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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-580-806]

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

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

Korea. The review covers 69 manufacturers/exporters and the period

April 27, 1990 through August 31, 1991.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received we

have changed the results from those presented in the preliminary

results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer, G. Leon McNeill, 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 Korea. On September 30, 1991, the petitioner, the

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

conduct an administrative review, in accordance with section 353.22(a)

of the Department's regulations (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 63920). The

initiation notice named 69 companies. Of these 69 companies, the

following six companies were selected to be analyzed, using sampling

techniques: Chunji Industrial Company, Ltd. (Chunji), Kee Ryung

Industrial Company, Ltd. (Kee Ryung), Suhcheon Company, Ltd.

(Suhcheon), Tae Kwang Industrial Company, Ltd. (Tae Kwang), Young Woo &

Company, Ltd. (Young Woo), and Yurim Company, Ltd. (Yurim). The other

companies included in the sample pool have received a rate which is the

simple average of the margins of these six companies. The Department

has now conducted the review in accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of MMF sweaters from

Korea. 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 review. 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 Korea 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.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We received collective comments from

Chunji, Kee Ryung, Suhcheon, Tae Kwang, Young Woo, and Yurim. No

interested party submitted a rebuttal.

Comment 1: Respondents argue that the Department's excessive

reliance on constructed value (CV) distorted the calculation of the

dumping margins. They contend that the Department should rely on CV as

the basis for foreign market value (FMV) only with respect to U.S.

sales for which there are no similar, above-cost, contemporaneous

models sold in the third-country market. They note that 19 U.S.C.

1677b(a)(1) directs the Department to base FMV on home market prices

or, if home market sales are inadequate, third-country prices, unless

there are insufficient sales above cost in the appropriate market.

Respondents claim that the Department's use of the ``10/90/10''

test on a product-specific basis is inappropriate and contrary to the

mandate of the antidumping statute because it leads the Department to

disregard infrequent below-cost sales. As respondents explain the test,

if between 10 and 90 percent of third-country sales are below cost, the

Department excludes below-cost sales, basing FMV on the remaining

above-cost sales. If over 90 percent of third-country sales are below

cost, the Department excludes all third-country sales and bases FMV

entirely on CV. Below-cost sales are included in the calculation of CV

if the volume of such sales is less than ten percent. Respondents claim

that in past cases, including the original investigation, the

Department has applied the 10/90/10 test on total sales of such or

similar merchandise, and argue that this approach contemplates that,

under some circumstances, all sales of certain models may be below cost

because the sales may be of obsolete or end-of-the-year models. They

argue that when the test is applied on a product-specific basis, the

sales of such models will almost always be disregarded in calculating

the FMV even though, viewed in the aggregate, they are infrequent in

number.

Respondents state that the Department has recently begun applying a

two-tiered 10/90/10 system in which first the Department applies the

test, called the ``macro test,'' to total third-country sales; if the

macro test indicates that between 10 and 90 percent of total sales are

below cost, the Department then applies a second 10/90/10 test, called

the ``micro test,'' to each individual model sold in the third country.

Respondents go on to say that, more recently, the Department has in

several cases applied only the micro test.

Respondents contend that the Department's reliance solely on the

micro test is particularly distortive in this proceeding, because there

is frequently only one sale for each individual product. In many

instances, therefore, the third-country product will be either totally

above or totally below cost, even though only an insignificant fraction

of total third-country sales may be below cost. They argue that the

Department should have used the alternate third-country price data for

the next most similar model in calculating the FMV since they have

provided ample third-country price data for the top three most similar

models.

Respondents also contend that the Department, in considering only

one particular third-country model as ``such or similar merchandise,''

compounds its bias for CV. Respondents claim that a large number of

physical differences in sweaters make precise systemization and

quantification of such differences for model matching purposes

impossible. Identification of a single best match is, therefore, highly

arbitrary. They argue that, by contrast, pricing and cost are not

arbitrary because exporters face the same cost curve and compete based

on relative mark-up. They contend that for their six firms there are,

on average, 50 third-country models within a 20 percent cost range for

each U.S. model. Respondents also claim that the Department's refusal

to use prices for alternative third-country merchandise is tantamount

to finding that there is only one ``such or similar'' third-country

match for each U.S. model.

Respondents ask that for the final results the Department use CV

only if there are insufficient above-cost sales of similar products in

the third country. They suggest that the Department implement this

method by dropping all below-cost third-country sales before creating

its product concordance, thereby matching U.S. sales only to above-cost

third-country sales.

Department's Position: We disagree with respondents that we relied

excessively on CV. Specifically, we disagree with their claim that a

``macro'' test, rather than a model-specific, or ``micro,'' test, is

the appropriate method of determining what below-cost sales should be

disregarded. Section 773(b) of the Tariff Act directs us to disregard

below-cost sales in calculating FMV. As FMV is based on a model-

specific comparison and focuses on the prices actually used for FMV,

employing a model-specific methodology is the most appropriate approach

to the 10/90/10 test. For this reason, we have rejected using the

``macro'' test and have only tested individual models for sales below-

cost.

We also disagree with respondents' argument that we should drop all

below-cost third-country sales before creating our product concordance,

or model-match groupings. Section 771(16) of the Tariff Act defines

such or similar merchandise and provides a hierarchy of preferences for

determining which merchandise sold in the foreign market is most

similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. Whether a model

is sold in the home market or third countries at prices below cost is

not a criterion for determining what is most similar merchandise under

the statute. Therefore, we rejected the product concordances proposed

by respondents, which eliminated most similar models when those models

were sold at prices below cost.

In determining whether third-country sales were made at prices

below the cost of production (COP), we compared the sales prices of

each model to its COP. Below-cost sales were disregarded on a model-

specific basis in accordance with the 10/90/10 rule. If we found that

less than 10 percent of the sales of a model were made at less than

cost, we included all third-country sales of that model in the

calculation of FMV. If between 10 and 90 percent of third-country sales

of a specific model were made at less than cost, we disregarded those

sales made at less than cost and used the above-cost sales in the price

comparisons. If more than 90 percent of third-country sales of a model

were made at less than cost we disregarded all sales of that model.

For the preliminary results, where there were more than one equally

similar model, in accordance with our model match criteria as set out

in Appendix V of our questionnaire, we selected a single most similar

model, based on the cost differences between the third-country and U.S.

models. That is, we selected the one with the lowest cost difference.

If more than 90 percent of the sales of a model chosen as the most

similar third-country model were below cost, we used CV as the basis of

FMV. For these final results, rather than choose the single most

similar model based on cost differences, we used the pool of equally

similar models as long as those models were within the 20 percent cost

differential. When there was more than one equally similar above-cost

model, we adjusted the FMV of each model for differences in

merchandise, and then weight averaged the results. If any of these

models were found to be below cost, we excluded them from our analysis

and used only the above-cost models.

Comment 2: Respondents argue that in calculating COP for the final

results, the Department should use the respondents' 1990 selling,

general and administrative expenses (SG&A) rather than the 1990-91

average SG&A. They contend that most sales in this review were produced

in 1990, and because MMF sweater production and shipments vary from

season to season, SG&A for a full fiscal year should be used.

Department's Position: We agree with the respondents that we should

use SG&A expense data from full fiscal years to account for

seasonality. All the data which were averaged for the preliminary

review results were, in fact, full fiscal year data, derived from the

companies' annual financial statements. We disagree, however, with

respondents' argument that we should rely exclusively on 1990 SG&A. For

the final results for Kee Ryung, Suhcheon, Young Woo, and Yurim, whose

fiscal years are also the calendar year, the period of review includes

an equal number of months from each of the fiscal years and, therefore,

we have continued to use a simple average of 1990 and 1991 SG&A. For

Chunji, we have continued to add Chunji's SG&A for the fiscal year July

1, 1990 through June 30, 1991, to the average of its related company's

SG&A for the fiscal/calendar years 1990 and 1991. Twelve of the 16

review months occurred during the July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991

period; of the remaining four months, we have data only for the two

months in the prior fiscal year, but not for the two months in the

subsequent fiscal year. Thus, it is appropriate to only use SG&A

expenses from the one fiscal year for Chunji. For Tae Kwang, we used a

weighted average SG&A, weighted three-fourths for the fiscal year

covering the period September 1, 1990 through August 31, 1991, and one-

fourth for the fiscal year covering the period September 1, 1989

through August 31, 1990, since twelve months of the review period

occurred in the first fiscal year, and four months occurred in the

second.

Comment 3: Respondents state that the Department incorrectly

adjusted for the value added tax (VAT), by increasing reported costs

such as foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage, containerization,

commissions and packing, by 10 percent for both the U.S. and third-

country sales. Respondents contend that VATs ``paid'' on purchases of

goods and services are not costs because they are rebated upon payment

and thus do not constitute an expense to the company.

They state that the VAT adjustment probably did not affect dumping

margins where net U.S. prices were compared to net third-country

prices, but it likely resulted in more below-cost sales which, in turn,

increased the dumping margin. They state that the Department should

recalculate costs and exclude the relevant VATs.

Department's Position: We agree with respondents and have changed

our calculations accordingly.

Comment 4: Respondents contend that the Department should not

include U.S. and third-country sample sales and resales in its dumping

calculations. Resales occurred when a customer cancelled an order, and

the manufacturer found another buyer for the merchandise. They argue

that these sales did not occur in the ordinary course of trade and that

their inclusion affected the dumping margins. They claim that sample

sales and resales are unrepresentative of sales routinely undertaken by

Korean companies, and that the inclusion of such sales is patently

unfair, as they are not a means of price discrimination, but of

promoting sweater sales and disposing of small volumes of cancelled

orders.

Respondents argue that the Department has in the past excluded

small quantity/high price sales when the transactions in question are

``trial sales for evaluation'' or ``sales of sample merchandise'' and

are ``not for consumption but rather for evaluation purposes.'' To

support this argument they cite Tapered Roller Bearings; Finished and

Unfinished, and Parts Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 57 FR 4951, 4959 (February 11, 1992) (TRBs from

Japan), and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343, 50345

(September 27, 1993) (PTFE from Japan).

Department's Position: It is our established practice not to

exclude sample sales or resales in the U.S. market in administrative

reviews, and respondents provide no justification for doing so in this

case. There is no statutory or regulatory authority for excluding U.S.

sales from review. Section 353.46(a) provides for the exclusion of

sales made outside the ordinary course of trade from the calculation of

FMV; however, no such provision is made for disregarding sales made

outside the ordinary course of trade from the calculation of U.S.

price. In a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation we have the

discretion to eliminate unusual sales from our analysis; in an

administrative review, however, the statute and the regulations require

that we analyze all U.S. sales, except when sampling techniques are

used. (See 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1; 19 C.F.R. 353.59 (1994). See, also, Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in

Part of an Antidumping Duty Order; Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom, 58

FR 39729, 39776 (July 26, 1993) and Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Portable Electric Typewriters from Japan, 56 FR

14072, 14079 (April 5, 1991).) In PTFE from Japan we noted that,

historically, the Department has considered all transactions to be

sales whenever ownership transfers to an unrelated party. Due to the

peculiar nature of PTFE resin, the consideration of transfer of

ownership was inapplicable, because samples of resin, once used in

testing, could not be returned in the original form to the seller. In

the present case, sample sales made in the United States involved a

transfer of ownership between parties, and respondents have not shown

the existence of any special circumstances, such as obtained in PTFE

from Japan, that would cause us to deviate from our practice. TRBs from

Japan, which respondents cite, does not address sample sales and

resales in the United States.

We have in the past excluded sales outside the ordinary course of

trade only in the home and third-country markets for administrative

reviews. In order for us to exclude sales, a firm must provide

substantial evidence that such sales are outside the ordinary course of

trade. (See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

From France, et al. 57 FR 28360, 28395 (June 24, 1992).) Respondents in

this case have not provided convincing evidence that third-country

sample sales and resales were outside the ordinary course of trade.

For the final results, we attempted, when possible, to match sample

sales in the United States to sample sales in the third country, and

resales in the United States to resales in the third country, within

the constraints of our model-matching criteria.

Final Results of Review

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

exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)

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

Chunji Industrial Company, Ltd. and

Sungwha Garment Company, Ltd........... 04/27/90-08/31/91 2.55

Kee Ryung Industrial Company, Ltd....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 2.17

Suhcheon Company, Ltd................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 2.19

Tae Kwang Industrial Company, Ltd....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 0.30

Young Woo Industrial Company, Ltd....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 4.75

Yurim Industrial Company, Ltd........... 04/27/90-08/31/91 2.16

Bangil Industrial, Ltd.................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Boun Kyung Corporation.................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Bum-Yang Apparel Company, Ltd........... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Chai-Knit Trading Company, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Chang Jae Corporation................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Chongju Textiles Company, Ltd........... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Dae Kyung Company, Ltd.................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Daewoo Corporation...................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Dae Yu Company, Ltd..................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Do Sung Textile Company, Ltd............ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Dong Kwang Corporation.................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Dong Woo Company, Ltd................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Doosung Textile Company, Ltd............ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Full Bright Industrial Co., Ltd......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Hae Yang Knitting Factory, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Hanil Synthetic Fiber Ind. Co., Ltd..... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Hwa Man Industrial Company, Ltd......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Jo Woo Company, Ltd..................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Kolon International Corporation......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Kuk Rim Ltd............................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Kun Ja Industrial Company, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Ryu Kyung Industrial Company, Ltd....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Samdo Trading Company and Daishin

Trading Company, Ltd................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Samjin Moolsan Ltd...................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Samsung Company, Ltd.................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Se Dong Company, Ltd.................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Shin Chang Knitting Company, Ltd........ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Shinwon Corporation..................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Sunny Apparel, Inc...................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Uksung Company, Ltd..................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Wha Jin Apparel Company, Ltd............ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Yakjin Trading Corporation.............. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\2.35

Baik Yang Company, Ltd.................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

Choongbang Company, Ltd................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

Dongwoo Silk Company, Ltd............... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

Doosan Industrial Company, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

Hanjoo Corporation...................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

Hoejun Knit Goods Company, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

Jung Woo Textile Company, Ltd........... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

San Han Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd........ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\1.30

Cheon Woo Express....................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Chin Ji Industrial...................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Daelim.................................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Goo San Trading......................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Hanjoo Shipping International........... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Hanlim.................................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Hyop Sung............................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Hyop Woon Enterprises................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Jung Wong............................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Kook Industries......................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Ryu Kyung............................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Sam Jin Industries...................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Sam Jing Industries..................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Shen Heung Textile...................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Wahjin.................................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Woorin Trading.......................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Ye In................................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Yoo Chang Enterprise.................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

Yuwon Trading........................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\1.30

All Others.............................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 1.30

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

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

margins for the six selected companies.

\2\No shipments during the period; rate is the weighted-average margin

for each company from the less-than-fair-value investigation, or, if a

company was not involved in the investigation, the ``All Others''

rate.

\3\Not known to Korean Garment and Knitwear Export Association as a

shipper; rate is the weighted-average margin for each company from the

less-than-fair-value investigation, or, if the company was not

involved in the investigation, the ``All Others'' rate.

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 Korea 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 others'' rate of 1.30

percent established in the final notice of LTFV investigation of this

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

in Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp 766 (1993), and

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States,

839 F.Supp 864 (1993). Since the margin for Tae Kwang is less than 0.50

percent and, therefore, de minimis for cash deposit purposes, the

Department will instruct customs to collect a cash deposit of zero

antidumping duties on entries from Tae Kwang. 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 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: April 6, 1994.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-8909 Filed 04-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P