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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-6401

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** March 17, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 13169

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-6401. Public record. Not legal advice.