Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-811]

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

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review and revocation in part of antidumping duty order.

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

SUMMARY: On December 5, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of its 1996-97

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope

from the Republic of Korea and intent to revoke in part (62 FR 64354)

(Preliminary Results). The review covers 15 manufacturers/exporters for

the period March 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997 (the POR). We have

analyzed the comments received on our preliminary results and no

changes in the calculated margin are required. However, we have changed

the adverse facts available rate. The final weighted-average dumping

margins for each of the reviewed firms are listed in the section

entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann at (202) 482-5288 or

James Kemp at (202) 482-0116; Import Administration, International

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

Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 regulations at 19 CFR Part 353 (1997).

Background

On December 5, 1997, the Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its 1996-97 administrative review

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

Korea and intent to revoke in part. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. A case brief was

filed by the petitioner, the Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and

Specialty Cable Manufacturers (the Committee); rebuttal briefs were

filed by four respondents-Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd. (Chung Woo), Kumho

Wire Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd (Kumho), Ssang Yong Cable

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Ssang Yong), and Sung Jin Company (Sung Jin).

There was no request for a hearing.

We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with

section 751 of the Act.

Revocation In Part

Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have sold the subject

merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) for four consecutive

review periods,\1\ including this review.\2\ They have also submitted

certifications that they will not sell at less than NV in the future,

along with an agreement for immediate reinstatement of the order if

such sales occur. Further, on the basis of no sales at less than NV for

these periods and the lack of any indication that such sales are likely

in the future, we have determined that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung

Jin are not likely to sell the merchandise at less than NV in the

future. Accordingly, we are revoking the order for Chung Woo, Ssang

Yong and Sung Jin. Also, see our discussion in response to Comment 1.

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

\1\ Section 353.25(a)(2) of the Department's regulations

provides that a respondent may be eligible for revocation after a

period of three years with no sales at less than fair value.

However, Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin did not request

revocation until the fourth review.

\2\ Kumho also requested revocation, but later withdrew the

request.

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

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, the

written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

In the preliminary results of this review, we determined, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, that the use of adverse

facts available is appropriate for Boo Kook Corporation, Dong-Il Steel

Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Jinyang Wire Rope Inc., and Yeon Sin Metal

because they did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire. None of

these parties commented on this preliminary determination, nor have any

arguments been presented which would cause us to reconsider the

appropriateness of assigning margins based on adverse facts available

in the final results.

In the April 9, 1997, final results of the last review (See Steel

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

Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order,

62 FR 17171, 1997) and in the preliminary results of the review, we

stated our intent to reconsider the appropriateness of the facts

available rate (1.51 percent) used in prior reviews.

Over the course of this proceeding, the Department has faced a

pattern of continuous noncompliance on the part of a number of

uncooperative respondents \3\ that received facts available. Therefore,

we have concluded that the magnitude of the rate in place for the three

prior reviews does not offer the adequate sanction to induce the

respondents to cooperate in the

[[Page 17987]]

proceeding. Moreover, if and when an interested party requests a review

of Korean steel wire rope companies not previously reviewed, the

Department needs to have in place a potential facts available rate that

is sufficiently adverse to induce the cooperation of these companies.

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

\3 \We have applied facts available to seven companies in the

first review, five companies in the second review, three companies

in the third review and four companies in the instant review.

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

The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) recognizes the

importance of facts available as an investigative tool in antidumping

duty proceedings. The Department's potential use of facts available

provides the only incentive to foreign exporters and producers to

respond to the Department's questionnaires. See SAA at 868. Section

776(b) of the Act states that the Department may draw an adverse

inference where the party has not acted to the best of its ability to

comply with the requests for necessary information. The Department

applies adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a

more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated

fully. One factor the Department considers in applying facts available

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

participation. See SAA at 870.

We invited interested parties to supply specific data that the

Department could consider in the event that we chose to establish a

facts available rate that would be more appropriate to this segment of

the proceeding. In response to this request for information, the

Committee, in its case brief, requested that we use the simple average

of the dumping margins from the petition (136.72) as adverse facts

available. The respondents did not comment on this issue.

In order to consider fully this issue, we placed a copy of the

petition on the record of this administrative review. In our analysis

of the petition, we re-examined the bases for the initial dumping

allegation. Based on this re-examination, we determined that the price-

to-price sales used in the petition calculation are, with one

adjustment, appropriate for use as adverse facts available in this

review. The information we obtained during the current review indicates

that Korean producers manufacture steel wire rope known as ``commercial

grade cable'' or ``aircraft grade cable,'' which differs from steel

wire rope built to more demanding Military Specification (Mil Spec).

Additionally, company officials interviewed during verification stated

that they were not aware of any Korean steel wire rope manufacturers

that have been certified to sell Mil Spec. steel wire rope in the

United States. See Memo to the File, April 2, 1998. Information in the

petition, however, indicates that some of the price-to-price

comparisons, involved Mil Spec sales. Accordingly, we adjusted the

petition margin by excluding those sales, and calculated a simple

average margin equal to 13.79 percent.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall in

using facts otherwise available, to the extent practicable, corroborate

secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The SAA provides that ``corroborate'' means 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, where corroboration is not

practicable, the Department may use uncorroborated information. See

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From The People's Republic of China,

62 FR 31972 (1997).

To corroborate the export prices in the petition, we compared them

to U.S. Customs (Customs) import statistics from 1991 for the HTS

subheadings 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. However, we

concluded that the Customs data was not comparable to the prices in the

petition, because the Customs data encompasses a wide range of steel

wire rope products, while the sales in the petition consist of a small

number of specific product types. See Memo to the File, April 6, 1998.

With regard to the normal values used in the petition's margin

calculation, we were provided with no useful information by interested

parties, and are aware of no other independent sources of information,

which would assist us in this aspect of the corroboration process.

Notwithstanding the difficulties encountered in our attempts to

corroborate the information from the petition, the Department has no

evidence that suggests the petition does not have probative value.

Accordingly, we determine that the information from the petition is the

most appropriate basis for facts available. We note that the SAA

specifically states that ``the fact that corroboration may not be

practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the agencies from

applying an adverse inference under subsection (b).'' See SAA at 870.

Moreover, the SAA emphasizes that the Department need not prove that

the facts available are the best alternative information. SAA at 869.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of steel wire rope to the United States

were made at less than fair value for Chung Woo, Kumho, Ssang Yong and

Sung Jin, we compared the export price to the normal value, as

described in the preliminary results of this review.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: The Committee contends that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and

Sung Jin failed to establish the second of three requisite regulatory

criteria for revocation of an antidumping duty order. Specifically, the

Committee argues that the burden is on the respondent requesting

revocation to demonstrate, by placing substantial evidence on the

record, that there is no likelihood of a resumption of sales at less

than fair value and that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin failed to

demonstrate this. Additionally, the Committee argues, citing Tatung Co.

v. United States, 18 CIT 1137, 1144 (1994) (Tatung Company), that the

fact that respondents have not sold subject merchandise at less than

normal value in past administrative reviews does not establish that

there is no likelihood these companies will begin dumping subject

merchandise in the future.

Furthermore, the Committee contends that the Department cannot not

revoke the order with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin

based on the results of the last three reviews because of the

instability caused by the recent economic crisis in Korea. According to

the Committee, the economic crisis has created an environment that

makes it impossible for the Department to determine that these three

companies will not begin dumping subject merchandise in the U.S.

market.

The depreciation of the won, according to the Committee, will

facilitate the respondents' task of remaining price competitive and

retaining market share in the short-term. However, the Committee

contends the Korean economy will reverse course as the economic

assistance package provided by the IMF begins to take effect.

Furthermore, the Committee argues that an economic turnaround in Korea

accompanied by appreciation of the won will create downward pressure on

the price of steel wire rope as the Korean producers attempt to

maintain the same price levels to satisfy their U.S. customers and

retain market share in the face of competition from companies in other

Asian nations. The Committee claims that the market forces created by

[[Page 17988]]

such a turnaround in the Korean economy will force Chung Woo, Ssang

Yong and Sung Jin to dump merchandise in the U.S. market.

Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin respond that they have satisfied

all three requisite criteria for revocation at 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2).

They claim that the Department has granted revocation in virtually

every case where a respondent has established three consecutive years

of no dumping and furnished the required certifications. They argue

that this is in accordance with the long standing policy that

antidumping duty orders ``shall remain in force only as long and to the

extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury.'' Color

Television Receiver Except for Video Monitors, from Taiwan; Final

Results, 55 FR 47093, 47097 (1990); Uruguay Round Agreement on

Implementation of Article VI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

1994, Article 11 Antidumping Agreement.

Respondents cite Tatung Company, where the court found that past

behavior constitutes substantial evidence of expected future behavior

and a de minimis margin for three consecutive years serves as a

reliable predictor for future pricing behavior. Based on this ruling,

according to respondents, Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin should not

be expected to sell steel wire rope at less than normal value in the

future because they have received a zero or de minimis margin in all

four review periods.

Respondents also state that the Committee acknowledges that Chung

Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have satisfied the first and third

criteria of the Department's regulatory requirements. Respondents

contend that the Committee's sole argument against revocation is the

possibility that the subject companies will dump steel wire rope in the

United States at a future date, and this view is based on the rapid

depreciation of the won due to the economic situation in Korea. Citing

Brass Sheet and Strip, 61 FR 49,727, 49,731 (1996) and Tapered Roller

Bearing and Parts Thereof from Japan, 61 FR 57,629, 57,651 (1996),

respondents claim that dumping is most likely when a foreign currency

appreciates against the dollar because the value of the subject

merchandise in the home market appreciates, relative to the value of

the same merchandise in the U.S. market. Respondents continue that even

though the won was appreciating during the first three review periods

and Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin sold increasing quantities of

subject merchandise in the United States, no dumping was found. This,

according to the respondents, makes revocation at this time

particularly appropriate. They cite Color Television Receivers, Except

for Video Monitors, From Taiwan, 55 FR 47093, 47097 (1990), and compare

Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin to a respondent in that case which

received revocation after selling at or above fair value for three

administrative reviews while the Taiwanese currency appreciated 37

percent. Respondents continue, citing Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 61

FR 63822, 63825 (1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers), that since Chung Woo, Ssang

Yong and Sung Jin did not sell merchandise at less than fair value

while the won was appreciating, now that it is depreciating, they are

even less likely to do so.

In response to the Committee's contention that a reversal in the

economic crisis now engulfing Korea could cause a sudden appreciation

of the won and, therefore, create pressure to dump subject merchandise

in the United States, respondents claim that such an argument is the

equivalent of saying that future dumping is likely in all cases because

currency fluctuations are inevitable and unavoidable. Respondents cite

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil, 56 FR 52510, 52511,

(1991) as a case in which the Department dismissed such arguments.

Finally, respondents contend that the Committee presented similar

arguments in the 1995-1996 administrative review in opposition to the

request for revocation submitted by Manho and Chun Kee, which was

ultimately granted by the Department. Respondents argue that the

circumstances under which the Department granted revocation to Manho

and Chun Kee in the previous review are similar to those which exist in

this review and, therefore, the Department is further justified in

revoking the order on steel wire rope with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang

Yong and Sung Jin.

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

revoking the antidumping duty order with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang

Yong and Sung Jin. Section 751(d)(1) of the Act provides that the

Department ``may revoke'' an antidumping order, in whole or in part,

after conducting an appropriate review. 19 U.S.C. 1675(1) (1995). The

Department's regulations elaborate upon this standard. Section

353.25(a)(2) provides that the Department may revoke an order, in part,

if the Secretary concludes: (1) ``One or more producers or resellers

covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than foreign

market value for a period of at least three consecutive years;'' (2)

``it is not likely that those persons will in the future sell the

merchandise at less than foreign market value;'' and (3) ``the

producers or resellers agree in writing to their immediate

reinstatement in the order as long as any producer or reseller is

subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes under section

353.22(f) that the producer or reseller, subsequent to the revocation,

sold the merchandise at less than foreign market value.''

We agree with respondents that in evaluating the ``not likely''

issue in numerous cases, the Department has considered three years of

no dumping margins, plus a respondent's certification that it will not

dump in the future, plus its agreeing to the immediate reinstatement in

the order all to be indicative of expected future behavior. In such

instances, this was the only information contained in the record

regarding the likelihood issue.

In other cases, when additional evidence is on the record

concerning the likelihood of future dumping, the Department is, of

course, obligated to consider the evidence. Specifically, where

appropriate, we consider such ``factors as conditions and trends in the

domestic and home market industries, currency movements, and the

ability of the foreign entity to compete in the U.S. marketplace

without [sales at less than normal value].'' Brass Sheet and Strip, 61

FR 49727, 49730 (September 23, 1996). This is consistent with the

Department's established practice and Article 11 of the Antidumping

Agreement which establishes that revocation is appropriate only if the

authorities determine that the order ``is no longer warranted.''

[[Page 17989]]

Based on the evidence on the record of this review, we have

concluded that it is not likely that in the future these respondents

will sell the subject merchandise at less than fair value. In the

previous three reviews and for the final results of this review, Chung

Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have had zero or de minimis weighted-

average margins. As the petitioners note in their case brief, the Court

of International Trade in Tatung Company acknowledged that past

behavior constitutes substantial evidence of expected future behavior.

Moreover, the Court also noted that ``[p]redicting future behavior is

not an easy task,'' and that the Department's consideration of whether

dumped sales are likely in the future ``necessarily involves an

exercise of discretion and judgment.'' Petitioner's Case Brief at 21

citing Tatung Company, 18 CIT at 1144.

Regarding the arguments concerning the recent devaluation of the

Korean won and the possible effect on the likelihood of future dumping,

we agree, in part, with both the Committee and respondents that there

are short term and long-term economic effects from the devaluation of

the respondents' home market currency. Respondents emphasize the short-

term effects, alleging that home market prices will fall, relative to

the dollar, eliminating the likelihood of future dumping. The Committee

focuses on the possible long-term appreciation of the Korean won which

could raise home market prices, and the competitive pressures from

other Asian suppliers which may force Korean suppliers to reduce U.S.

prices.

In Brass Sheet and Strip we acknowledged that the continued

strengthening of the home market currency may provide an impetus to

resume sales at less than normal value in the absence of an antidumping

duty order. Brass Sheet and Strip, 61 FR at 49731. We have also noted

that during a period of a depreciating currency, as has recently

occurred with the won, there is even less pressure to engage in less-

than-normal-value pricing. Fresh Cut Flowers, 61 FR at 63825. However,

exchange rate relationships and other macroeconomic factors may not be

the overriding factors in every case; rather, they must be considered

in conjunction with the remaining record evidence and in light of the

Department's experience in administering the revocation provisions. See

Brass Sheet and Strip, 61 FR at 49731.

In this proceeding, other than the Committee's statement regarding

the possible long-term appreciation of the won, there is no evidence on

the record indicating the likelihood of a resumption of dumping. For

example, there is no evidence of falling Korean prices in the United

States. In fact, based on Customs data,\4\ we have found that prices

have remained stable. Although we agree that over time home market

inflation may offset the effect of a depreciating currency in dollar

terms, this by itself does not indicate a likelihood of sales at less

than fair value.

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

\4 \The above-referenced public information is based on HTS

subheadings 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. Although

these subheadings encompass a wide range of steel wire rope

products, we concluded that they are representative of the price

trends for the subject merchandise.

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

Market trends and other factors that are specific to steel wire

rope lead us to distinguish this case from two recent proceedings in

which we determined not to partially revoke, Brass Sheet and Strip and

DRAMs from Korea. Unlike the respondent in Brass Sheet and Strip, Chung

Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have never been found to have sold

merchandise at less than fair value since the order was issued.

Further, unlike the respondent in Brass Sheet and Strip, which made a

single sales transaction in the period of review, these respondents

have made sales in substantial quantities in the United States.

Likewise, when compared to the market for DRAMS as reviewed in the

revocation proceeding, the market for steel wire rope is significantly

more stable. See DRAMs from Korea: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke

Order In Part, 62 FR 39809, 39817 (July 24, 1997). Based on our review

of Customs data, we have concluded that the price of Korean steel wire

rope exported to the United States has remained stable, with slight

fluctuations, from 1992 through 1997, while, during the same period,

the market for DRAMS experienced broad price swings.

Based on the evidence on the record for the instant review and

conclusions drawn from our experience with the subject respondents in

prior reviews, it is our judgment that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong or Sung

Jin have met the requirement established by our regulations of de

minimis margins for the requisite consecutive number of years. In

addition, each has certified that they will not dump in the future and

agreed to immediate reinstatement in the order if we conclude that,

subsequent to the partial revocation of the order, the particular

respondent sells subject merchandise at less than normal value. We

conclude that it is not likely that in the future these respondents

will sell subject merchandise at less than normal value. Therefore, we

are revoking the order with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang Yong or Sung

Jin.

Comment 2: The Committee argues that the Department's use of a 1.51

percent dumping margin as adverse facts available for Boo Kook, Dong-

Il, Jinyang and Yeon Sin undercuts the cooperation-inducing purpose of

the facts available provision of the statute. According to the

Committee, the rate received in the first three reviews and the

preliminary results of the instant review has remained low enough to

encourage persistent noncompliance.

The Committee contends that, instead of using the highest rate

available from any prior segment of the proceeding as facts available,

the Department should apply a simple average of the adjusted margins

\5\ calculated in the petition of the original investigation.

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

\5 \In the April 23, 1992, letter to the Department from the

petitioner, the Committee adjusted the rate calculated in the

original petition to 136.72 percent.

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

The respondents did not comment on this issue.

Department's Position: We agree with the Committee in part and are

raising the facts available rate to 13.79 percent (See the Facts

Otherwise Available section of this notice).

Final Results of Review

We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period March 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997:

[[Page 17990]]

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Boo Kook Corporation.................................... *13.79

Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd................................. 0.00

Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.................... *13.79

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

Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc.................................. *13.79

Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd........................... 0.04

Myung Jin Co............................................ \1\ 1.51

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

Ssang Yong Cable Manufacturing Co., Ltd................. 0.02

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

Sungsan Special Steel Processing........................ 1.51

TSK Korea Co., Ltd...................................... (\2\)

Yeon Sin Metal.......................................... *13.79

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

*Adverse Facts Available Rate.

\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant

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

\2\ No shipments subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate

from any segment of this proceeding.

The Department shall determine, and Customs 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 Customs.

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) For Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin, the

revocation of the antidumping duty order applies to all entries of

subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after March 1, 1996. The Department will order the

suspension of liquidation ended for all such entries and will instruct

Customs to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department will

further instruct Customs to refund with interest any cash deposits on

post-March 1, 1996 entries. (2) The cash deposit rates for the other

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). (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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 serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with

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

Dated: April 6, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-9688 Filed 4-10-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P