Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-421-805]

Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from

the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of the antidumping duty administrative

review; aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene terephthalamide from

the Netherlands.

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

SUMMARY: On April 9, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene

terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid) from the Netherlands. The review covers

one manufacturer/exporter and the period December 16, 1993 through May

31, 1995.

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: October 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

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

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping

duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands on June 24, 1994 (59 FR

32678). On June 6, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR

29821) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands

covering the period December 16, 1993 through May 31, 1995.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), Aramid Products V.o.F.

(Aramid) and Akzo Nobel Fibers Inc. (collectively ``Akzo'') and

petitioner, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, requested that we

conduct an administrative review of Akzo's sales. We published a notice

of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on July

14, 1995 (60 FR 36260). The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

On April 9, 1996, the Department published the preliminary results

in the Federal Register (61 FR 15766). The Department has now completed

the review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review are all forms of PPD-T aramid

from the Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T aramid in the form of

filament yarn (including single and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or

dry), spun-laced and spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber and floc.

Tire cord is excluded from the class or kind of merchandise under

review. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040,

5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000, 5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and

5603.00.9000. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of PPD-T aramid, Akzo,

and the period December 16, 1993 through May 31, 1995.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We received comments from Akzo and

petitioner.

Comment 1: The petitioner contends that Akzo's accounting method

for goodwill expense resulting from Akzo Nobel N.V.'s (Akzo Nobel's)

increased ownership in Aramid significantly understates the amount of

these charges included in the company's reported production costs. Most

egregious, in petitioner's view, is that Akzo's submission allegedly

ignores the normal treatment of goodwill as recorded by Akzo Nobel and,

instead, relies on an inappropriate amortization period that is

inconsistent with both Dutch generally accepted accounting principles

(GAAP) and international accounting standards. According to petitioner,

Akzo's submitted amortization period grossly distorts actual costs by

artificially extending the useful lives of certain assets.

The petitioner also notes that certain parts of Akzo's goodwill

adjustment relate to items appropriately included in the cost of

manufacturing rather than in general expenses as Akzo included them for

its submitted costs. Thus, the petitioner maintains, the Department

should reclassify amounts related to these items from general expenses

to cost of manufacturing and recognize the full amount of each item

rather than an amortized portion.

Akzo argues that the submitted amortization of goodwill does not

distort its reported costs. Akzo contends that Akzo Nobel properly

revalued the assets of Aramid to conform to Akzo Nobel's accounting

polices and calculated goodwill based on the revalued amount. Akzo

maintains that prior Department practice indicates that goodwill should

be amortized over a predetermined useful life. Thus, for submission

purposes, Akzo amortized the goodwill over a reasonable period in

accordance with U.S. GAAP.

Akzo claims that adjustment to the asset values should not be

depreciated over the remaining useful lives of the assets as suggested

in the Department's July 11, 1996 memorandum because this method does

not conform to Aramid's records. Akzo asserts that the most appropriate

methodology to account for the revaluation of assets is through Akzo

Nobel's goodwill calculation. However, Akzo states that, should the

Department decide to adjust production costs for the revalued assets,

then it should exclude the entire amount of amortized goodwill from

general expenses.

Department's Position: Due to the proprietary nature of this issue,

we have addressed this comment in our September 25, 1996 Cost of

Production Analysis Memorandum. We note, however, that we adjusted

Akzo's submitted costs to account for the revalued assets. Moreover, in

making this adjustment, we excluded the entire amount of the goodwill

amortization

[[Page 51407]]

from general expenses in order to avoid double counting the expense and

to recognize that any goodwill remaining after our adjustment to the

revalued assets was not a part of Aramid's production costs.

Comment 2: The petitioner argues that the Department should

calculate financing costs based on the audited financial statements of

the producer, Aramid, rather than on the consolidated financial

statements of its parent. According to the petitioner, the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) indicates that where specific information

on the actual financing costs incurred in the production of merchandise

under review or investigation is available, then that information must

be used to compute financing costs. The petitioner maintains that

specific information on the actual financing costs incurred by the

producer of the subject merchandise is available through Aramid's

financial statements. Thus, the petitioner asserts, the Department

should recalculate the interest expense reported in Aramid's financial

statements by applying Aramid's unaffiliated 1994 borrowing rate to the

full amount of loans reported on Aramid's balance sheet.

Akzo argues that the Department should follow its normal practice

and calculate interest expense based on Akzo Nobel's consolidated

financial statements. Akzo states that the Department's questionnaire

requires a company to calculate interest expense based on the parent

company's consolidated financial statements because money is fungible

and a corporate parent determines the capital structure of the company.

Akzo argues that, in contrast to the petitioner's assertions, the SAA

does not include any language explaining a change in the Department's

methodology for computing financing expenses. Akzo maintains that,

according to the petitioner's interpretation, the Department would use

the higher of the producer's or the parent's financing costs in all

cases.

Akzo asserts that the Department should disregard petitioner's

suggestion of recalculating interest on Aramid's borrowings derived

from Akzo Nobel loans because these loans are rolled up into Akzo

Nobel's consolidated financial statements. Thus, Akzo maintains, Akzo

Nobel has the only actual borrowings for the entire group.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. It is the Department's

longstanding practice to calculate the respondent's net interest

expense based on the financing expenses incurred on behalf of the

consolidated group of companies to which the respondent belongs. In

general, this practice recognizes the fungible nature of invested

capital resources (i.e., debt and equity) within a consolidated group

of companies. In Camargo Correa Metais, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op.

93-163 (CIT August 13, 1993), the Court of International Trade ruled

that the Department's practice of allocating interest expense on a

consolidated basis due to the fungible nature of debt and equity was

reasonable. The Court specifically quoted the following from Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Small Business

Telephone Systems and Subassemblies Thereof from Korea, 54 Fed. Reg.

53,141, 53149 (1989).

The Department recognizes the fungible nature of a corporation's

invested capital resources, including both debt and equity, and does

not allocate corporate finances to individual divisions of a

corporation * * *. Instead, [Commerce] allocates the interest

expense related to the debt portion of the capitalization of the

corporation, as appropriate, to the total operations of the

consolidated corporation.

Also, See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value:

Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 60 FR

10552, 10557 (February 27, 1995). The controlling entity within a

consolidated group has the ``power'' to determine the capital structure

of each member company within the group. In this case, Akzo Nobel

maintains a controlling interest in Aramid and includes the company in

its consolidated financial statements.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New

Minivans from Japan, 57 FR at 21946 (comment 18) (May 26, 1992).

Furthermore, the SAA and new law do not address any specific change

in the Department's practice of calculating interest expense.

Therefore, for the final results of review, we have relied on Akzo's

submitted financing expense based on Akzo Nobel's consolidated

financial statements, and have not imputed interest expense on

affiliated party loans as suggested by the petitioner.

Comment 3: The petitioner contends that Akzo may have understated

its production costs by manipulating its normal standard costs.

According to the petitioner, Akzo may have inappropriately decreased

its normal standard costs for certain products sold to the U.S. market

and increased the standard costs for other products or for products

that the company did not sell in the United States. Therefore, the

petitioner asserts, the Department must reject Akzo's reported

methodology of allocating its production costs and cost variances based

on its standard costs. As an alternative allocation methodology, the

petitioner suggests spreading the costs among the products based on

relative production quantities.

The petitioner contends that, because the Department rejected its

repeated request that Akzo's standard costs from the less-than-fair-

value (LTFV) investigation be put on the record of this review, the

petitioner was limited in its ability to establish that the

unreliability of the standard costs used in the current review.

Akzo argues that the Department should reject petitioner's

allegation of cost shifting and rely on the company's submitted costs.

Akzo states that the Department rejected this same unsubstantiated

claim in the preliminary results of review. Lastly, Akzo asserts that

using the petitioner's approach would apply the same per unit costs and

cost variances to all products regardless of the differences between

products. According to Akzo, this approach is the equivalent of

computing the same cost of production for all subject merchandise

(i.e., total cost divided by total weight of production).

Akzo maintains that putting the standard costs from the initial

investigation on the record of this review would not satisfy the

petitioner's doubts concerning cost shifting. Rather, according to

Akzo, it would just raise more questions because of the many factors

that go into the standard cost build-up for each specific control

number (See Akzo's February 28, 1996 letter).

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that the petitioner has

not provided reasonable grounds for rejecting the company's normal

standard cost allocation methodology. Akzo's method of allocating

production costs and cost variances based on product-specific standard

costs is consistent with its normal accounting practices. Moreover,

there is no evidence on the record to suggest, as the petitioner does,

that the standard costs were developed under methods other than those

normally followed by Akzo. We also note that in a similar case

involving a different Akzo Group company, the Department accepted the

company's methodology of allocating the plant-wide variance based on

product-specific standard costs. See High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn

from Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,

60 FR 15897 (March 28, 1995).

We believe that requesting the product-specific standard cost data

from the initial investigation would merely

[[Page 51408]]

serve to confuse and complicate the issue rather than provide

sufficient conclusive proof of cost shifting. We know of differences

between the investigation and the review that would render such a

comparison meaningless. First, in the initial investigation, the

Department relied on third country sales and cost data as the basis for

fair value. In this review, however, we are relying on Akzo's home

market sales as the basis for normal value since the company submitted

information showing that the home market was viable. Because of this

change in comparison markets, it is highly doubtful that, between the

two proceedings, there would be a sufficient number of common non-U.S.

products from which to draw any conclusions regarding revisions to

standard costs.

Secondly, Akzo grouped together products defined as ``identical''

in accordance with our hierarchy of physical characteristics. Akzo then

computed a single weighted-average standard cost for these products

based on production quantities. From the investigation to this review,

changes in relative production quantities of the various Akzo products

within any single product group could significantly change the

weighted-average standard costs Akzo submitted. Thus, we determined

that conducting a meaningful comparison of cost figures between the two

segments would be difficult without first knowing the specific products

and production quantities within each reported COP and CV figure.

Accordingly, the Department appropriately rejected the petitioner's

request to put standard costs from the LTFV investigation on the record

in this review.

Comment 4: The petitioner claims Akzo excluded maintenance costs by

allocating these costs over a twenty-four month period, seven months of

which fall outside the period of review (POR). Since the POR shutdown

of Akzo's production operations occurred less than two years after the

previous shutdown, the petitioner believes that a twenty-four month

amortization period is too long.

Akzo argues that no maintenance costs related to the shutdown in

1995 were excluded from the POR costs. Akzo claims that, under its

normal standard cost allocation methodology, a portion of its shutdown

maintenance costs are amortized over a twenty-four month period, while

another portion is expensed in the month incurred. For submission

purposes, Akzo amortized all shutdown maintenance costs over the same

twenty-four month period. Accordingly, Akzo asserts that it

appropriately excluded the costs attributable to those months outside

the cost reporting period. Akzo notes that it used the same twenty-four

month amortization period for the same type of shutdown maintenance

costs in the original investigation. The only difference is that the

shutdown in plant operations occurred before the period of

investigation (POI) (i.e., amortized costs from shutdown were

recognized in later months during the POI), whereas in this review the

shutdown took place during the POR, resulting in a portion of amortized

costs being carried outside the POR.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that its submitted

methodology for reporting shutdown maintenance costs reasonably

reflects the company's costs during the POR and follows the method used

in the original investigation. Approximately every two years, the

company shuts down its plants to perform maintenance on its plant and

equipment. In the LTFV investigation, Akzo recognized amortized costs

during the POI that related to a shutdown that occurred before the POI.

We consider it reasonable to amortize the same types of costs over a

time period consistent with the methodology that we accepted during the

LTFV investigation even though, in the instant review, this methodology

results in allocating costs incurred during the POR to months outside

the POR.

Comment 5: The petitioner contends that Akzo's goodwill

amortization expense failed to account for certain proprietary expenses

incurred by the company that should be included in its production costs

for the POR. According to the petitioner, if the Department does not

recalculate goodwill to include these expenses, then it should reduce

constructed export price (CEP) by the amount of these expenses.

Akzo claims its goodwill calculation includes all necessary

adjustments to cost. However, Akzo contends that, if the Department

adopts the alternative approach set forth in its July 11, 1996 memo,

then this issue is moot.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. Since we utilized the

alternative approach discussed in Comment 1, this issue is moot. Due to

the proprietary nature of this issue, we have addressed this comment in

our September 25, 1996 Cost of Production Analysis Memorandum.

Comment 6: According to the petitioner, the Department should

exclude Akzo's reported insurance credit because it does not relate to

costs incurred during the POR.

Akzo argues that the insurance credit is properly included in its

reported general expenses. According to Akzo, the insurance credit

relates to its unexpected operational problem. Akzo claims its

situation is similar to the circumstances in the LTFV investigation of

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Furfuryl Alcohol

from Thailand, 60 FR 22557, 22561 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol from

Thailand), where the Department allowed the respondent to offset its

submitted COP by the insurance proceeds received due to an unexpected

equipment failure.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that it should be allowed

to reduce its POR production costs for the insurance proceeds. During

the POR, the company incurred higher-than-normal per unit costs due to

an operational problem at its Emmen production facility. Akzo

maintained an insurance policy under which it was reimbursed for cost

overruns incurred as a result of such problems. Thus, the insurance

credit Akzo received related directly to the higher-than-normal per

unit production costs incurred by the company. Accordingly, we consider

it appropriate for Akzo to include the insurance reimbursement as a

reduction to its submitted costs. See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand.

Comment 7: The petitioner objects to Akzo's inclusion of a certain

non-operating income amount as an offset to general and administrative

expenses (G&A). According to the petitioner, the income item in

question does not relate to either U.S. or home market sales of subject

merchandise, and therefore should not be allowed as a reduction in

Akzo's G&A expense.

Akzo argues that the non-operating income item is properly included

in its reported G&A expenses because this amount relates to the general

operations of the company. Moreover, Akzo notes that the Department

accounted for this item as part of G&A expense in the original LTFV

investigation.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that it appropriately

included the non-operating income amount in its submitted G&A expense

calculation. As stated in the original LTFV investigation of this case,

this amount relates to the general operations of the company (i.e., a

general expense rather than a direct cost of production). See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Aramid Fiber Formed of

Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands, 59 FR 23686,

23690 (comment 17) (May 6, 1994).

Comment 8: The petitioner argues that the Department is authorized

to reduce normal value by a CEP offset only if (1) different levels of

trade (LOT) exist between U.S. and home market sales, (2)

[[Page 51409]]

the data on the record do not provide an appropriate basis to make an

LOT adjustment and (3) normal value is established at a more advanced

stage of distribution than the CEP. Petitioner contends that Akzo

merely asserted, without any evidence, that it was entitled to a CEP

offset because its U.S. sales were based on CEP. Petitioner argues that

the treatment of U.S. sales as CEP transactions does not by itself

establish that different LOTs exist, nor does it relieve respondent of

the requirement that it substantiate the necessity for an LOT

adjustment as a predicate to obtaining the CEP offset. Petitioner

asserts that the SAA states: ``only where different functions at

different levels of trade are established under section

773(a)(7)(A)(i), but the data available do not form an appropriate

basis for determining a level of trade adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A)(ii), will Commerce make a constructed export price offset

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(B).'' Petitioner asserts that Akzo

did not demonstrate that different LOTs exist between U.S. and home

market sales and that an LOT adjustment is warranted.

Petitioner argues that Akzo's position closely parallels that of

the respondent Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) in Large

Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, whether Assembled or

Unassembled, from Japan: Final Determination of Sales at Less than

Normal Value, 61 FR 38189 (July 23, 1996) (Large Newspaper Printing

Presses from Japan). Petitioner asserts that MHI did not claim an LOT

adjustment, and failed to establish that LOT differences exist between

U.S. and home market sales. Petitioner argues that, in that case, MHI

claimed that, if the Department uses CEP analysis for its U.S. sales,

an LOT adjustment must be made because CEP analysis removes economic

activities which change the LOT for U.S. sales. Petitioner argues that

MHI claimed it was entitled to a CEP offset because the record did not

contain data permitting an actual LOT adjustment.

Petitioner states that the Department rejected the respondent's

claim in Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan. Petitioner

asserts that the Department determined that, without first establishing

the basis for LOT adjustment, a CEP offset is not authorized.

Petitioner argues that Akzo, like the respondent in Large Newspaper

Printing Presses from Japan, asserts that the mere use of CEP analysis

is sufficient to establish that different LOT exist. Petitioner argues

that the Department should reject this argument, as it did in Large

Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan.

Akzo maintains that the 773(a)(7) of the Act directs the Department

to deduct the CEP offset in the following situation:

When normal value is established at a level of trade which

constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than the level of

trade of the constructed export price, but the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis to determine under subparagraph (A)(ii)

a level of trade adjustment, normal value shall be reduced by the

amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the country in which

normal value is determined on sales of the foreign like product but

not more than the amount of such expenses for which a deduction is

made under section 772(d)(1)(D).

19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(7)(B).

Akzo argues that the Department's decision to grant the CEP offset

was not made solely because CEP was used. Instead, Akzo claims, it was

based on Akzo's demonstration that different LOTs exist between the two

markets, the home market was at a more advanced stage of distribution

than the LOT of the CEP, and the LOT adjustment could not be

quantified. Akzo also contends that it calculated and supplied the

indirect selling expenses needed to measure the CEP offset. Akzo argues

that it submitted the information related to the selling functions for

the relevant comparison value. Akzo contends that the petitioner never

objected to Akzo's claim or request for offset during the antidumping

proceeding. Akzo argues that it fully responded to the Department's

requests for information.

Akzo notes that, in the Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan

case that the petitioner relied upon, the Department specifically

distinguished the circumstances compelling rejection of the offset from

the facts of this review.

Akzo argues that petitioner claims that the channels of trade and

selling activities in each market are identical, but fails to compare

the LOTs at the appropriate points. Akzo argues that the only

undisputed aspect of the CEP offset in any proceeding to date is that

the net CEP (i.e., after statutory adjustments on the U.S. side), not

the selling price to the unrelated purchaser, is the starting point for

determining whether there are differences in the LOT. Akzo argues that

the petitioner focuses on the U.S. price before adjustments are made

under Section 772(d).

Akzo maintains that the clearest standards from recent Department

decisions for the criteria used in granting the offset is Antifriction

Bearings (Other than Taper Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Thailand and the

United Kingdom, 61 FR 35713, (AFBs from France). The test for

determining whether different levels of trade exist was described as

follows:

To test the claimed levels of trade, we analyzed the selling

activities associated with the channels of distribution respondents

reported. In applying this test, we expect that, if claimed levels

of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller

should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of

trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and

activities of the seller should be dissimilar.

AFBs from France 61 FR 35718. Akzo argues that the circumstances of

this case fit squarely with those of AFBs from France.

Akzo argues that the fact that the Department contrasted the facts

in Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan with the preliminary

results in the present case is evidence enough that the circumstances

are different. Akzo argues that having used the aramid fiber

preliminary results as the standard in Large Newspaper Printing Presses

from Japan, it would be inappropriate for the Department to reverse the

decision in the final results.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. In identifying the LOT

for CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities reflected in

the U.S. price after deduction of expenses and profit under section

772(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we

consider the selling functions reflected in the starting price of the

home market sales before any adjustments.

Unlike Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan, the respondent

in this case provided the information necessary to determine that LOT

differences exist between the U.S. and home market sales. As explained

in the preliminary results of this case, the facts on the record of

this review establish that there is one LOT in the United States, and

that the selling activities associated with the LOT of the CEP sales to

the United States are different than the selling functions for sales in

the home market. Further, the sales of PPD-T aramid fiber in the home

market are at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP level

of trade. Because the sales of PPD-T aramid fiber in the home market

were all made at one LOT and there was no information regarding sales

of other products by Akzo in the home market, any differences in the

LOTs could not be quantified. Alternatively, there was no other

information on the selling activities of other producers of the same

[[Page 51410]]

product or other similar products on the record on which to base a LOT

adjustment. See Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene

Terephthalamide from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 15766 (April 9, 1996).

Therefore, a CEP offset is appropriate, and we are continuing to grant

a CEP offset for these final results.

Final Results of Review

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

weighted-average margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)

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

Akzo.................................... 12/16/93-05/31/95 22.03

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between export price and normal value may vary from the

percentage 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 PPD-T aramid fiber from the Netherlands entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed 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) for all other producers and/or exporters of

this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 66.92 percent, the

``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 32678,

June 24, 1994). 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 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 25, 1996.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-25246 Filed 10-1-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P