which the product was compared in order to provide

for an equitable comparison. Finally, we aggregated the values. From

these aggregated values, we determined that the Japanese value was

higher than the German value. Thus, the third criterion for invoking

the MNC provision has been met.

Because all of the above criteria for the MNC provision have been

met, we are required to base the FMV for the Netherlands on sales

prices by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. in Japan (see the March 10, 1994,

memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford for a further

discussion of the Department's MNC methodology).

United States Price

We based USP on exporter's sales price (ESP), in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to

the first unrelated purchaser after importation into the United States.

Respondent did not provide a revised sales listing for the foreign

extended POI sales because of ambiguous language in our deficiency

questionnaire regarding the due dates. Therefore, we have not

considered the extended U.S. POI sale for purposes of the preliminary

determination, but will do so for purposes of the final determination.

Additionally, we determined that it is not necessary to examine U.S.

further-manufactured sales from the Netherlands for purposes of this

investigation (see January 17, 1994, memorandum from Richard W.

Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).

On March 21, 1994, respondent submitted clarifications regarding

its response to section C of the Department's questionnaire regarding

U.S. sales. Respondent requested that the Department recalculate a

certain inland insurance expense and a certain indirect selling

expense. This submission was received too late to be used for purposes

of the preliminary determination; however, we will consider this

submission in our final determination.

Based on information submitted by respondent, we reclassified a

certain movement expense as revenue, and added it to the U.S. gross

unit price.

We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates

and for the following movement charges: foreign brokerage, foreign

inland freight, marine insurance, ocean freight, U.S. brokerage and

handling charges, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. inland

insurance. We added an amount for duty drawback.

We deducted commissions and direct selling expenses which include

advertising, credit expenses, and a combination of promotional expenses

which constitute other direct selling expenses. We recalculated U.S.

imputed credit using the reported dates of shipment and payment because

the amounts reported by the respondent did not consistently reflect the

method described in the questionnaire response. We have adjusted USP

for additional product preparation performed by certain parties after

exportation.

We also deducted indirect selling expenses which include those

indirect selling expenses that Fuji-USA (respondent's principal related

U.S. entity) incurred in its general sales activities, those indirect

selling expenses that Fuji-Hunt (a U.S. entity related to respondent)

incurred in its sales and marketing activities, foreign and U.S. pre-

sale warehousing expenses, inventory carrying costs, premiums for

product liability insurance, and indirect selling expenses incurred in

Japan.

For purposes of the preliminary determination, we are accepting

respondent's treatment of Fuji-USA's commissions paid to an unrelated

party and Fuji-Hunt's commissions as direct selling expenses, and

commissions paid to Fuji-USA's employees as indirect selling expenses.

We treated all advertising costs as direct selling expenses because

respondent reported that all advertising is directed at their

customers' customers.

We made an adjustment to USP for the consumption tax paid on the

comparison sales in Japan. However, in Federal-Mogul Corporation and

The Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-194 CIT (October

7, 1993), the Court of International Trade prohibited us from applying

a purely tax neutral margin calculation methodology. Accordingly, we

made our tax methodology conform to the instructions of the CIT, and

adjusted U.S. price for tax by multiplying the Japanese tax rate by the

price of the U.S. merchandise at the point in the chain of commerce of

the U.S. merchandise that is analogous to the point in the Japanese

chain of commerce at which the Japanese government applies the

consumption tax.

In this investigation, the tax levied on the subject merchandise in

Japan is three percent. We calculated the appropriate tax adjustment to

be three percent of the price of the U.S. merchandise net of discounts

reflected on the invoice at the time of sale (which, in this case, is

the point in the chain of commerce of the U.S. merchandise, that is

analogous to the point in the Japanese market chain of commerce at

which the Japanese government applies the consumption tax). We then

added this amount to the U.S. price. We also calculated the amount of

the tax adjustment that was due solely to the inclusion of expenses in

the original tax base that are later deducted from the price to

calculate USP (i.e., three percent of the sum of any adjustments,

expenses and charges that were deducted from the price of the U.S.

merchandise). We reduced this tax adjustment to take into account the

adjustment to U.S. price for duty drawback (i.e., three percent of the

duty drawback amount that was excluded from the tax base). We deducted

this amount after all other additions and deductions had been made. By

making this additional tax adjustment, we avoid a distortion that would

cause the creation of a dumping margin even when pre-tax dumping is

zero.

Foreign Market Value

As described in the ``Fair Value Comparisons/Multinational

Corporation Provision'' section of this notice, we had to calculate

FMVs in both Germany and Japan in order to make our MNC comparison. We

calculated FMVs based on German and Japanese home market sales prices,

pursuant to section 773(d) of the Act. Respondent did not provide a

revised sales listing for the foreign extended POI sales because of

ambiguous language in our deficiency questionnaire regarding the due

dates. Therefore, we have not considered the extended U.S. POI sale for

purposes of the preliminary determination, but will do so for purposes

of the final determination.

For German sales, we classified respondent's discounts and rebates

to reflect the Department's standard definitions of discounts and

rebates (i.e., a discount is a price concession before invoicing,

whereas a rebate is a price concession after invoicing). We determined

that certain discounts were, in fact, rebates, and were treated

accordingly. Additionally, we recalculated credit expenses in Germany

using the reported dates of shipment and payment.

For Japanese sales, we excluded certain sales of control paper,

hobby paper, crystal paper, and softech paper from our analysis because

these sales were made outside of the ordinary course of trade due to

the nature of the products and were made in insignificant quantities.

We omitted error entries and inventory adjustment entries because these

entries are not sales of CNPP, nor did respondent directly tie these

entries to the pertinent sales in the CNPP database. We also dropped

cancelling transactions as respondent stated that it could not identify

the original transaction to which a specific cancellation entry

applies. Finally, we excluded certain low-priced sales of CNPP in Japan

because, despite a specific request to do so, respondent did not

adequately explain the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, these

low-priced sales.

Additionally, for Japanese sales, we made no adjustment for those

rebate programs where respondent did not identify in the database which

customer actually received the rebate. Additionally, we disallowed any

rebate not established before the filing of the petition. For one

expense claimed as a rebate, we determined that the expense, although

viewed as a direct selling expense to CNPP, was overstated through a

misallocation of the costs; consequently, we did not make any

adjustment for this expense, but will consider doing so subsequent to

verification and further explanation. With regard to one promotional

program reported as a direct selling expense, we did not make an

adjustment to FMV because respondent failed to report the expense

properly. Because respondent failed to report shipment dates, we were

unable to recalculate credit expenses; thus, we made no adjustments for

credit expenses. We treated all advertising costs as direct selling

expenses because respondent reported that all advertising is directed

towards the customers' customers.

For Japan sales, we recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred

in the Japanese home market by reallocating certain rebates and

promotional programs as indirect selling expenses rather than as

charges or direct selling expenses, respectively, because we found that

respondent has misclassified these expenses. We classified product

liability expenses as indirect selling expenses because respondent's

explanations demonstrate that its liability policy is general in nature

and not tied to specific sales. We also reclassified technical expenses

as indirect selling expenses because respondent's documentation

illustrates that these expenses relate to general long-term assistance,

rather than customer- or sales-specific expenses.

For both German and Japanese sales, we used the Department's

current related party test, which considers differences in the level of

trade, to determine whether sales to related customers were made on an

arm's-length basis. For purposes of the preliminary determination, we

considered a party as related to respondent in Japan whenever there was

evidence of substantial ownership in, or contractual agreements

constituting business control over, the party. See Appendix II to the

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina (58 FR 37077, July 9,

1993) for more information on the Department's related party test. For

both German and Japanese sales, we did not include in our analysis any

sales to related customers that we determined were not at arm's length.

We calculated German and Japanese FMVs based on delivered prices,

inclusive of packing. We made deductions for discounts and rebates,

where applicable. For purposes of the preliminary determination, we

have treated all movement expenses as direct selling expenses.

Therefore, in accordance with the decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-

NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, Slip Op.

93-1239 (Fed. Cir., January 4, 1994), we made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment for foreign movement expenses.

We further deducted from the Japanese FMV the appropriate direct

selling expenses, including advertising expenses and warranty expenses.

We deducted credit expenses from the German FMV.

We deducted German and Japanese indirect selling expenses,

including inventory carrying costs, technical services (Japan only),

warehousing (Japan only), and product liability premiums (Japan only)

from FMV, capped by the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and the

U.S. commission amount.

We deducted German and Japanese packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.

We included in FMV the amount of the consumption tax collected in

the Japanese home market. We also calculated the amount of the tax that

was due solely to the inclusion of expenses in the original tax base

that are later deducted from home market price to calculate FMV (i.e.,

three percent of the sum of any adjustments, expenses, charges, and

offsets that were deducted from the home market price). We deducted

this amount after all other additions and deductions were made. By

making this additional tax adjustment, we avoid a distortion that would

cause the creation of a dumping margin even when pre-tax dumping is

zero. In addition, we calculated a re-adjustment of the amount of tax

to take into account the amount of packing expenses added to FMV (i.e.,

three percent of the packing expenses).

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the

information used in making our final determination.

Critical Circumstances

On March 2, 1994, petitioner alleged that ``critical

circumstances'' exist with respect to imports of color negative

photographic paper and chemical components thereof from the

Netherlands. We will preliminary determine that critical circumstances

exist in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act if we determine

that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that:

(A)(i) There is a history of dumping in the United States or

elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of

the investigation, or

(ii) The person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was

imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the

merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its

fair value, and

(B) There have been massive imports of the class or kind of

merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively

short period.

Regarding requisite (A)(i) above, we normally consider whether

there has been an antidumping order in the United States or elsewhere

on the subject merchandise in determining whether there is a history of

dumping. Regarding requisite (A)(ii) above, we normally consider

margins of 25 percent or more for purchase price comparisons and 15

percent or more for exporter's sales price comparisons as sufficient to

impute knowledge of dumping. Because the preliminary estimated dumping

margin for all exporters of color negative photographic paper and

chemical components thereof from the Netherlands is in excess of 15

percent, we can impute knowledge of dumping under section

733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act.

Under 19 CFR 353.16(f), we normally consider the following factors

in determining whether imports have been massive over a short period of

time:

(1) The volume and value of the imports;

(2) Seasonal trends (if applicable); and

(3) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by imports.

To determine whether or not there have been massive imports of

CNPP, we compared export volumes for the six months subsequent to the

filing of the petition to the six months prior to the filing of the

petition. We found that exports of the subject merchandise from the

Netherlands during the period subsequent to receipt of the petition had

increased by an amount sufficient to categorize the imports as massive.

Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do

exist.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, and with 19 CFR

353.16(c), we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all entries of CNPP from the Netherlands, as defined in the ``Scope

of Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is

90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margin, as shown below.

The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further

notice.

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

Margin

Manufacturer/producer/exporter percentage

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

Fuji Photo Film B.V........................................ 321.23

All Others................................................. 321.23

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

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determination.

If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine

whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, a U.S. industry before the later of 120 days after the date

of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final

determination.

Postponement of Final Determination

On March 8, 1994, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), the sole

respondent requested that, in the event of an affirmative

determination, the Department postpone the final determination. We find

no compelling reason to deny the request. Accordingly, we are

postponing the date of the final determination until not later than 135

days after the date of publication of this notice.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written

comments in at least ten copies may be submitted by any interested

party to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later

than June 30, 1994, and rebuttal briefs no later than July 8, 1994. In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing

will be held on July 15, 1994, at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm the time, date, and place

of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a

written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, room B-099, within ten days of the

publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Requests should

contain:

(1) The party's name, address, telephone number;

(2) The number of participants; and

(3) A list of the issues to be discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to the issues raised in

the briefs.

This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(f)) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

Dated: March 29, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-8261 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P