Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-825]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from SeAH Steel Corporation

(``SeAH''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is

conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

oil country tubular goods from Korea. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States,

SeAH, and the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997, which is the

second period of review (``POR'').

We have preliminarily determined that SeAH made sales below normal

value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final

results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference

between the constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Campau, Steve Bezirganian, or

Steven Presing, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

0409, -0162, or -0194, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are 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 19 CFR

part 351 (62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997).

[[Page 47470]]

Background

On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 41058) the antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods from Korea. On August 4, 1997, the Department published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 41925) a notice indicating an

opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the

period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997, and on August 29, 1997,

SeAH requested an administrative review for its entries during that

period. On September 25, 1997, in accordance with Section 751 of the

Act, we published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an

administrative review of this order for the period August 1, 1996

through July 31, 1997 (62 FR 50292).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend

the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it

determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. On January 30, 1998, the Department

published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary

results in the review to August 31, 1998. See Oil Country Tubular Goods

from Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 4624.

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this order are oil country tubular goods

(``OCTG''), hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including

only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or

steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or

not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API

specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes

and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or

tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe.

The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item

numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40,

7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10,

7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50,

7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20,

7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60,

7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30,

7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80,

7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60,

7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45,

7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,

7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90,

7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10,

7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS item numbers

are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive of the scope of this review.

Comparison Market

The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by

comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison market and U.S. sales.

An exporting country is not considered a viable comparison market if

the aggregate quantity of sales of subject merchandise within it

amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales of subject

merchandise into the U.S. during the POR. Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the

Act; 19 CFR 351.404. We found Korea was not a viable comparison market

because the aggregate quantity of SeAH's sales of subject merchandise

within Korea during the POR amounted to less than five percent of the

quantity of sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR.

According to Section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the price of

sales to a third country can be used as the basis for normal value if

such price is representative, if the aggregate quantity (or, where

appropriate, value) of sales to that country is at least 5 percent of

the quantity (or value) of total sales to the United States, and if the

Department does not determine that the particular market situation in

that country prevents proper comparison with the export price or

constructed export price. The volume and value of sales to Myanmar were

both found to exceed 5 percent of the volume and value of sales to the

United States. We also found the price of SeAH's Myanmar sales to be

representative. (see 1996-1997 Administrative Review of the Antidumping

Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Analysis of

Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for SeAH

Steel Corporation, at 1-2, which is the January 7, 1998 memorandum from

Steve Bezirganian through Steven Presing to Roland MacDonald (``Cost

Allegation Analysis Memorandum''). Further, we found no reason to

determine that the market situation in Myanmar would somehow prevent

proper comparison between normal value and export price or constructed

export price. Id. We therefore found Myanmar to be the appropriate

comparison market per section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.

The only comparison market customer was a Korean trading company

that resold the merchandise to Myanmar customers. SeAH has a joint

venture with that trading company, but it is not involved with the

production of subject merchandise. Accordingly, we do not consider SeAH

and the Korean trading company to be affiliated for purposes of sales

to Myanmar. Further, we have no other information on the record which

indicates that this company should be considered an affiliated party

pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, we have preliminarily

determined not to treat it as such.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the

Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the comparison market

during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no

contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market

to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar

foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in

Appendix V of the Department's September 16, 1997 antidumping

questionnaire.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United

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

Export Price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the ``United States

Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance

with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-

average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transaction

prices.

Interested Party Comments

On August 17, 1998, petitioners submitted comments. On August 19,

1998, SeAH submitted comments. Because of the lateness of these

submissions, we are not able to fully consider them for these

preliminary results.

[[Page 47471]]

United States Price

SeAH produced OCTG in Korea and shipped it to the United States.

Pusan Pipe America, Inc. (``PPA''), an affiliate of SeAH, was the

importer of record. After importation, PPA maintained the merchandise

in inventory. PPA sold OCTG to the Panther division of State Pipe and

Supply Co. (``State''), a firm that is jointly owned by SeAH and PPA.

State, in turn, sold OCTG to unaffiliated U.S. customers, typically

after further manufacturing was performed by unaffiliated processors.

State invoiced the unaffiliated customers and received payment.

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for

calculation of the price to the United States because the first sales

to unaffiliated customers in the United States were made after

importation of the subject merchandise. The starting point for the

calculation of CEP was the delivered price to unaffiliated customers in

the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we

made deductions for movement expenses, including foreign inland

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

and handling, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. In

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted credit

expenses, warranty expenses, early payment discounts and other

discounts, warehousing expenses, other direct selling expenses

(inspection expenses), indirect selling expenses, and inventory

carrying costs. For certain U.S. sales, a domestic court ruled SeAH

should be paid for certain disputed receivables due. However, such

payments have not yet been received by SeAH. Accordingly, these court-

ordered payments have not been taken into account in determining dates

of payment. Should SeAH receive those payments prior to the final, we

will take them into consideration. For our calculations, we set the

payment date (for these U.S. sales) equal to the date of SeAH's last

submission (August 19, 1998) and recalculated credit expense

accordingly.

In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(b) of the Act, we added duty

drawback to the starting price. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. In accordance with section

772(d)(2) of the Act, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing

where such deduction was appropriate. This deduction for further

manufacturing was based on the fees charged by the unaffiliated U.S.

processors; SeAH indicated that the reported further processors'

charges included processing and repacking, and that it did not include

separate G&A or interest expense information related to this further

processing because all of the expenses incurred by State and PPA,

including the minimal G&A and interest expense associated with their

dealings with further processors, were reported as selling expenses.

Finally, we made an adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to

these expenses, when incurred in connection with economic activity in

the United States, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Model Match

In accordance with recent practice, we matched a given U.S. sale to

comparison market sales of the next most similar model if all

contemporaneous sales of the most comparable model were below cost and

discarded from our analysis. The Department uses CV as the basis for NV

only when there are no above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for

comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, in making comparisons in

accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products

sold in the comparison market as described in the ``Scope of Review''

section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of

trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the

comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign

like product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the

characteristics listed in Sections B and C of our antidumping

questionnaire. This methodology is in accordance with the ruling of the

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CEMEX vs. United States,

133 F.3d 897 (Fed Cir. 1998).

B. Cost of Production and Constructed Value

1. Cost of Production: On December 2, 1997, petitioners alleged

that SeAH made comparison market sales of OCTG at prices below the cost

of production (``COP'') during the POR. After analyzing petitioners''

allegation (see the aforementioned Cost Allegation Analysis Memo), the

Department determined that it had reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that sales had been made at prices that were less than the COP.

Therefore, on January 8, 1998, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

the Department initiated a COP investigation of SeAH. We compared sales

of the foreign like product in the comparison market with the model-

specific COP figure for the POR. In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of

materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like

product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses,

including all costs and expenses incidental to placing the foreign like

product in condition packed and ready for shipment. In our COP

analysis, we used comparison market sales and COP information provided

by the respondent in its questionnaire responses.

The API Specification 5CT, to which SeAH states it makes its OCTG,

requires that a carload lot (considered to be a minimum of 40,000

pounds, or 18.14 metric tons) meet a negative weight tolerance of 1.75%

(i.e., the actual weight of the carload lot can be no less than 100%

minus 1.75%, or 98.25%, of the theoretical weight of the carload, the

latter being the weight basis for SeAH's sales). The weight tolerance

for single lengths of pipe are plus 6.5% and minus 3.5% (i.e., the

actual weight of any given pipe must be between 96.5% and 106.5% of the

theoretical weight). SeAH has reported weight conversion factors that

indicate actual weight was less than 96.5% of theoretical weight,

outside of the API weight tolerance. Weight conversion factors are

needed to convert SeAH's production costs, which for most OCTG products

are maintained on an actual weight basis, to a theoretical weight basis

so that the cost and sales data are on a comparable weight basis.

Petitioners argue that these conversion factors cannot, by

definition, be greater than 1.75% because SeAH does not know at the

time of production whether or not the customers will eventually

purchase carload lots. Petitioners state that the Department should

therefore deny SeAH's conversion factors in their entirety.

SeAH argues that the minus 1.75% tolerance only applies to OCTG

which has an outside diameter of less than 1.660 inches and that it did

not produce or make sales of these products to Myanmar or the United

States. SeAH asserts that it, State, and their customers do not require

that carload lots of the merchandise be weighed, and that it, State,

and their customers do not interpret the API specifications to require

that the carload lots of the merchandise be weighed. SeAH indicates

that it performs a weight-tolerance test for plain-end pipe, to make

sure its weight meets the plus 6.5% and minus 3.5% tolerances, and

[[Page 47472]]

that it performs the same test again, after the further processing

(performed in Korea for Myanmar sales, and by the unaffiliated U.S.

further processors for U.S. sales), to assure that the finished goods

meet the same tolerances.

We find, based on the record, that the minus 1.75% weight tolerance

API specified for carload lots of 5CT applies for all OCTG produced to

that specification, not simply to OCTG with an outside diameter of less

than 1.660 inches. The specification states that ``[a]ll dimensions

shown herein without tolerances are related to the basis for design and

are not subject to measurement to determine acceptance or rejection of

the product,'' and that ``[e]xceptions are Grades C90, T95, and Q125,

which may be furnished in other sizes, weights, and wall thicknesses as

agreed between the purchaser and the manufacturer'' (see API

Specification 5CT at section 7.1, in SeAH's December 24, 1997

submission). The carload lot weight is a dimension (weight) with a

tolerance (minus 1.75%), and none of SeAH's Myanmar or U.S. sales were

of Grades C90, T95, or Q125.

Nevertheless, it does not appear that the API carload lot weight

tolerance would apply to merchandise being transported by ship, which

is the case for SeAH's Myanmar sales and for its U.S. sales to PPA.

These are the transactions that are relevant for cost purposes; the

further manufactured U.S. sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers need not

meet any particular specification, or even be categorized as OCTG. SeAH

stated that its production meets the minus 3.5% and plus 6.5%

tolerance, and there is no clear reason why the actual weight should be

less than 96.5% of the theoretical weight if all of SeAH's OCTG is

produced to the specification. Consequently, for our preliminary

results we have used a conversion factor based on this assumption

(except for products for which costs were maintained on a theoretical

weight basis, which require no weight conversion).

Hot-rolled steel coil is one of the main material inputs used to

manufacture OCTG. SeAH purchased the majority of its hot-rolled steel

coil inputs from Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (``POSCO''). While

SeAH and POSCO are involved in a joint venture that produced non-

subject merchandise, we have no other information on the record which

indicates that these two companies should be considered affiliated

parties pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. Therefore, we have

preliminarily determined that SeAH and POSCO are not affiliated.

After calculating COP, we tested whether comparison market sales of

the foreign like product were made at prices below COP and, if so,

whether the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of

time, in substantial quantities, and at prices that did not permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Because each

individual price was compared against the POR average COP, any sales

that were below cost were also determined not to be at prices which

permitted cost recovery within a reasonable period of time. We compared

model-specific COPs to the reported comparison market prices, less any

applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less

than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model

because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities

within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent's sales of a given model during the POR were at prices less

than the weighted-average COPs for the POR, we disregarded the below-

cost sales because they were made within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and

(C) of the Act, and were at prices which would not permit recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

2. Constructed Value: In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act, we used constructed value (``CV'') as the basis for NV when there

were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of such or similar merchandise

in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with section

773(e) of the Act. We included SeAH's cost of materials and fabrication

(including packing), SG&A expenses, and profit. See section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We applied the same conversion factor

methodology as noted in the COP section above. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on

the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with

the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade for consumption in the comparison market. For selling

expenses, we used the weighted-average comparison market selling

expenses.

C. Price-to-Price Comparison

Where appropriate, for comparison to CEP, we made adjustments to NV

by deducting Korean inland freight, brokerage, handling, and packing,

in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, and by

deducting direct selling expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments for

differences in costs attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at

the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the U.S. sales. The NV LOT is that

of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and

profit. For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the level of

trade analysis is the sale (or constructed sale) from the exporter to

the importer.

To determine whether comparison market NV sales are at a different

LOT than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and

selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer

and unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the

sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of

the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV level is more remote from

the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the

CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 17, 1997), and Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 25826 (May 11, 1998).

SeAH asserted that its comparison market sales were at a different

LOT than its U.S. sales because the comparison market sales are at a

more advanced level of distribution than its sales to State, and

because SeAH performed and incurred all expenses for all significant

selling functions and support services for the comparison market sales,

but did not perform them for its CEP sales made through PPA and State.

SeAH requested a CEP offset to

[[Page 47473]]

reflect these differences (see, e.g., pages 19-21 of SeAH's November

12, 1997, Section B questionnaire response).

In its original questionnaire response, SeAH asserted that it

performs many functions with respect to third country sales that it

does not perform with respect to U.S. sales, such as: gathering

strategic and marketing information including industry developments,

potential new or refined applications, products and sales practices of

customers and competitors, and technical and engineering developments;

establishing pricing policies for OCTG sales based on market conditions

in the third-country market; establishing sales promotional and

marketing strategies, including advertising, promotional activities,

and technical service for third-country market sales; and maintaining a

skilled sales force that is knowledgeable about SeAH's OCTG products

and the OCTG market in the third country market. Therefore, SeAH claims

that it has distinguished different levels of trade for its Myanmar

sales versus its sales to the U.S. importer of record, PPA, by

highlighting ways in which SeAH is deeply involved with, and

knowledgeable about, the Myanmar market.

However, the record indicates that SeAH has greatly overstated the

extent and importance of its activities with respect to the Myanmar

market. For example, at page 14 of its April 3, 1998 supplemental

questionnaire response, SeAH indicated that it does not even know the

identity or location of the customers of the Korean trading company to

which it made its Myanmar sales. While SeAH clarified this point at

page 40 of its June 4, 1998 supplemental questionnaire response by

saying that several documents in the third country sales process

indicate the destination and identity of the ultimate Myanmar

customers, it also noted that it had no contact with those Myanmar

customers, nor did it have any knowledge of the prices that the

unaffiliated Korean trading company charged those Myanmar customers.

SeAH's knowledge of the OCTG market is based on ``customer contacts and

other contacts in the industry'' (see page 13 of the April 3, 1998

supplemental questionnaire response), and based on SeAH's own

statements, such contacts with respect to Myanmar are very limited.

The record does not indicate more than a minimal involvement by

SeAH in either the marketing process or the selling functions

associated with its Myanmar and U.S. sales. There does not appear to be

any substantive difference between the functions performed by SeAH with

respect to the sales to the Korean trading company destined for Myanmar

and the functions performed by SeAH with respect to its sales to PPA,

the affiliated U.S. importer of record. In both instances, SeAH made

sales to resellers that in turn sold to end-users, and the record does

not indicate any more than the most minimal interaction of SeAH with

those resellers (the unaffiliated Korean trading company for the

Myanmar sales, and PPA for the U.S. sales) with respect to the sales

process. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that the sales

in both markets are at the same LOT. Therefore, a CEP offset is not

warranted.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-

average dumping margin for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31,

1997 to be as follows:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

SeAH.................................... 9/1/96-8/31/97 0.35

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to

parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with

these preliminary results within five days after the publication of

this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit

written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs

must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this

notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case

briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit

for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding

are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal

briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR

351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the

date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a

public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal

briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of

rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department will publish the final results of this

administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues

raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing, not later than

120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific

assessment rates. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed

sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each

importer. We will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the

resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the

subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the

relevant order during the review period.

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, as

provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for

each reviewed company will be that established in the final results of

review (except that a deposit of zero will be required for firms with

zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2)

for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV

investigation or previous review, 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 previous

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; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the

``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, which was

12.17 percent. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.

These administrative reviews and notices are published in

accordance with 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

[[Page 47474]]

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Dated: August 31, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-24068 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P