Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-580-811]

Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review

of the antidumping duty order

[[Page 55966]]

on steel wire rope from Korea (61 FR 20233). The review covers 25

manufacturers/exporters for the period March 1, 1994, through February

28, 1995 (the POR). We have analyzed the comments received on our

preliminary results and have determined that no changes in the margin

calculations are required. The final weighted-average dumping margins

for each of the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled

``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Barlow, Matthew Rosenbaum,

or Kris Campbell, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 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).

Background

On May 6, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register

the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from the Republic of Korea

(61 FR 20233) (Preliminary Results). We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received case

briefs from the petitioner, the Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope

and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (the Committee), and rebuttal briefs

from six respondents including Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd. (Chung Woo),

Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd. (Chun Kee), Manho Rope & Wire Ltd.

(Manho), Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Kumho), Ssang Yong Steel Wire

Co., Inc. (Ssang Yong), and Sungjin Company (Sungjin). There was no

request for a hearing. The Department has conducted this review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is steel wire rope. Steel wire

rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel,

other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into

articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of these

products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and

7312.10.9090. Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope,

i.e., ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded wire, of stainless

steel, not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, which is

classifiable under HTS subheading 7312.10.6000. Although HTS

subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our own

written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We have determined, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act,

that the use of facts available is appropriate for Boo Kook Corp.,

Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Hanboo Rope, Jinyang Wire Rope Inc., and

Seo Jin Rope because they did not respond to our antidumping

questionnaire. We find that these firms have withheld ``information

that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore,

we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is

appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of these

companies because they failed to cooperate by not responding to our

questionnaire.

Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a

respondent in an administrative review on facts otherwise available

because that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act

authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the interests of that

respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act

also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available

information derived from the petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or other information placed on the

record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall,

to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply

that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information

to be used has probative value. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.,

2d sess. 870 (1994).)

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the

extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the

information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,

such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent

sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative

review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a

calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is

not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time

period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,

the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as

to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not

relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard

the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded

the highest margin as adverse best information available (BIA) because

the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business

expense resulting in an unusually high margin).

For a discussion of our application of facts available regarding

specific firms, see our response to Comment 1 below.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: The Committee argues that, for all uncooperative

respondents, the Department must apply a rate of 23.5 percent because

the rate of 1.51 percent used in the preliminary results undercuts the

cooperation-inducing purpose of the facts available provision. The

Committee contends that the Department is permitted to draw an adverse

inference where a party has not cooperated in a proceeding (citing the

SAA at 199). The Committee further asserts that the SAA (at 200)

directs the Department, in employing adverse inferences, to consider

the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of

cooperation.

The Committee references the Department's policy of applying an

uncooperative rate based on the higher of (1) the highest of the rates

found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the

less than fair value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative

reviews; or (2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for

any firm.1 The Committee

[[Page 55967]]

claims that the Department has used a higher rate than that established

under this practice where the uncooperative rate was not sufficiently

adverse to induce the respondents to submit timely, accurate and

complete questionnaire responses. The Committee cites Silicon Metal

From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 65336, 65337 (December 14, 1993) (Silicon Metal), and

Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 41876 (August 14, 1995)

(Pipe Fittings) in support of its position that the Department must use

a sufficiently adverse uncooperative facts available rate to ensure

that the respondent does not obtain a more favorable result by failing

to cooperate. The Committee notes that, in these cases, the Department

used a higher rate than derived using the standard two-tiered approach

to derive the uncooperative rate. The Committee argues that the

Department should once again deviate from its standard uncooperative

rate determination practice since the dumping margin assigned to

uncooperative respondents in this steel wire rope proceeding (1.5

percent) has failed to induce the submission of questionnaire responses

by a majority of respondents.

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

\1\ The Committee refers to this standard as the first tier in

the Department's traditional two-tiered BIA methodology, but points

out that the Department has not yet explicitly applied the two-

tiered methodology to administrative reviews initiated under the

URAA. We note that our practice regarding the derivation of the

dumping rate for uncooperative respondents has not changed for

reviews conducted pursuant to URAA procedures. (see Antifriction

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

France, et al.: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 35713, 35715 (July 8, 1996)).

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

In calculating what it views as an appropriate facts available

rate, the Committee compared a price quotation of a single steel wire

rope product from a Korean steel wire rope producer subject to this

proceeding to the constructed value of this product, derived from

various industry sources. The Committee calculates a dumping rate of

23.5 percent using this approach and claims that this rate is a more

appropriate ``uncooperative'' rate than the 1.51 percent rate the

Department used in the preliminary results. The Committee cites Sodium

Thiosulfate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 12934 (March 8, 1993)

(Sodium Thiosulfate), in support of calculating a revised facts

available rate in light of documented changes in manufacturing costs

and import prices. It contends that, from the first quarter of the

1992-94 POR to the last quarter of the 1994-95 POR, the manufacturing

costs of steel wire rope increased significantly, while the value of

imports of carbon steel wire rope declined. The Committee contends that

the increase in manufacturing costs is not reflected in the price of

steel wire rope exported to the United States and that this is

indicative of continuing sales of steel wire rope at less than fair

market value.

Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee and find that

reliance on petitioner-supplied data as a basis for facts available

would be inappropriate in the context of this review. The Department

has broad discretion in determining what constitutes facts available in

a given situation. Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp

789 (CIT 1993) at 792; see also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United

States, 996 F.2d. 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) at 1191, which states

``[b]ecause Congress has `explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill'

in determining what constitutes the [best information available], the

ITA's construction of the statute must be accorded considerable

deference,'' citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 833-44 (1984).

In any given review, a respondent will have knowledge of the

antidumping rates from the investigation and past reviews but not of

the rates that will be established in the ongoing review. Because under

our facts available policy we consider the highest rate from the

current review as one possible source of facts available, potentially

uncooperative respondents will generally be less able to predict their

facts available rate as the number of participants in the ongoing

review increases. Thus, the facts available methodology induces

respondents to participate and receive their own known rates as opposed

to a potentially much higher unknown rate. Accordingly, this

uncertainty in the facts available margin rate which may be selected

satisfies the cooperation-inducing function of the facts available

provision in this case.

In addition, respondents have an incentive to respond to our

request for information because of the possibility of eventual

revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to the company. A

respondent that does not participate in the administrative review is

not eligible for revocation. Hence, a further reason the rate assigned

to the uncooperative respondents in this review may be considered

adverse is because it results in respondents remaining subject to the

order without eligibility for revocation.

We recognize that there are instances in which the uncooperative

rate resulting from our standard methodology may not induce respondents

to cooperate in subsequent segments of the proceeding. The few cases in

which we have not relied on this approach have involved an extremely

limited number of participants, and therefore a consequently small

number of rates available for use as a basis for the uncooperative

rate.2 For instance, in Sodium Thiosulfate, we used information

supplied by the petitioner to establish the uncooperative rate for the

only respondent that had shipments of subject merchandise during the

POR. Similarly, in Silicon Metal, we resorted to petitioner-supplied

data where we had a calculated rate for only one firm: ``[i]n this

instance, we have only Andina's rate from the LTFV investigation * * *.

Because Andina's rate is also the `all other' rate, Silarsa would be

assured a rate no higher than Andina's, the only respondent who

cooperated fully with the Department in this administrative review. The

use of the uncooperative BIA methodology, in this instance, restricts

the field of potential BIA rates to the rate established for one

firm.'' Silicon Metal, at 65336 and 65337 (emphasis added).

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

\2\ As noted, although we have explained our practice in terms

of a two-tiered methodology in pre-URAA reviews, the cases where we

deviated from this approach, as cited by the Committee, involved

first-tier, uncooperative respondents, and our practice regarding

the derivation of the dumping margin assigned to uncooperative

companies has not changed.

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

Our determination in Pipe Fittings is a further example of a

situation in which the circumstances of the case clearly demonstrated

that the uncooperative rate was not sufficient to induce the respondent

to cooperate. In Pipe Fittings, we applied a petition-based rate to a

non-responsive company that was the only company to have ever been

investigated or reviewed: ``[we] have only calculated one margin, which

was in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Due to the

unusual situation, we have determined to use as BIA the simple average

of the rates from the petition * * *. In not responding to our requests

for information, Tupy could be relying upon our normal BIA practice to

lock in a rate that is capped at its LTFV rate'' (see Pipe Fittings at

41877-78).

The concern in such cases with respect to the uncooperative rate

methodology is that the lack of past rates, as well as the small number

of participants in the current review, could allow a respondent in such

a review to

[[Page 55968]]

manipulate the proceeding by choosing not to comply with our requests

for information. In such cases the cooperation-inducing function of the

facts available provision of the Act may not be achieved by use of the

uncooperative rate methodology, in which case the Department will

resort to alternative sources in determining the appropriate rate for

uncooperative respondents.

The cases cited by the Committee in support of its position

establish only that we will consider, on a case-by-case basis as

appropriate, petitioner-supplied data in situations involving a number

of calculated rates insufficient to induce cooperation by respondents

in the proceeding. In those cases, we did not have rates for more than

one company and therefore determined that the use of a BIA rate higher

than the highest rate in the history of the case was appropriate to

encourage future cooperation.

Because we have calculated rates from three companies in the LTFV

final determination, eight companies in the first review, and six

companies in this review, the concern over potential manipulation of

antidumping rates cited in Sodium Thiosulfate, Silicon Metal, and Pipe

Fittings does not exist in the present case. The lack of alternative

information and the substantial amount of primary information on the

record lead us to conclude that the Committee's information is inferior

to the primary information. Therefore, we are satisfied that selection

of the highest of these rates is appropriate for facts available for

this review, is consistent with our practice, and is sufficiently

adverse.

Comment 2: The Committee contends that the Department failed to

adjust Ssang Yong's home market price for ``other bank charges'' and

differences in merchandise (DIFMER). The Committee also contends that

the Department failed to deduct international freight and marine

insurance in calculating Ssang Yong's U.S. price (USP).

Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee. We

appropriately adjusted for other bank charges and differences in

merchandise in calculating normal value and for international freight

and marine insurance in calculating USP. When disclosing the materials

used in the preliminary results, we inadvertently attached Sung Jin's

cover page to Ssang Yong's computer program. Although we did not make

these adjustments in Sun Jin's program (because they were not

appropriate for that company), we did make such adjustments in Ssang

Yong's program.

Comment 3: The Committee states that the Department correctly

rejected claims by Chung Woo, Ltd., Kumho and Ssang Yong for duty

drawback because these companies did not demonstrate the requisite

connection between imports for which they paid duties and exports of

steel wire rope. The Committee argues that these respondents failed to

meet the requirements of the Department's two-pronged test for

determining whether a party is entitled to an adjustment to USP for

duty drawback because they have not shown that: (1) The import duty and

the rebate received under the ``simplified'' Korean drawback program

are directly linked, and (2) there were sufficient raw material inputs

to account for duty drawback received on exports of steel wire rope.

The committee claims that this test has been upheld by the Court of

International Trade, citing Far East Machinery Co. v. United States, 12

CIT 972, 699 F. Supp. 309 (1988).

Respondents argue that the duty drawback amount received is tied

directly to the amount of the export sales on which it is based and

that this amount constitutes the rebate of a tax imposed directly upon

the foreign like product, with in the meaning of Section 773(a)(6)(iii)

of the Act. Respondents urge the Department to adjust USP for their

claimed duty drawback amounts.

Department's Position: We agree with the Committee and have not

granted the adjustment for the simplified duty drawback amounts

received by Chung Woo, Kumho, and Ssang Yong. As we stated in the

preliminary results, we did not adjust the USP for duty drawback for

respondents that reported it using the simplified method.

As noted by the Committee, we apply a two-pronged test to determine

whether a respondent has fulfilled the statutory requirements for a

duty drawback adjustment (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered

Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 10900, 10950

(February 28, 1995)). Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides for an

upward adjustment to USP for duty drawback on import duties which have

been rebated (or which have not been collected) by reason of the

exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States. In

accordance with this provision, we will grant a duty drawback

adjustment if we determine that (1) import duties and rebates are

directly linked to and are dependent upon one another, and (2) the

company claiming the adjustment can demonstrate that there are

sufficient imports of raw materials to account for the duty drawback

received on exports of the manufactured product. The CIT consistently

has accepted this application of the law. See Far Eastern Machinery,

688 F. Supp. at 612, aff'd. on remand, 699 F. Supp. at 311; Carlisle

Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 657 F. Supp. 1287, 1289 (1987);

Huffy Corp. v. United States, 10 CIT 215-216, 632 F. Supp.

The Department's two-pronged test meets the requirements of the

statute. The first prong of the test requires the Department ``to

analyze whether the foreign country in question makes entitlement to

duty drawback dependent upon the payment of import duties.'' Far East

Machinery, 699 F. Supp. at 311. This ensures that a duty drawback

adjustment will be made only where the drawback received by the

manufacturer is contingent on import duties paid or accrued. The second

prong requires the foreign producer to show that it imported a

sufficient amount of raw materials (upon which it paid import duties)

to account for the exports, based on which it claimed rebates. Id.

The respondents that reported duty drawback under the Korean

simplified method fail both prongs of this test. With respect to the

first criterion, these respondents stated in their rebuttal brief that

the Korean government determines the simplified drawback amount using

average import duties paid by companies that claimed duty drawback

through the individual reporting method. (Companies that claim drawback

using the individual, not simplified, reporting method must provide

information to the government regarding actual import duties paid on

inputs used in the production of the exported merchandise for which

they claim drawback.) Accordingly, unlike companies that claimed

drawback using the individual reporting method (see Comment 4, below),

the companies that used the simplified reporting method were unable to

demonstrate a connection between payment of import duties and receipt

of duty drawback on exports of steel wire rope. Such companies also

fail the second prong of our test because they did not demonstrate that

they had sufficient imports of raw materials to account for the duty

drawback received on exports of the manufactured product. Therefore we

have not adjusted USP for drawback claimed by Chung Woo, Kumho, and

Ssang Yong.

Comment 4: The Committee argues that the Department should not

adjust the USP for duty drawback claimed by Chun Kee and Manho. It

claims that, even though these companies claim that

[[Page 55969]]

they use the individual duty drawback method, neither company

demonstrated that it has fulfilled the second prong of the Department's

test by showing that there were sufficient imports of raw materials to

account for the duty drawback received on the exports of the subject

merchandise. The Committee contends that the Department's questionnaire

requires respondents to explain how duty drawback is calculated and to

provide worksheets in support of the narrative response. The Committee

claims that neither respondent made any attempt to demonstrate that

there were sufficient raw material imports to account for the duty

drawback received on the exports of the manufactured product, nor did

respondents provide any calculations in support of their claimed

adjustment aside from listing the amount of duty drawback received.

Respondents contend that the Department verified in a prior review

the system under which duty drawback was received and that they

accurately responded to the Department's questionnaires in the present

review. They claim that they answered all of the questions regarding

duty drawback, and, if the Committee believed that the responses of

both companies were inadequate, the Committee should have raised the

issue prior to the issuance of the preliminary results of review.

Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee. We are

satisfied that, under the individual method of applying for duty

drawback, Korean companies are required to provide adequate information

that shows that they had sufficient imports of raw materials to account

for the duty drawback received on exports of the manufactured product.

This satisfies the second prong of the duty drawback test as mentioned

above and is consistent with our practice in the preliminary and final

results of the first review. See Preliminary Results at 14421, 14422

and Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 63499, 63506 (December

11, 1995). In addition, we are satisfied that under the individual duty

drawback method Korea makes entitlement to duty drawback dependent upon

the payment of import duties, which satisfies the first prong of the

duty drawback test.

Comment 5: The Committee contends that the Department should not

adjust Sung Jin and Ssang Yong's home market prices for credit

expenses. The Committee claims that Sung Jin failed to provide adequate

documentation in response to the Department's initial and supplemental

requests for information regarding this expense. Specifically, the

Committee provides three reasons to support its argument that Sung

Jin's response was insufficient to support the claimed adjustment, as

follows: (1) Sung Jin failed to provide any documentary support for the

balance of short-term borrowing for October 1994 as required by the

Department; (2) the sample documents provided by Sung Jin in support of

the interest paid refer to only one of the banks to which Sung Jin paid

interest; and (3) there is no documentary evidence in support of the

interest paid or the balance of short-term borrowing except for one

month in 1994.

The Committee claims that Ssang Yong failed to: (1) Provide any

documentary support for its cumulative daily balance; (2) provide

worksheets describing how it calculated each customer-specific

collection period; and (3) report the average collection period for

certain home market customers for which a home market credit expense

was claimed. The Committee cites Sonco Steel Tube Div., Ferrum, Inc. v.

United States, 12 CIT 745, 751, 694 F. Supp. 959, 964 (1988), quoted in

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 17 CIT 1185, 1188, 837 F. Supp. 437 (1993),

in support of its argument that the burden of demonstrating entitlement

to a circumstance-of-sale adjustment is on the party requesting the

adjustment.

Respondents assert that both Sung Jin and Ssang Yong responded

fully to the Department's questionnaire and that the Department decided

correctly that the responses were adequate. They claim that they gave

details concerning their home market credit expense as requested and

that the Department acknowledged their validity implicitly by accepting

the information provided and using it in its preliminary results of

review.

Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee and have

accepted respondents claims for an adjustment to home market prices for

credit expenses. Both companies responded adequately to our initial and

supplemental questionnaires regarding this expense.

Our initial questionnaire requested an explanation of the

calculation of the credit expense, including the source of the short-

term interest rates used in this calculation. Sung Jin provided a

general explanation of the credit expense and, regarding the short-term

interest used in this calculation, provided the loan balance and

interest payments for each month of 1994 (Sung Jin calculated its POR-

average short-term rate by dividing interest paid over loans received).

In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked Sung Jin to provide further

information regarding the source of the interest rates used in

calculating this expense. Sung Jin provided a sample of source

documentation to back up its calculation of the short-term interest

rate. Specifically, the company provided the names of the banks from

which they borrowed during one of the POR months (October 1994), as

well as a sample bank statement.

We consider this information provided by Sung Jin to be responsive

to our requests for information. We did not ask Sung Jin to provide all

backup documentation to support its calculation of its short-term

interest rate but instead requested that the company provide the source

of its calculated rate. In Sung Jin's case, this source is the monthly

loan balances and interest payments made by the company during 1994.

Sung Jin appropriately provided each monthly loan balance and interest

payment, and it provided source documentation regarding one of the POR

months. In addition, Sung Jin adequately explained its overall

calculation of its credit expense.

For Ssang Yong, we are also satisfied that it provided adequate

information regarding the calculation of its credit expense. While, as

the Committee argued, Ssang Yong did not provide source documents

regarding its cumulative daily loan balance and interest incurred

(which Ssang Yong used to calculate its short-term interest rate), we

did not ask for backup documentary support for its cumulative daily

balance but instead asked for the source of the interest rate, which it

did provide. With respect to the customer-specific average collection

period, Ssang Yong provided such periods for most of its customers and

provided a detailed breakout of the calculation of this period for one

customer. The calculation methodology Ssang Yong used was the same for

each customer. We are satisfied that Ssang Yong provided accurate

responses to our requests for information.

Comment 6: The Committee contends that the Department erred in

indicating that Myung Jin had no individual rate from any prior segment

of this proceeding. It claims that, in the course of assigning Myung

Jin a no-shipments rate, the Department mistakenly stated that Myung

Jin has no individual rate from any segment of this proceeding. The

Committee asserts that Myung Jin has a prior rate of 1.51 percent from

the 1992-1994 administrative review and that, in accordance with

Department precedent, a respondent with no shipments during the POR

should receive the same rate that it most recently received in a

previously completed segment of the proceeding.

[[Page 55970]]

Department's Position: We agree with the Committee that Myung Jin

previously received a rate of 1.51 percent. This is the rate assigned

to it in the 1992-1994 administrative review and remains the rate

applicable to Myung Jin, given that it did not make shipments of

subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Final Results of Review

We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1995:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Atlantic & Pacific.......................................... 1.51

Boo Kook Corporation........................................ 1.51

Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd......................... 0.01

Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd..................................... 0.04

Dae Heung Industrial Co..................................... (\1\)

Dae Kyung Metal............................................. 1.51

Dong-Il Metal............................................... 1.51

Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd........................ 1.51

Dong Young Rope............................................. 1.51

Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc....................................... 1.51

Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc...................................... 1.51

Korea Sangsa Co............................................. (\1\)

Korope Co................................................... 1.51

Kumho Rope.................................................. 0.01

Kwang Shin Ind.............................................. 1.51

Kwangshin Rope.............................................. 1.51

Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd...................................... 0.00

Myung Jin Co................................................ (\2\) 1.51

Seo Hae Ind................................................. 1.51

Seo Jin Rope................................................ 1.51

Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd.............................. 0.06

Sung Jin.................................................... 0.00

Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc........................ (\1\)

TSK (Korea) Co., Ltd........................................ (\1\)

Yeonsin Metal............................................... 0.18(\2\)

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

\1\ No shipments subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate

from any segment of this proceeding.

\2\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant

segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.

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

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

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates established above (except that, if the

rate for a firm is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash

deposit of zero will be required for that firm); (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)

if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this

or any previous review or the original investigation, the cash deposit

rate will be 1.51 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the

LTFV Final Determination (58 FR 11029).

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also 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 the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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: October 22, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-27858 Filed 10-29-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P