Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-412-810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From

the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

[[Page 44010]]

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On February 23, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of its 1992-94

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-

rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom

(60 FR 10061). The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise, United Engineering Steels Limited (UES). The review period

is September 28, 1992, through February 28, 1994. We gave interested

parties the opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on

our analysis of the comments received, we have adjusted UES's margin

for these final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery, Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, 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 February 23, 1995, the Department published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 10061) the preliminary results of its administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and

bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324,

March 22, 1993). The Department has now completed that administrative

review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act).

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute and to the

Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of

nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by

weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent of bismuth, in

coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded from

the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason

of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or 0.1 percent or

more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-

finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered

in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00 and

7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also

enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings:

7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10,

00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. They are not determinative of the products subject to

the order. The written description remains dispositive.

This review covers sales of the subject merchandise manufactured by

UES and entered into the United States during the period September 28,

1992, through February 28, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results as provided by section 353.22(c) of our

regulations. At the request of the petitioner, Inland Steel Bar

Company, and respondent, UES, we held a public hearing on April 10,

1995. We received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and

respondent.

Comment 1: Petitioner claims that the Department failed to adjust

for actual antidumping duties UES paid on lead and bismuth steel. It

argues that, since the actual dumping duties are paid by UES, the

Department should treat the duty as a direct selling expense and make

an adjustment for the amount of the actual dumping duties. Petitioner

notes that the Department, in previous cases, has not considered

estimated dumping duty deposits to be expenses within the meaning of

section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act because of the possibility that

the estimated duties may vary from actual duties that may be assessed.

However, it contends that, where UES is paying the actual dumping

duties, the statute requires that the Department treat these duties the

same way as any other direct selling expense.

UES disagrees with petitioner and cites, as support, Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, et. al. (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995). UES also notes that,

as part of the debate prior to the passage of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, attempts were made to persuade Congress to change the

law to permit the Department to consider dumping duty as a cost, but

these attempts did not succeed. UES argues that to deduct the dumping

duty from the U.S. price (USP) would be double-counting, because actual

duties assessed will offset any price discrimination.

Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. Antidumping

duties are intended to offset the effect of discriminatory pricing

between two markets. In this context, making an additional deduction

from USP for the same antidumping duties that correct this price

discrimination would result in double-counting. Therefore, we have not

treated cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties as direct selling

expenses. See Color Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea,

Final Results of Administrative Review (58 FR 50333, September 27,

1993) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof from France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Reviews (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995).

Comment 2: Petitioner argues that the Department should use the

date of order entry rather than shipment date as the date of sale, as

it did in the original investigation. Petitioner argues that UES has

offered insufficient reason in this review to justify a change in its

date of sale methodology from the original investigation; in fact,

petitioner notes, UES has conceded that the sales terms have not

changed since the period of investigation (POI). Petitioner contests

the analysis of order changes UES provided and the Department attached

as an exhibit to its verification report. Petitioner notes that leaded

bar is typically produced to order, and thus that the basic terms of

sale--including price, quantity, and physical specifications--must

generally be fixed prior to manufacturing and shipment. Petitioner

contends that, due to the decrease in the value of the British pound

during the period of review (POR), UES changed its methodology in order

to use the date of shipment as the date of sale, thus benefitting from

exchange rate changes which result in lower dumping margins.

UES maintains that, during the POR, more than half the orders

placed were amended with respect to their essential terms--price,

quantity, or product specifications. UES agrees that it has not changed

its policy since the POI. According to UES, there were numerous

amendments during the POI, but it lacked the computer capability at

that time to analyze and quantify the order amendment type and

frequency. Therefore, in the investigation of sales at

[[Page 44011]]

less than fair value (LTFV), the Department used the order date as the

date of sale. UES states that, since the POI, UES installed a new

computer system, able to quantify the number of amendments for each

order, and to identify which orders modify essential terms. UES

contends that the Department's verifiers thoroughly examined the

computer code, confirmed that the program identified only amendments to

essential terms, and also examined hard copy orders and amendment

documents.

Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. During the

course of verification, the verifying team thoroughly examined computer

programs and associated documents, and confirmed that a significant

percentage of U.K. orders and U.S. sales were amended subsequent to the

original purchase order. See Verification Report dated February 22,

1995 at page 4. Therefore, because the essential terms of sale were not

final until the date of shipment, the Department has used, for these

final results, the date of shipment as the appropriate date of sale.

Comment 3: Petitioner disputes the model match methodology used by

the Department. Petitioner claims that in the LTFV investigation, the

Department used the variable ``CONNUM'' as the product identification

number for identifying identical products, and the variable ``CONSIM''

as the product identification number for identifying similar products.

Petitioner argues that, in the preliminary results of review, the

Department deviated from that methodology in that it did not use

similar home market products as the basis for foreign market value

(FMV) when a match with an identical product code could not be found.

As a result, the Department eliminated most of the comparisons to

similar merchandise and instead based FMV on constructed value (CV).

Petitioner argues that similar products should be matched on the basis

of CONSIM, not the product code.

Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. Products should

be matched by CONNUM, not by CONSIM. In this case, the product code is

an internal company code assigned in the normal course of business. The

CONNUM, on the other hand, reflects the criteria which the Department

has established for purposes of defining identical and similar

merchandise. CONSIM is identical to CONNUM, except that the grade

designation is less specific than that identified by CONNUM. That is,

it ignores ``residuals,'' or trace elements. As we noted in the

preliminary results, product differences due to residuals are

commercially significant and not incidental, as they are designed into

the product. Therefore, CONNUM is the appropriate variable to be used

for model matching. However, in the preliminary results of this review,

we erred by matching the product by CONNUM and product code. For these

final results, we have revised our computer programming language to

match the product by CONNUM only.

Comment 4: Petitioner argues that the Department should use

identical matches when available, even if quantities differ. It

maintains that the Department erroneously matched the U.S. product to a

similar U.K. product in the same quantity grouping, rather than to the

identical product in a different quantity grouping, thereby allowing

the quantity of the sale to take precedence over the similarity of the

sale. Petitioner contends that this conflicts with the Department's

past practice of giving physical similarity precedence over other

matching criteria.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner, and have revised

the computer programming language to match the U.S. product to the

identical U.K. product regardless of its quantity grouping before

matching it to a similar product.

Comment 5: The petitioner argues that, for the CV calculations, the

Department should compute profit exclusive of UES's non-arm's-length

related party sales. Petitioner asserts that these prices are

essentially transfer prices rather than market prices, and it makes

little sense to use the profit on such sales in calculating CV when the

sales themselves are excluded from the price-to-price comparisons.

UES contends that, since UES's sales to its related customers were

at arm's length, the petitioner's argument is moot. Furthermore, UES

asserts that, contrary to the petitioner's argument, related party

sales that fail the arm's-length test should not necessarily be

excluded from the profit calculation. As support, UES cites

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et al. (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995 (AFB Final

Results)). According to UES, the essential factor is whether the prices

used in calculating CV reflect the market under consideration.

Moreover, UES notes that the petitioner relies on a simplistic

analysis showing that UES's related customers, on average, pay a lower

per-unit net price. UES asserts, however, that these related customers

paid a lower price because they purchased large quantities. UES notes

that it provides the same price advantages to high-volume related and

unrelated customers. UES contends that this does not represent non-

market, uneconomic transfer pricing. On the contrary, UES claims that

it accepted lower per-unit profits to achieve higher overall company

profitability. Consequently, UES insists these profits fairly reflect

the amount usually earned on sales in the market.

Department's Position: We disagree, in part, with both petitioner

and UES. As we stated in AFB Final Results, there is no basis for

automatically including, for the purposes of calculating profit for CV,

sales to related parties that fail the arm's-length test. This is

because in doing the arm's-length test we may not adjust for certain

expenses that are reflected in the profit calculation. However,

related-party sales that fail the arm's-length test can give rise to

the possibility that certain elements of value, such as profit, may not

fairly reflect an amount usually reflected in sales of the merchandise.

We considered whether the amount for profit on UES's sales to related

parties was reflective of an amount for profit usually reflected on

sales of the merchandise. To do so, we compared profit on sales to

related parties that failed the arm's-length test to profit on sales to

unrelated parties and arm's-length sales to related parties. Because

the profit on non-arm's-length sales to related parties varied

significantly from the profit on sales to unrelated parties and arm's-

length sales to related parties, we disregarded non-arm's-length

related-party sales for the purposes of calculating profit for CV for

these final results. See proprietary memorandum from case analyst to

file, ``Lead and Bismuth Steel from the United Kingdom--Profit

Analysis,'' dated July 3, 1995. See also AFBs Final Results.

Comment 6: The petitioner argues that UES excluded the cost of

producing identical products sold in third countries from its submitted

cost of production. According to the petitioner, UES did not identify

the one U.S. product affected by this error. Therefore, petitioner

asserts, the Department should make an adverse inference regarding

UES's CV submission. Petitioner urges the Department to increase the

cost of all U.S. products by the largest understatement of reported

costs for the home market models.

UES contends that, contrary to the petitioner's claim, the cost of

production for U.S. products was not materially affected by excluding

production costs for third-country sales. UES asserts that the

petitioner misunderstood the data reported in certain cost verification

exhibits. According to UES, these exhibits reveal

[[Page 44012]]

that there were only four products manufactured in more than one mill

and sold in both the United Kingdom and third countries. Additionally,

UES claims that these documents show that its reported costs of those

four products were slightly higher than the costs UES calculated by

including the third-country production costs.

Furthermore, UES asserts that the single product mentioned by

petitioner would have the same cost with or without including

production costs for third-country sales because the product was only

manufactured at one of UES's mills. Therefore, UES contends the

petitioner's proposed adjustment to UES's costs has no merit.

Department's Position: We agree with UES that petitioner's proposed

adjustment has no merit. During verification, UES presented support

showing the product in question was only produced in one mill; thus,

third-country production costs are irrelevant. Furthermore, the

petitioner apparently misunderstood the results of UES's analysis

regarding the impact of third-country production. During verification,

UES demonstrated that there were only four products manufactured in

multiple mills and sold in both the home market and third countries.

The impact of weight averaging the production costs for these four

products is minimal. Moreover, as respondent noted, its reported costs

for the four products were slightly higher than the weighted-average

costs it calculated by including the production costs for the third-

country sales of these products. Thus, we accepted UES's submission

methodology for calculating the cost of production.

Comment 7: Petitioner notes that, at the beginning of verification,

UES reported a minor clerical error that increased the costs it

reported it had incurred at one of its mills. The petitioner argues

that the Department should increase CV for all U.S. products by the

amount reported because many U.S. products were produced in that

particular mill.

Department's Position: Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.59 (1994), the

Department may disregard insignificant adjustments to FMV. For

individual adjustments, those which have an ad valorem effect of less

than 0.33 percent of the FMV are deemed insignificant. Since UES's

clerical error was less than 0.33 percent, we have disregarded this

adjustment in calculating CV. UES reported its calculation of this

clerical error in Cost Verification Exhibit 1.

Comment 8: According to the petitioner, the Department should

include the company's 1993 reorganization costs for its steel division

in the general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation.

Specifically, the petitioner suggests allocating these restructuring

costs to UES's steel and forging divisions based on cost of sales.

UES asserts that the Department should exclude the 1993

restructuring costs because these costs reflect an estimate of expenses

to be incurred for the company's 1994 reorganization. UES contends the

restructuring costs were incurred after the POR and were less than the

estimated amount. In addition, UES recorded the actual restructuring

expenses by division in its financial accounts as the costs were

incurred in 1994. Thus, UES states, these restructuring expenses would

be appropriately captured in the next administrative review.

Department's Position: At verification, UES demonstrated that the

actual restructuring expenses for each division were incurred after the

POR. Therefore, we have not allocated the company level 1993 estimate

to each of UES's mills for purposes of this review.

Comment 9: The petitioner contends that part of the closure costs

for UES's Templeborough facility should be included in the company's

G&A expense calculation. Specifically, the petitioner argues

Templeborough closure costs should be allocated to the subject

merchandise (leaded bar) using the same methodology the Department

applied to the Woodstone mill closure costs.

According to UES, the Department should exclude Templeborough

closure costs because the facility did not produce leaded bar and did

not have the capability of producing any leaded steel products. UES

asserts that, in contrast, its Woodstone mill produced leaded bar;

therefore, UES maintains that the Department properly allocated the

Woodstone closure costs to the subject merchandise in its preliminary

analysis. Furthermore, UES asserts that the Department normally

excludes non-operating expenses related solely to entities producing

only non-subject merchandise. UES notes it incurred only non-operating

expenses in closing its Templeborough facility.

Department's Position: At verification, UES showed that its

Templeborough facility did not produce any leaded bar products. We

therefore excluded these non-operating costs from our calculation of

G&A because UES demonstrated that these closure costs related

exclusively to an operation that had produced only non-subject

merchandise. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Furfuryl Alcohol from South Africa, 60 FR 22550, May 8, 1995.

Comment 10: UES maintains that the Department's determination to

exclude home market related-party sales from the price comparison is

inappropriate. UES contends that, even if its sales did not satisfy the

traditional arm's-length test, other evidence on the record indicates

that UES's related-party price are arm's length in nature. UES argues

that it performed the Department's traditional test for determining

when related-party prices are at arm's length, and the test shows that

UES's prices to related customers are on average higher than its prices

to unrelated customers. UES contests the Department's determination,

stated in the preliminary review results, that ``UES's analysis of data

from this review fails to provide an accurate assessment of whether its

related-party sales were made at arm's length because it did not

account for certain rebates and it did not perform its arm's-length

test on a model group-by-model group basis.'' UES argues that it did

perform its analysis on a model-by-model basis, exactly as, it asserts,

the Department customarily performs the analysis. According to UES, it

first calculated the weighted-average price of each product by CONNUM

for each related customer and for all unrelated customers together,

separately by level of trade. It then compared the average price for

each related customer for each product to the average price for that

same product to derive a ratio by which the related-customer price was

over or under the unrelated price for that particular product. UES

explains that it then weight-averaged each customer's ratios to derive

an overall ratio for each related customer. Finally, UES weight-

averaged all related customers' ratios to yield the overall ratio

between related and unrelated customers' prices. To support this

explanation, UES has attached to its brief the model-specific output.

UES argues that the Department improperly deducted ``Rebate 2''

from gross price in performing the arm's-length test, thus skewing the

analysis. See UES's proprietary case brief at pages 4-6. It contends

that this rebate is available on the same terms to both related and

unrelated customers. UES asserts that the varying use of the rebate by

different customers is outside of UES's knowledge and control, and does

not change the fact that UES negotiates all customers' prices on an

arm's-length basis.

UES argues that, even if its sales did not satisfy the traditional

arm's-length test, the Department should still confirm its previous

determination that UES's prices are market-based and non-

discriminatory. UES contends that it

[[Page 44013]]

deals with all home market customers on an arm's-length basis, whether

related or unrelated. However, UES claims the one overriding

determinant of price among customers--which has nothing to do with

relatedness--is that UES negotiates lower prices with high-volume

customers. UES argues that if the Department identifies any price

difference between its large-quantity related customers and its small-

quantity unrelated customers, it would be attributed to the fact that

UES negotiates lower prices with high-volume customers. UES claims that

the same issue arose in the original LTFV investigation, and the

Department determined that UES's related party prices were at arm's

length. According to UES, it has confirmed to the Department that its

policy has not changed since the original LTFV investigation and that

it does not discriminate in favor of related customers.

UES notes that, during the POR, it purchased one of its largest

customers, Lee Bright Bar (LBB). UES maintains that, if there were

price discrimination in favor of related parties, one would expect its

prices to LBB to have decreased after the purchase. On the contrary,

UES argues, its prices to LBB increased after it became a related

party, and even increased at a higher rate than the average for UES's

customers in general.

UES asserts that, as further confirmation of its non-discriminatory

pricing policy, it has demonstrated that its related prices are

equivalent to prices it charged to an unrelated German customer which

is comparable in size and purchase volume to UES's related home market

customers. UES argues that its sales prices to this unrelated German

customer are at or below the weighted-average prices to its related

customers in the United Kingdom for the same products in the same

months. UES counters petitioner's argument that differences in the U.K.

and German markets might account for these price differences by stating

that the European Union (EU) is a single, unified market, UES competes

directly with German mills, and UES's customers can as freely purchase

from European producers as from UES.

Petitioner argues that the Department correctly included Rebate 2

among the items it deducted from gross sales price in performing its

arm's-length analysis, in accordance with its policy of using net sales

price, after all discounts and rebates have been deducted, in that

analysis. Further, petitioner asserts that UES failed to provide any

written documentation in support of its claim that all customers are

entitled to take advantage of Rebate 2. Petitioner contends that UES is

practicing de facto price discrimination against unrelated customers

through its rebate programs. Petitioner maintains that, even if UES

were not intentionally price discriminating against unrelated customers

through its rebate program, the terms of Rebate 2 are too onerous to

unrelated parties for them to regularly take advantage of this program.

Petitioner challenges what UES has offered as alternate evidence

that it does not discriminate in favor of related customers. According

to petitioner, UES's related-party profit margin demonstrates that

sales to related parties are not made at arm's length. Petitioner

argues that sales to a single related customer, LBB, are not

representative of sales to all related parties. Petitioner maintains

that the Department should disregard UES's claims regarding the German

market, since the U.K. market is viable. Furthermore, petitioner

asserts that UES failed to provide for the record detailed information,

by CONNUM, on all German sales in order to show that the product mix

was not responsible for the average price differences. Moreover,

petitioner states that, contrary to UES's claim, the EU is not a single

market, because significant currency variation occurs between EU member

countries. Petitioner argues that UES's claim must be rejected because

Congress has specifically prohibited looking at customs unions, such as

the UE, as a single country in determining the occurrence of dumping.

Petitioner contends that the Department should not make an adjustment

to its arm's-length test to take into account differences in sales

volumes because the analysis of UES's sales data demonstrates that

there were no sales made at different levels of trade and different

quantities during the POR.

Department's Position: We disagree with respondent. The information

UES originally presented did not indicate that UES had performed the

arm's-length test on a model group-by-model group basis. The first time

this was mentioned, and the model-specific output submitted to the

Department, was in UES's case brief of March 27, 1995. In any event,

UES's test was inaccurate since it failed to deduct certain rebates

from the sales prices before comparisons were made. UES's argument that

we should not deduct rebates prior to the arm's length test is

incorrect. Because these rebates are adjustments to price which UES

made, we must deduct them from UES's home market prices in order to

fairly compare the prices ultimately paid by related and unrelated

customers. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany (54 FR 19089, 19090, May

3, 1989).

Even if we were to abandon our traditional arm's-length test in

this case, there is not sufficient evidence on the record to

demonstrate that UES meets an acceptable alternate test. In order to

determine whether UES's sales to related home market customers were

arm's-length in nature, we conducted a three-pronged analysis. See the

proprietary memorandum from case analyst to file concerning UES's

related party sales dated July ____, 1995. Based on our analysis, we

concluded that UES's home market sales to related parties were not at

arm's length. Accordingly, we have not used these sales in our

determination of FMV.

Comment 11: UES states that the Department correctly decided that,

where possible, it would match U.S. and U.K. sales within two quantity

groups: one of 25 tons or more, and one of less than 25 tons. However,

UES argues that, in its dumping margin computer program, the Department

assigned all U.S. sales to the less-than-25-tons group by inadvertently

using the wrong quantity variable.

Department's Position: We agree and have revised the computer

programming language accordingly.

Comment 12: UES contends that, instead of using selling and packing

expenses from the sales database in its cost of production

calculations, the Department erroneously used the average selling and

packing expenses from the cost database.

Department's Position: We agree and have revised our calculations

accordingly.

Comment 13: UES maintains that the Department erred in failing to

adjust invoice quantity by the amount shown in the quantity adjustment

field. According to UES, this field shows corrections to invoice

quantity which UES issues to its customers to correct invoice errors.

Department's Position: We agree and have made the appropriate

revision in our calculations.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1,

1992, through February 28, 1994:

[[Page 44014]]

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter Period of review (percent)

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

United Engineering Steels Ltd. (UES)..... 9/28/92-2/28/94 5.05

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

The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement instructions concerning all

respondents directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of these final results of administrative review for

all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be

the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated

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

the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or

the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate

for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 25.82

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements 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 the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of the

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: August 17, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-20934 Filed 8-23-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M