Industrial Nitrocellulose From France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-009]

Industrial Nitrocellulose From France: 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 11, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on industrial nitrocellulose from France. The review covers

Bergerac, N.C. (formerly identified by the name of its parent company,

Societe Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs), and its affiliates for the

period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

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

have made a change in the margin calculations and corrected a

ministerial error. Therefore, the final results differ from the

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Zapf or Lyn Johnson, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Tariff 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 regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (62 FR 27295 (May 19,

1997)).

Background

On May 11, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (63 FR 25828) the preliminary results

of review of the antidumping duty order on industrial nitrocellulose

(INC) from France. The period of review (the POR) is August 1, 1996,

through July 31, 1997. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary

results of review. On June 10, 1998, and June 15, 1998, we received

case and rebuttal briefs from the respondent, Bergerac, N.C.

(Bergerac), and the petitioner, Hercules Incorporated (Hercules). A

public hearing was held on June 18, 1998. Subsequently, we requested

that Bergerac revise its case brief which contained new and untimely

information. We also requested that Bergerac provide additional

information. Bergerac filed responses to our requests on July 13, 1998,

and July 20, 1998, respectively. The Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance with Section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is INC containing between 10.8

and 12.2 percent nitrogen. INC is a dry, white, amorphous synthetic

chemical produced by the action of nitric acid on cellulose. The

product comes in several viscosities and is used to form films in

lacquers, coatings, furniture finishes and printing inks. Imports of

this product are classified under the HTS subheadings 3912.20.00 and

3912.90.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written descriptions of the scope of this

proceeding remain dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Bergerac argues that, in applying the ``special rule''

for merchandise with value added after importation under Section 772(e)

of the Tariff Act, the Department should use as a proxy for these sales

the margin calculated for sales to an unaffiliated customer which

purchased identical merchandise, rather than the margin the Department

calculated on all sales of subject merchandise. To support its

argument, Bergerac cites Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act which

provides that, for further-manufactured merchandise in which the value

added in the United States is likely to exceed substantially the value

of the subject merchandise, the Department shall use either the price

of identical merchandise sold to an unaffiliated person or the price of

other subject merchandise sold to an unaffiliated person to determine

constructed export price (CEP). While recognizing that the statute does

not express a clear preference for either of these options, Bergerac

notes that, in the preamble to the new regulations, the Department has

stated ``whether merchandise is identical may be a factor to consider

in selecting the sales to be substituted for the value added sales,''

citing Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27296 (May 19, 1997) (Final Rule). Bergerac also cites to 19 CFR

351.402 which states that, for the purposes of determining dumping

margins under the special rule above, ``the Secretary may use the

weighted-average dumping margins calculated on sales of identical or

other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons.''

Furthermore, Bergerac insists, the use of the term ``unaffiliated

person'' in the statute requires the use of a margin calculated on

sales to the first purchaser of subject merchandise in the United

States. However, Bergerac contends, by including the margin calculated

for its sales through SNPE N.A., an affiliated company, in its

calculation of the proxy margin, the Department is using a margin

calculated on resales by an affiliated distributor. To interpret

``unaffiliated person'' to mean unaffiliated customers of SNPE,

Bergerac continues, would render the term ``unaffiliated person''

superfluous in the statute since all margins are based on sales to

unaffiliated persons.

Hercules responds that, in the preamble to the Department's new

regulations to which Bergerac refers, the Department merely restates

the content of Section 772(e) of the Tariff Act, citing Final Rule at

27353. Hercules notes that, in this same discussion, the Department

stated that it had little experience with this new statutory provision

and, therefore, was not in a position to provide a great deal of

guidance at that time. Nevertheless, Hercules notes that the Department

subsequently enunciated a preference for using both identical and other

merchandise in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or

Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan,

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR

47452 (September 9, 1997).

Moreover, Hercules argues that, had the Department looked only to

sales to one unaffiliated customer, as suggested by Bergerac, the

Department would have

[[Page 49086]]

taken into account only a small fraction of respondent's U.S. sales and

ignored the majority of Bergerac's U.S. sales. Therefore, Hercules

concludes that the Department's use of the weighted-average margin for

all other U.S. sales as a proxy margin for sales of merchandise with

value added was reasonable and proper under the statute and

regulations.

Department's Position: The purpose of the special rule is to reduce

the Department's administrative burden. See the Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,

H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Congress (1994) (SAA) at 826. Moreover, the

statute does not specify a hierarchy between the alternative methods of

using identical or other subject merchandise to establish export price

(EP). Id. Therefore, it is within the Department's discretion to select

an appropriate method to determine the assessment rate for merchandise

the Department has not examined under the special rule.

After reviewing Bergerac's submitted data, we have determined that

the use of both identical and other subject merchandise is an

appropriate basis for determining the dumping margins for Bergerac's

sales subject to the special rule. If we were to use only the margin we

calculated on sales to one unaffiliated customer of merchandise

identical to the value-added merchandise, as suggested by Bergerac, we

would ignore the majority of U.S. sales and the pricing practices that

these sales entail. This is consistent with the statutory language and

legislative history which explicitly permit the Department to reject a

particular alternative when there is not a sufficient quantity of sales

to provide a reasonable basis for comparison. See Section 772(e) of the

Tariff Act and the SAA at 826.

We also disagree with Bergerac's argument that we should not use

sales in the United States made by its U.S. affiliate. In accordance

with Section 772(b) of the Act, such sales are used as the basis for

establishing U.S. price. Therefore, it is appropriate to include such

sales in the alternative methodology. See also 19 CFR 351.402(c).

Comment 2: Bergerac argues that the Department should include the

sales value of the imported subject merchandise which was further-

manufactured and the estimated duties on those entries in the weighted-

average margin calculations. As support for its argument, Bergerac

points to the Department's analysis memorandum dated April 17, 1998,

which states that the Department calculated the weighted-average margin

based on the total value of sales in the United States and their total

antidumping duties; however, Bergerac argues that, contrary to the

statement in the April 17, 1998, memorandum, the calculations do not

include the value of sales of imported merchandise with value added or

the estimated duties attributed to these sales. Bergerac requests that

the Department revise its weighted-average margin to include such sales

value and duties.

Hercules asserts that the Department was correct in not including

the sales value of imported merchandise with value added or the amount

of the antidumping duty margin attributed to the sales of these

products in the weighted-average margin calculations. In this case,

Hercules contends, the sales of merchandise with value added are, by

definition, calculated on a surrogate basis under the ``special rule''

provisions of Section 772(e) in order to save the Department the

administrative burden of factoring out an exact margin on INC subject

to the special rule.

Department's Position: We disagree with Bergerac that we should

change our methodology for calculating its weighted-average margin.

Based on our methodology, adding surrogate numbers to the numerator and

denominator in our margin calculations would not change the results. As

explained in our response to Comment 1, we are using the margin

calculated on all of Bergerac's other sales as the surrogate for

Bergerac's further-manufactured sales subject to the special rule.

Consequently, any figures added to both the numerator and denominator

of the margin calculation would only ensure the same result. Also, we

disagree with Bergerac's comment that our analysis memorandum

misleadingly refers to the use of total value of U.S. sales and their

total duties. We stated clearly in a footnote on page 1 of that

memorandum that ``the total dumping margin and U.S. value are based

solely on products sold as entered into the United States.'' It is

clear that this statement excludes further-manufactured merchandise

since such merchandise was not ``sold as entered.''

Comment 3: Bergerac argues that the Department should use sales to

distributors in France, who in turn sold the foreign like product to

third countries, to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment instead of

making a CEP-offset adjustment to normal value. Bergerac claims that

the Department should not reject such sales on the grounds that

Bergerac had knowledge of the ultimate destination. Bergerac notes that

one of the statutory requirements for making a CEP-offset adjustment,

instead of a level-of-trade adjustment, is that the data available do

not provide an appropriate basis to determine whether the difference in

levels of trade affects price comparability, citing 19 CFR 351.412(d).

Bergerac argues that, since information is available, the application

of a CEP offset is inappropriate and that a level-of-trade adjustment

is required.

Bergerac argues that, unless it can be proven that there is a

reason to believe that sales to distributors in France are not

representative, such sales should be used for the purpose of

determining a level-of-trade adjustment. Bergerac insists that the use

of the term ``sold for consumption'' in the definition of normal value

should not lead to the conclusion that such sales cannot be used for

quantifying a level-of-trade adjustment. Bergerac also argues that, in

a future administrative review, the ultimate destination of these sales

may be unknown since there is no restriction on distributors to prevent

them from selling the merchandise in France.

Bergerac points out that the SAA (at 830) gives the Department

considerable discretion in determining levels of trade. Similarly,

Bergerac notes that, in situations in which there may be no usable

sales of the foreign like product at a level of trade comparable to the

EP or CEP level of trade, the preamble to the new regulations states:

``...the Department will examine price differences in the home market

either for sales of broader or different product lines or for sales

made by other companies'' (Final Rule at 27372). Bergerac argues that,

if the Department may use sales of other producers, or other products

in different time periods, then the Department should be able to use

sales of the same product by the same producer, despite the fact that

sales in the home market are later sold for export. Bergerac concludes

by urging the Department to exercise its considerable discretion in

this new area of the law so that a fair comparison can be achieved for

Bergerac's U.S. distributor sales.

Hercules responds that the Department denied a level-of-trade

adjustment to Bergerac properly. Citing Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the

Tariff Act, Hercules argues that the amount of a level-of-trade

adjustment should be based on the price difference ``between the two

levels of trade in the country in which normal value is determined.''

Hercules points out that the additional distributor sales that Bergerac

reported belatedly in a supplemental response do not constitute a

second level of trade. These sales, Hercules contends, are clearly

export sales and Hercules points

[[Page 49087]]

out that Bergerac acknowledged this fact in statements throughout its

original questionnaire.

Department's Position: We agree with Hercules that Bergerac's sales

to distributors in France for export should not be used as a basis for

determining a level-of-trade adjustment. As we noted on page 3 of our

analysis memorandum dated April 17, 1998, Section 773(a)(7)(A)(ii) of

the Tariff Act requires us to evaluate the basis for a level-of-trade

adjustment based on sales at different levels of trade in the country

in which normal value is determined. According to Section

773(a)(1)(B)(i), the sales at issue could not be used to calculate

normal value since Bergerac knew that the products were sold for

export; i.e., they were not sold for consumption in the exporting

country. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to compare prices to two

or more different markets (Bergerac's home-market sales with its export

sales) to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment since it would not be

possible to distinguish the price differences due to the different

markets from the price differences due to any level-of-trade

differences. For these reasons, we have not made any changes to our

level-of-trade determination for these final results of review.

Comment 4: Bergerac contends that the Department included certain

sample and trial sales in its home-market database improperly. The

Department should exclude these sample and trial sales from its

calculation of normal value, Bergerac argues, because respondent has

provided sufficient evidence that such sales are outside the ordinary

course of trade. Regarding sample transactions, Bergerac asserts that,

while the Department excluded free samples from its calculations

properly, it should also have eliminated samples which were sold for

monetary consideration (priced samples). As evidence to support its

argument, Bergerac points out that the product code included on the

invoices for these sales contains a suffix which demonstrates that they

are samples. Furthermore, Bergerac states the price for these samples

was high to cover the relatively high cost of shipping and packaging

small quantities.

In addition, Bergerac asserts that its trial sales were outside the

ordinary course of trade. Bergerac argues that, in a supplemental

response, it submitted letters from the customers which demonstrate

that each transaction was for testing purposes only. Bergerac also

contends that the grade of nitrocellulose sold in these cases is a

grade that normally is not sold in France.

While recognizing that the Department determined properly that its

priced samples and trial sales were ``sales'' because they did not lack

consideration in accordance with NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 F. 3d

965, 975 (CAFC 1997) (NSK), Bergerac contends that, in its

determination to retain these transactions, the Department relied

improperly on this qualification alone and did not determine whether

the sales were outside the ordinary course of trade. Bergerac asserts

that NSK is inapplicable to this situation because it dealt with

certain transactions which were not sales and did not address whether

certain sales were outside the ordinary course of trade.

Bergerac asserts that, in determining whether these sales are

outside the ordinary course of trade, the Department must consider all

of the circumstances surrounding the sales in question, citing 19

C.F.R. 351.102(b), Murata Mfg. Co. v. United States, 820 F. Supp. 603,

606-7 (Court of International Trade (C.I.T.) 1993) (Murata), and

Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 18 C.I.T. 965, 1994 WL 591949

(C.I.T. 1994). Bergerac explains that ``the purpose of the ordinary

course of trade provision is to prevent dumping margins from being

based on sales which are not representative,'' citing Monsanto Co. v.

United States, 698 F. Supp. 275, 278 (C.I.T. 1988). Furthermore,

Bergerac argues that the Department has recognized that trial and

sample sales must be excluded from normal value, citing Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) from the Federal Republic of

Germany, 54 FR 18992, 19087 (May 3, 1989), and Antidumping Manual,

Import Administration, revised February 10, 1998, Chapter 8, pages 9-

10.

Hercules disagrees with Bergerac, arguing that the Department

included priced samples and trial sales in its analysis properly.

Hercules contends that the burden of proof to demonstrate that these

sales are outside the ordinary course of trade rests clearly on

Bergerac, citing Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or

Less In Outside Diameter, and Components thereof, From Japan, Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 2558 (January

15, 1998) (Tapered Roller Bearings).

Citing Murata, Hercules contends that the C.I.T. has found that a

respondent did not meet its burden of proof merely by claiming that the

relevant sales were in smaller quantities and at higher prices than

sales of a different model. Hercules argues that Bergerac did not

provide certain information regarding these sample and trial

transactions which the Department requested in a supplemental

questionnaire. Finally, citing Tapered Roller Bearings, Hercules argues

that the Department has previously disallowed the requested exclusion

of sample sales where the respondent has merely stated that the product

is coded as a sample and that the sample prices are generally higher

than for larger-volume shipments. Hercules asserts that this is a

similar situation and that Bergerac has also failed to meet its burden

of proof in this regard.

Department's Position: We disagree with Bergerac that we should

exclude certain home-market sales because they are outside the ordinary

course of trade. Regarding priced samples, while it is clear that the

invoices for these sales indicated that they were sample sales, such

indication is not sufficient to demonstrate that the sale is unique or

unusual or otherwise outside the ordinary course of trade. See

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United

Kingdom, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62

FR 2081 (January 15, 1997) (where, although we verified that certain

sales were designated as samples in a respondent's records, we

determined this was insufficient to find them outside the ordinary

course of trade since such evidence ``merely proves that respondent

identified sales recorded as samples in its own records''). Such

evidence does not indicate that the sales were made outside the

ordinary course of trade for purposes of calculating normal value in

this review. Bergerac's argument that these sales were at a high price

to cover the high cost of shipping small packages does not address the

Department's ``unique or unusual'' standard concerning ordinary course

of trade. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof,

Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany (61 FR 38166, July 23,

1996) as discussed in Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

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

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews (62 FR 54043, at 54065-54066,

October 17, 1997).

Regarding trial sales which Bergerac claims are outside the

ordinary course of trade, the respondent has not met its burden to

demonstrate that these sales are unique or unusual or otherwise outside

the ordinary course of trade.

[[Page 49088]]

First, while Bergerac claims that it does not usually sell this grade

of INC in France, it sells this product to the U.S. market frequently

as indicated by its sales database. Furthermore, although Bergerac

argues that it submitted letters from each of the trial-sale customers

demonstrating that, in each case, the product was used for testing

purposes only, the letters it provided are not convincing. One of the

letters appears to be from Bergerac to the customer, rather than from

the customer to Bergerac (as the respondent claims), and does not

indicate that any testing was conducted (or was to be conducted) by the

customer. Also, while Bergerac claimed in its January 20, 1998,

supplemental response that this trial was unsuccessful, it did not

submit any evidence to establish this fact. Regarding other trial

sales, another letter from the customer to Bergerac does discuss

testing, but this letter is dated after our request for documentation

of the trial sales and not at the time of the sales. (Because of the

proprietary nature of the contents of these letters, please see the

August 31, 1998, analysis memorandum for a more detailed discussion of

this matter.) Finally, we found that these trial sales were made in

quantities similar to other sales, supporting the possibility that the

product was used for production purposes.

Regarding both priced samples and trial transactions, Bergerac

failed to provide certain information which we requested in a

supplemental questionnaire specifically in order to determine whether

these transactions were outside the ordinary course of trade. For

example, regarding both types of sales at issue, Bergerac did not

respond as to whether the customer had purchased these particular items

previously. For these reasons, the record is incomplete as to whether

sales of these products were made to these customers prior to the dates

of the claimed sample and trial transactions and we have retained them

for use in our calculation of normal value.

We also disagree with Bergerac's assertion that we relied on an

incorrect standard for determining whether to include claimed sample

and trial sales in our calculation of normal value. We first evaluated,

under the NSK standard, whether these transactions were in fact

``sales'' involving monetary consideration. Where we determined that

the transactions involved monetary consideration, we then examined,

based upon information in Bergerac's response, whether these sales were

within the ordinary course of trade according to Section 771(a)(1)(B)

of the Tariff Act. (See page 5 of April 17, 1998, Analysis Memo.)

According to this standard and for reasons discussed above, we find

that Bergerac has not met its burden of proof in demonstrating that the

sales in question are outside the ordinary course of trade.

Comment 5: Hercules argues that, although Bergerac denied that it

sold any subject merchandise which was below specification, its

responses demonstrate that Bergerac did not account properly for the

production of below-specification INC in its sales databases. Hercules

contends that the Department should instruct Bergerac to submit

supportive data regarding the production and sale of ``off-spec''

merchandise in order to determine whether there were any sales of such

merchandise in the home market. This additional request for information

after the preliminary results is necessary, Hercules asserts, because

the Department must not compare sales of off-spec or less-than-prime

merchandise to U.S. sales of prime merchandise.

Bergerac rebuts Hercules' comment by denying that a request for

supplemental information is necessary, stating that it reexamined its

quality-control records in response to Hercules' comment. As a result

of this search, Bergerac identified in its rebuttal brief where it had

sold off-spec merchandise in the home market. In addition, Bergerac

contends that it submitted information regarding the production and

sale of off-spec merchandise, including the proportion of off-spec

merchandise which it produced and, of that amount, what proportion was

sold at reduced prices and what proportion was recycled into the

manufacturing process.

Department's Position: We agree with Hercules and have obtained

additional information regarding Bergerac's production and sale of off-

spec merchandise. Based on this information and because there were no

sales of off-spec merchandise in the United States, we eliminated such

sales from the calculation of normal value. Consistent with our

practice, we have changed our methodology to ensure that we did not

compare home-market sales of off-spec merchandise to U.S. sales of

prime merchandise. See Steel Wire Rod From Canada; Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 9182, 9183 (February 24, 1998);

see also Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the

Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,

61 FR 48465, 48466 (September 13, 1996).

Comment 6: Bergerac argues that the Department should not have

considered a certain home-market customer to be an affiliated party for

purposes of its analysis and, therefore, should not have included its

sales to this customer in its arm's-length test. Bergerac contends

that, although technically affiliated to Bergerac under Section 771(33)

of the Tariff Act through a common board member, this company cannot

influence the prices it pays because there is no link between the board

member's membership on Bergerac's board and his membership on the

customer's board. Therefore, Bergerac asserts, the prices paid were at

arm's length and were not affected by the existence of a common board

member.

Hercules argues that the Department was correct in performing the

arm's-length test on Bergerac's sales to the home-market customer in

question and that, under section 771(33) of the Tariff Act, a common

officer or director is sufficient to consider two firms to be

affiliated. Hercules argues further that, given that the sales failed

the arm's-length test, the Department excluded them from the

calculation of normal value properly.

Department's Position: We disagree with Bergerac that it was

inappropriate to treat one of its home-market customers as affiliated

and, therefore, include all sales to that customer in our arm's-length

test. In its January 20, 1998, supplemental questionnaire response,

Bergerac reported that, because the chairman of its board of directors

is also a member of the board of directors of the customer in question,

the respondent is ``affiliated'' to the customer in question as the

term is used by the Department. Although it stated that it does not

consider the customer to be affiliated because the relationship is

maintained on an arm's-length basis, Bergerac did not raise this issue

until late in the proceeding and did not provide sufficient information

to allow the Department to analyze the affiliation issue. Thus, as

facts available, we are relying on the respondents' statement that the

customer is affiliated under our standards. Because the customer is

being treated as affiliated, it was appropriate to include all sales to

the customer in question in our arm's-length test.

After conducting the arm's-length test, which is how we determine

whether an affiliation affects prices in such a way that they should be

excluded from the calculation of normal values, we found that

Bergerac's transactions with the customer in question failed the test

and, thus, it was appropriate to exclude these transactions from our

calculations.

[[Page 49089]]

Final Results of Review

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

dumping margin for the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997 to

be as follows:

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

Margin

Company (percent)

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

Bergerac................................................... 13.35

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

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

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the

inability to link sales with specific entries prevents calculation of

duties on an entry-by-entry basis, for CEP sales we have calculated an

ad valorem duty-assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount

of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the

POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those

duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the POR. (This is equivalent to

dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated

by taking the difference between statutory NV and statutory EP or CEP,

by the total statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared and

adjusting the result by the average difference between EP or CEP and

customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.) For EP

sales, Bergerac could not identify the importer(s) of record for sales

to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, we have calculated a single, per-

unit duty assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margins by the

total quantity sold to these customers.

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 Tariff Act: (1) the cash-deposit rate for Bergerac

will be 13.35 percent; (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 less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV), but the

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for

the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)

the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be

1.38 percent. This is the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV

investigation which we are reinstating in accordance with the decisions

of the Court of International Trade in Floral Trade Council v. United

States, Slip Op. 93-79 (May 25, 1993), and Federal-Mogul Corporation

and The Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83 (May 25,

1993).

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 351.402(f) of the Final Rule 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 Department's

presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.34(d) or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is

subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: September 4, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-24598 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P