Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-825]

Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final 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 made a final determination that SeAH made sales below

normal value (``NV''). 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: March 17, 1999.

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)

[[Page 13170]]

482-3964, -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 (1998).

Background

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

Register (60 FR 41057) 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. On December 21, 1998, the Department extended the

deadline for determination of the final results in this case to March

8, 1999. See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, 63

FR 70389.

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this order is 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.

Verification

We verified cost and sales information provided by SeAH, examining

relevant accounting and financial records, production records, and

original sales documentation. Our verification results are outlined in

the verification report from Abdelali Elouaradia and Juanita H. Chen to

The File, dated February 12, 1999 (``Verification Report'').

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. SeAH Steel Corporation, Ltd. (``respondent'') and

Maverick Tube Corp., IPSCO Tubulars Inc., and Lone Star Steel Co.

(``petitioners'') submitted case briefs on October 16, 1998. SeAH also

submitted a rebuttal brief on October 23, 1998. None of the parties

requested a public hearing.

Comment 1: Payment Date/Credit Expenses

Respondent argues the Department incorrectly concluded that SeAH

extended credit to one of its customers beyond the reported payment

date of February 20, 1997 for several sales where SeAH had not received

payment. Respondent also believes the Department incorrectly imputed a

payment date other than the date on which payment for the involved

sales was actually made. Respondent claims that payment was in fact

made for the involved sales, but that such payment was misdirected to

and misappropriated by an unrelated third party.

For the involved sales, Panther Supply, Inc. (Panther), a sales

division of State Pipe and Supply Co. (an affiliate of respondent),

sold merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser. According to respondent,

the unaffiliated purchaser accidentally directed payment for these

sales to the wrong party. This other party then wrongfully

misappropriated the payment intended for Panther. Panther sued to

secure payment, which in turn led to a June 24, 1998 summary judgment

order awarding full payment to Panther, plus interest beginning

February 20, 1997.

In its preliminary results, the Department did not take the court-

ordered payments into account in determining dates of payment. Instead,

the Department set the payment date for these sales equal to the date

of the last submission made by SeAH prior to determination of the

preliminary results (August 19, 1998), and recalculated credit expense

accordingly.

According to respondent, the Department normally constructs imputed

credit costs to represent credit that a seller extends to a customer

for the time between shipment and payment. Respondent states that such

costs are opportunity costs to the seller for not having possession of

payment funds between the dates of shipment and actual payment.

Respondent emphasizes that the basis for this theory rests on the

concept that the seller incurs an opportunity cost because it

voluntarily extends credit to the buyer until such time as payment is

made.

In this case, respondent argues, the Department was incorrect in

assigning August 19, 1998 as payment date and in concluding that the

seller was extending credit to one of its customers for two reasons.

First, respondent argues that assigning August 19, 1998 was incorrect

because a court had already recognized February 20, 1997 as the date of

full payment. Second, respondent argues that because the court also

awarded

[[Page 13171]]

SeAH interest revenue on the late payments from February 20, 1997

forward, any opportunity costs that would arise from an extension of

credit cease to exist.

Finally, respondent argues that if the Department uses any date

other than February 20, 1997 as payment date for the sales in question,

the Department must then conform the period used for calculation of the

imputed credit expense with a comparable period for calculating an

interest income offset. To do so, respondent believes the Department

must add an additional day--for each day beyond February 20, 1997 that

the Department extends the imputed credit periods--for which Panther is

entitled to receive interest income.

Petitioners did not submit comments related to this issue.

Department's Position

Contrary to SeAH's claim, the Department normally calculates credit

expense based on the time between shipment and actual payment to the

seller, regardless of the credit terms given to a particular customer.

For example, Appendix I at 4 of the Department's September 16, 1997

Questionnaire (``Questionnaire'') states that credit expense ``is the

interest expense incurred (or interest revenue foregone) between

shipment of merchandise to a customer and receipt of payment from the

customer (emphasis added). Similarly, the Department asked SeAH to

report interest revenue based on the per unit interest charges

collected on each sale for late payment of the invoice (emphasis added)

(see Questionnaire at C-23). In this case, while a court decision

appears to indicate that State was entitled to receive payment and

interest revenue, it did not in fact receive it. In a previous case

involving unpaid U.S. sales, the Department clearly stated that the

issue of concern for purposes of imputed credit was the receipt of

payment: ``Prior to verification OAB had not indicated in its original

questionnaire response or its subsequent supplemental responses that it

had not yet received payment for certain of its U.S. sales'' (emphasis

added). See Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden; Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 60 FR 3617, 3620 (January 18, 1995).

This is also true for interest revenue. For example, in a recent case

the Department ``made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit

expenses (offset by interest revenue actually received by the

respondent)...'' (emphasis added). See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8915 (February 23, 1998).

Furthermore, neither SeAH nor its U.S. affiliates appear to have had a

practice of charging U.S. customers interest on late payments; in

response to the aforementioned request that the respondent report

collected interest revenue, the respondent indicated that ``{n}either

SeAH nor State charged customers interest for late payment during the

POR.'' See SeAH's November 12, 1997 Section C response at 31.

Consequently, no adjustment for interest revenue is warranted.

It is the Department's current practice to calculate imputed credit

for unpaid sales based on the last day of verification. However, in

this case use of the last day of verification, January 27, 1999, would

be inappropriate for several reasons. First, in administrative reviews

verifications are typically conducted prior to the issuance of the

Department's preliminary results. However, in this case verification

was conducted several months after the issuance of the preliminary

results; consequently, using the last day of verification as the basis

for payment date extends the credit period several months beyond what

is typical for unpaid sales, covering a period in which the respondent

was unable to provide new information. Second, references to ``unpaid''

sales typically involve circumstances in which no payment has been

made, rather than payment to the wrong party. While it is clear, as

stated above, that imputed credit is based on the receipt of payment,

the particular circumstances of this case (i.e., payment made to the

wrong party, court judgment in favor of the U.S. affiliate, and a

credit period of approximately two years under the aforementioned

Department practice) suggest that using the last day of verification as

the payment date would be unwarranted. Consequently, we have decided to

use as payment date the date of the last submission made by SeAH prior

to determination of the preliminary results (August 19, 1998), the same

date we utilized in our preliminary results.

Comment 2: Clerical Error in Treatment of CREDITU

Petitioners allege that the Department made a clerical error in the

preliminary results by using outdated values for imputed U.S. credit

expense (``CREDITU'') in the margin program. According to petitioners,

the Department recalculated CREDITU to replace several negative credit

values, but failed to use the recalculated figures for CREDITU in the

margin calculation. Petitioners argue the Department should correct the

margin program to properly utilize the recalculated figures for

CREDITU. To this end, petitioners provide a replacement code for the

margin program used in the Preliminary Results, which designated August

19, 1998 as payment date for the involved sales.

Respondent contends that the Department should not correct the

clerical error identified by petitioners, but should instead determine

that the date of payment for the sales at issue is February 20, 1997,

the date of the aforementioned summary judgement. Respondent does not

disagree with petitioners' suggested changes to the margin program, and

concurs with petitioners' claim that the Department made a clerical

error in its preliminary margin calculation. However, respondent

disagrees with the need to use August 19, 1998 as the payment date for

the sales at issue (those four sales which were the subject of the

aforementioned litigation) for the same reasons articulated in Comment

1 above.

Department's Position

The Department acknowledges that it made a clerical error as

described above. The Department has made a correction to the margin

program and has properly utilized the recalculated figures for CREDITU,

based on a payment date of August 19, 1998, as described in Comment 1

above.

Comment 3: Adding Duty Drawback to Third-Country Sales for Margin

Analysis and Cost Test

Respondent argues that the Department should add duty drawback to

third-country comparison market sales price for purposes of running

both the margin analysis and cost test. For the preliminary

determination, the Department used Myanmar as a comparison market.

However, respondent points out that in doing so, the Department

erroneously failed to account for duty drawback, as it was not added

into third-country prices for use in the cost test and margin analysis.

Respondent notes that the Department requested data on duty-inclusive

costs, but not data on duty exclusive costs. As a result, in conducting

the cost test and margin analysis, the Department compared duty-

inclusive cost with duty-exclusive third-country sale price. To remedy

this alleged error, respondent believes the Department must include

duty drawback in third-country sales price, and then rerun the cost

test and margin analysis.

[[Page 13172]]

Department's Position

We agree with the respondent. In a recent case involving use of

third country sales as the basis for normal value, the Department made

``an adjustment to normal value for duty drawback'' for a respondent,

Mares Australes. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 31411 (June 9,

1998). The Department had determined that the home market was not

viable for that respondent, and that sales to a third country, Japan,

should be used as the basis of normal value. See Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of

Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 2664,

2668-69. Furthermore, we note that the calculation of third country

price for use in the cost test should also reflect an addition for duty

drawback. It is the Department's current practice to request cost of

production data inclusive of duty, as reflected at page D-12 of the

Department's September 16, 1997 Section D Questionnaire: ``Direct

materials costs should include transportation charges, import duties

and other expenses normally associated with obtaining the materials

that become an integral part of the finished product'' (emphasis

added). As noted by respondent, the Department only requested duty-

inclusive cost data for this review, and its reported costs include

those duties. As a result, in order to effectuate an ``apples-to-

apples'' comparison, the Department must add duty drawback to the

third-country prices used for the cost test. Accordingly, the

Department added duty drawback to both third-country net price for

comparison to US price and to third-country price for comparison to

cost of production in the cost test.

Comment 4: Duty Drawback when Normal Value is Constructed Value

Petitioners argue that where SeAH's CEP sales are compared to

constructed value (CV), the Department must account for differences

between the amount of duty included in CV and the amount of duty

drawback adjustment claimed for CEP sales. Petitioners note that SeAH

included duties in the raw material costs reported for cost of

manufacture for CV. However, petitioners state, the duties respondent

included in CV are not equivalent to the duty drawback adjustments

claimed for U.S. sales. As a result, petitioners believe normal value

and constructed export price are not being compared on the same basis.

Petitioners state that this inequitable comparison is due to SeAH's

improper calculation of raw material input costs. According to

petitioners, SeAH calculated its raw material input costs based on the

total average cost of domestic and imported steel for each product

instead of on the cost of steel for the subject merchandise which only

includes imported steel weighted by the relative amount of the duty

drawback claimed on each sale. Petitioners note that according to 19

U.S.C. 1677b(e), ``the constructed value of imported merchandise shall

be an amount equal to the sum of . . . the cost of materials . . .

employed in producing the merchandise.'' Thus, petitioners assert, the

statute requires that the cost of materials used in CV be the cost of

materials for the product imported into the U.S. Petitioners argue that

ignoring the resulting uneven treatment of duties in CV and Constructed

Export Price distorts the dumping margin calculation. Thus, petitioners

argue the Department must adjust for the difference.

In order to make this adjustment, petitioners argue that the

Department should have respondent report material costs for CV without

including duties, and then add the amount of duty drawback claimed on

each sale to the reported cost of manufacture when calculating CV for

each sale. If duty drawback is not claimed, petitioners argue that the

average duty calculated by SeAH should be used.

Petitioners further argue that if the Department does not include

the full amount of duties claimed in the drawback adjustment in CV,

then it must make some other adjustment for the difference between

normal value and CEP caused by the different values for duty by either

limiting the drawback adjustment claimed by SeAH to the amount of

duties included in CV, or by granting a circumstances of sale

adjustment per 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii).

According to respondent, petitioners' arguments to add duty

drawback to constructed value have been previously rejected by the

Court of International Trade. Laclede Steele Co. v. United States, 18

CIT 965 (1994). Respondent argues that there is nothing in the statute,

the regulations or the Department's practice to sanction petitioners'

approach. According to respondent, the Department has a two-tiered test

for determining the appropriateness of a duty drawback adjustment.

Respondent cites Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea in support of this

assertion. 57 FR 42942, 42946 (September 17, 1992). Respondent claims

that according to this case, a party must first demonstrate that import

duty and rebate are directly linked to, and dependent upon, one

another. Id. Second, a party must demonstrate that the company claiming

the adjustment can demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of

imported raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on the

exports of the manufactured product. Id. Respondent argues that it has

satisfied this two-tiered test. According to respondent, petitioners'

argument that duty drawback and import duties included in CV should be

the same is not supported by the law, regulations, or practice, and

that previous arguments in favor of imposing such a requirement have

been rejected in court (e.g., in the Laclede case). Finally, respondent

argues that the Department has deliberately not interpreted the

relevant statutory language to limit such cost to the merchandise

exported to the U.S.

Respondent also argues that petitioners' suggested alternative

adjustments to account for the difference between normal value and

CEP--either by limiting the drawback adjustment claimed by SeAH to the

amount of duties included in CV, or by granting a circumstances of sale

adjustment'would require that an entity prove that cost of

manufacturing includes the same amount of duty as that claimed in the

drawback. This, according to respondent, goes beyond the requirements

of the Department's current two-tiered test. Respondent notes that

prior attempts to add such criteria to the two-tiered test have been

rejected by the court. Respondent also argues that none of the cases

cited in the petitioners' brief override the aforementioned court

decision of Laclede.

Department's Position

An upward adjustment to sale price for duty drawback is provided

for in section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department utilizes a two

prong test to determine whether a party is entitled to a duty drawback

adjustment: (1) The import duty and rebate must be directly linked to,

and dependent upon, one another, and (2) the company claiming the

adjustment must demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of

imported raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on

exports of the manufactured products. See, e.g., Silicon Metal from

Brazil: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 6305, 6318 (February 9, 1999). This test was in Far East

Machinery Co. v. United

[[Page 13173]]

States, 699 F. Supp. 309, 311 (CIT 1988).

The U.S. Court of International Trade has consistently held that

there is no requirement that a specific input be traced from

importation through exportation before allowing drawback on duties

paid. Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 18 CIT 965, 972 (1994). The

only limit on the allowance for duty drawback is that the adjustment to

U.S. sales price may not exceed the amount of import duty actually

paid. Id.

Respondent satisfied both prongs of the aforementioned test, and

was therefore entitled to claim a duty drawback adjustment.

Respondent's duty drawback rebates are received under Korea's

individual application system, which limits such rebates to actual

duties paid. Duty drawback was reviewed at verification, and no

inconsistencies with respondent's reported methodology were noted. See

Verification Report at 13-14. Thus, duty drawback rebates received by

respondent are not excessive.

It is the long standing-policy of the Department to require that

respondents include import duties in constructed value. See Offshore

Platform Jackets and Piles from the Republic of Korea: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 11795, 11796

(April 7, 1986). Requesting duty-exclusive constructed value data would

add a new hurdle to the two prong drawback test that is not required

under current Department regulations or policy.

Accordingly, the respondent was not required to report duty-

exclusive constructed value data, nor otherwise make additional

adjustments to the duty drawback claimed.

Comment 5: Duty Drawback Reported for CEP Sales

Petitioners argue that because duties were paid on an actual weight

basis in Korea, and because duty drawback was paid on a theoretical

weight basis, the Department should reduce duty drawback by multiplying

the claimed drawback by the reported conversion. Petitioners cite Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial

Termination of Administrative Review; Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel

Pipe from the Republic of Korea in support of this position. 62 FR

55574, 55577 (October 27, 1997).

Respondent argues that the circumstances leading to the adjustment

in the case cited by petitioners are not applicable to the sales in

this review. Respondent notes that the adjustment in the cited case was

made because an entity was receiving duty drawback under a fixed rate

system. However, according to respondent, there were only two

observations in which merchandise was received under a fixed rate duty

drawback system in the present review. Respondent also notes that in

the fourth review of the cited case, the entity selling under the fixed

rate system switched to an individual application system. See Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 32833 (June 16, 1998).

According to respondent, the Department determined that only the

amounts received under the fixed rate system (received prior to the

switch to the individual application system) warranted an adjustment.

Id. at 32837. Respondent notes that in the present case, there is only

one observation where duty drawback was received under the fixed rate

system. Respondent notes that the drawback arguably should be adjusted

for the difference between the theoretical and actual weight under the

precedent cited by petitioners. Respondent notes, however, that the

adjustment factor would be one, and thus have no effect, given that the

product in question was produced and sold on a theoretical weight

basis. In total, respondent argues that no additional adjustments to

the reported duty drawback are warranted.

Department's Position

To the extent that duty drawback rebates exceed actual duties paid,

the Department agrees with petitioners that adjustments to U.S. price

should be limited to the amount of duties paid. However, with only one

exception, the U.S. sales in this review, unlike those in the review

cited by petitioners, were under the Korean individual application

system, and the rebates received were limited to actual duties paid and

were therefore not excessive. Again, duty drawback was reviewed at

verification, and no inconsistencies with respondent's reported

methodology were noted. As a result, the Department has used the full

amount of duty drawback as reported in the analysis for the Final

Results.

For the abovementioned single sale made under the Korean fixed rate

system, the Department agrees with the respondent that the conversion

factor would be one, and thus have no effect. Both the total costs for

the product in question and the total duty drawback requested reflect a

higher quantity of the imported material than would have been the case

if the product had been produced and sold on an actual weight basis. As

this sale was of a product produced on a theoretical weight basis, and

because duty drawback is paid on a theoretical weight basis, no

adjustment to the reported duty drawback is necessary.

Final Results of Review

These administrative reviews and notices are published in

accordance with 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Oil Country Tubular Goods

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

Weighted-

Producer/manufacturer/exporter average margin

(percent)

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

SeAH.................................................... 2.93

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

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

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio

of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined

sales to the total entered value of the same sales. The rate will be

assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular company made

during the POR. The Department shall issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective

upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all

shipments of oil country tubular goods from Korea entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as

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

rates for the reviewed company named above will be the rate for that

firm as stated above; (2) for previously 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 these reviews, or the original LTFV

investigations, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be

the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer

is a firm covered in these reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue

to be 12.17 percent, which was the ``all others'' rate in the LTFV

investigations. 60 FR at 41058.

The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a

[[Page 13174]]

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 order (``APO'') of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with Sec. 351.306 of the Department's regulations.

Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

Dated: March 8, 1999.

Robert LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-6401 Filed 3-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P