[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39350-39354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14376]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-839]
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by seven companies and an
importer of the subject merchandise, on June 19, 2001, the Department
of Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber
from Korea with respect to those seven companies (66 FR 32934). The
period of review is November 8, 1999, through April 30, 2001.
We preliminarily find that sales have been made below normal value.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Office 1, AD/CVD
Enforcement Group I, Import Administration-Room B099, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4087.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
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 of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).
Background
On May 25, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register
an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain
polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Korea (65 FR 33807).
The Department published a notice advising of the opportunity to
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on May
1, 2001 (66 FR 21740). In response to timely requests by Stein Fibers,
an importer of the subject merchandise, and certain manufacturer/
exporters (i.e., Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. (Daeyang), Estal Industry
Co., Ltd. (Estal), Huvis Corporation (Huvis), Keon Baek Co., Ltd. (Keon
Baek), Mijung Ind., Co., Ltd. (Mijung), Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd.
(SamYoung) and Sunglim Co., Ltd. (Sunglim)), the Department published a
notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to these
same companies (66 FR 32934, June 19, 2001).
On September 4, 2001, the Department extended the time limit for
the preliminary results in this review until May 31, 2002 (66 FR
46260).
On October 9, 2001, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to the above-mentioned respondent companies. We received
responses from all seven respondents in November and December, 2001.
On December 28, 2001, the Department received allegations from the
petitioners\1\ that Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Keon Baek, Mijung, and
Sunglim sold certain PSF in Korea at prices below the cost of
production (COP). The Department initiated cost investigations of these
companies' home-market sales of PSF on January 30, 2002. (See
Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production (company-
specific memoranda), dated January 30, 2002.) In accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, Sam Young was requested to provide
complete COP information at the time the questionnaire was issued,
based on having made sales below cost in the original investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc.; Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l.,
d/b/a KoSa; Wellman, Inc.; Intercontinental Polymers, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We issued supplemental questionnaires and received responses from
all of the respondents in March through May, 2002. Certain supplemental
responses were not received in sufficient time to be analyzed fully by
the Department prior to the issuance of these preliminary results.
While we are using the data in the supplemental responses as the bases
for our preliminary results, adjusted as described below, we may
request additional information from respondent companies prior to
issuing our final results.
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain
polyester staple fiber (PSF). PSF is defined as synthetic staple
fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of
polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in
diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25
mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may
be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF
is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski
jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of
less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable under
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at
subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from this order. Also
specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10
to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in
the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded
from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with
an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than
its inner core.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.40 and 5503.20.00.60. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of PSF by the respondents to the United
States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared export
price (EP), as appropriate, to NV, as described in the ``Export Price''
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.Pursuant to section
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export prices of individual U.S.
transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product
where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as
discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the
``Scope of the
[[Page 39351]]
Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each
respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to
the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further
details, see the ``Normal Value'' section below.)
We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the appropriate comparison
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from
three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale.
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison
market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales,
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like
product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales
of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of
trade in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). In making product comparisons,
consistent with our final determination in the investigation, we
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics
reported by the respondents in the following order: 1) composition; 2)
type; 3) grade; 4) cross section; 5) finish; and 6) denier (see Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 16880, 16881,
March 30, 2000 (Investigation Final)).
Export Price
We used export price methodology, in accordance with section 772(a)
of the Act, because all respondents sold the subject merchandise to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation and
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise indicated. We
based export price on packed, FOB, C&F, CIF, ex-port/warehouse, ex-dock
duty paid and delivered prices, as appropriate, to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States.
We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for
movement expenses including foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage
and handling (e.g., terminal handling charges, wharfage, bill of lading
charges, container taxes), international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. duty, and U.S. Customs fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). For Keon Baek, we adjusted the
reported movement expenses for foreign brokerage and handling,
container tax, bill of lading charge, and terminal handling charges to
account for a rounding error. In addition, for Keon Baek's U.S. sales
where the invoice date was after the reported shipment date, consistent
with Department practice, we used shipment date as the date of sale
(see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Structural Steel Beams from Luxembourg, 67 FR 35888 (May 20, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; and Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Brazil, 67 FR 31200, 31202 (May 9, 2002)). For
Estal, we made adjustments to gross price and certain reported expenses
to account for differences between actual and theoretical weights.
Also, for both Estal and Sunglim, we recalculated the short-term
interest rate, based on published Federal Reserve rates, to reflect
more accurately the POR.
We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Respondents in this review claim
to have received duty drawback under the two systems in place in Korea:
either the individual rate system or the fixed rate system (i.e., the
simplified fixed drawback system).
In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the Department
has examined the individual rate system and found that the government
controls in place ensure that the Department's criteria for receiving a
duty drawback adjustment are met (i.e., that 1) the rebates received
were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the
manufacture of the subject merchandise, and 2) there were sufficient
imports to account for the rebates received). See Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of
Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the
Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574, 55577 (October 27, 1997). Daeyang,
Huvis, and Sunglim have each provided documentation for the record
demonstrating that they received duty drawback under the individual
rate system. Accordingly, we are allowing the full drawback adjustment
on all U.S. sales by Daeyang and Huvis and on those U.S. sales by
Sunglim on which the duty drawback was received under the individual
rate system.
For the remaining U.S. sales by Sunglim and all sales by Estal,
Keon Baek, Mijung, and Sam Young, duty drawback was received under the
fixed rate system. The Department has found that the Korean fixed rate
duty drawback system does not sufficiently link import duties paid to
rebates received upon export. Therefore, the fixed rate system does
not, in and of itself, meet the Department's criteria, i.e., that the
rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs
used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and that there were
sufficient imports to account for the rebates received. See id. In this
case, none of the respondents have demonstrated successfully that duty
drawback which it received under the fixed rates system met the
Department's criteria for a duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, for
purposes of these preliminary results, we are not granting duty
drawback adjustments claimed under the fixed rate system.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
As stated above in the ``Product Comparisons'' section of this
notice, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of
the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume
of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating
NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Aggregate home market sales volumes of the foreign like product for
Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Keon Baek, Mijung and Sunglim, respectively,
were greater than five percent of their aggregate volumes of U.S. sales
of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that the home
market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for these companies.
Sam Young reported that its home market sales of PSF during the POR
were less than five percent of its sales in the United States.
Therefore, Sam Young did not have a viable home market for purposes of
calculating NV. Sam Young reported that the People's Republic of China
(PRC) was its largest viable third-country market and, consequently,
submitted its sales to the PRC for purposes of calculating NV.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs
if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent).
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
[[Page 39352]]
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.;
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\2\ including selling
functions,\3\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the
final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two
may have many or few links, and the respondents[quot] sales occur
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we
considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to
occur.
\3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a
particular market. For purposes of this preliminary determination,
we have organized the common selling functions into four major
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty
services. Other selling functions unique to specific companies were
considered, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on
either home market or third country prices\4\), we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v.
United States, et. al., 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(affirming this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the
EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT
in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference
in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Daeyang sold to end users only in both the home market and in the
United States. Estal and Huvis reported that they sold to distributors
and end users in both the home market and in the United States. Keon
Baek and Mijung sold to end users in the home market and to
distributors in the United States. Sam Young sold only to distributors
in the United States and to distributors and end users in the PRC.
Sunglim sold to distributors and end users in the home market and to
distributors and wholesalers in the United States.
Each respondent has reported a single channel of distribution and a
single level of trade in each market, and has not requested a level of
trade adjustment. We examined the information reported by each
respondent regarding its marketing process for making the reported
comparison market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of
selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we
considered the extent to which sales process, freight services,
warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with
respect to the different customer categories (i.e., distributors,
wholesalers, and end users) within each market and across the markets.
Based on our analyses, we found a single level of trade in the United
States, and a single, identical level of trade in the comparison market
for all respondents. Thus, it was unnecessary to make a LOT adjustment
for any of the respondents in comparing EP and comparison market
prices.
C. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Huvis made sales in the home market to affiliated customers. To
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the
starting prices of sales to affiliated customers to those of
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and
indirect selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to an
affiliated customer was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to
Huvis' unaffiliated customers, we determined that the sales made to the
affiliated customer were at arm's length and included those sales in
our calculation of NV pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where prices to
Huvis' affiliated customers were, on average, less than 99.5 percent of
the prices to unaffiliated customers, we determined that these sales
were not at arm's length and excluded them from our analysis.
No other respondent made comparison market sales to affiliated
customers.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
As discussed in the case history section above, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that each respondent made
sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices
below the cost of production (``COP'') in accordance with section
773(b) of the Act.
1. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum
of the respondents' costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign
like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses, including interest expenses, and the costs of all
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition
packed ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act.
We relied on COP information submitted by the respondents except
for the following adjustments. For Huvis, we revised the calculation of
the G&A expense ratios to include additional non-operating income and
expense items in the numerator of the calculation, and to exclude
packing expenses that were included in the cost of manufacture in the
denominator of the calculation. We made the same adjustment to the
denominator of the interest expense calculation. These adjustments
resulted in small changes to the reported G&A and interest expense
amounts (see Huvis Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated
May 31, 2002).
We also disallowed certain offsets to Daeyang's and Mijung's
reported G&A expenses See Daeyang Preliminary Results Calculation
Memorandum and Mijung Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated
May 31, 2002.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
For each respondent, on a product-specific basis, we compared the
adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to the comparison
market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made
at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the
COP, consisting of the cost of manufacturing, G&A and interest
expenses, to the comparison market prices, less any applicable movement
charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
In determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at
prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1)
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of a
respondent's
[[Page 39353]]
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not
disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine
that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine
that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities'' within
an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of
the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made
at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of
the Act.
We found that for Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Mijung, and Sam Young, for
certain specific products, more than 20 percent of the comparison
market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost
sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial
quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not
provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time.
We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any,
as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1).
Keon Baek made no home market below-cost sales during the POR.
Sunglim did not make below-cost sales within an extended period of time
in substantial quantities during the POR. Therefore, we have not
excluded any home market sales by Keon Baek or Sunglim from our
calculation of NV.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first
sold for consumption in the comparison market, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as
the export price, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We
calculated NV based on ex-factory, delivered, FOB and CIF prices to
affiliated end users and unaffiliated customers, where appropriate. We
made deductions for movement expenses including, where appropriate,
domestic inland freight, domestic brokerage, wharfage, container taxes,
terminal handling fees and international freight under section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale
including imputed credit expenses, bank charges and letter of credit
fees, where appropriate. For Huvis, we recalculated home market imputed
credit to account for the imputed revenue received for payments made
prior to shipment. In addition, for home market sales made in U.S.
dollars, we recalculated imputed credit expenses using the U.S. dollar
interest rate in the calculation.
We adjusted Keon Baek's reported selling expenses for bank charges
and letter of credit fees to account for a rounding error.
Finally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
Currency Conversions
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the
Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S.
sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily find that the weighted-average dumping margins for
the period November 8, 1999 through April 30, 2001, are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd.......................... 1.39
Estal Industry Co., Ltd.............................. 0.20 (de minimis)
Huvis Corporation.................................... 3.37
Keon Baek Co., Ltd................................... 0.31 (de minimis)
Mijung Ind., Co., Ltd................................ 1.00
Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd........................ 0.75
Sunglim Co., Ltd..................................... 0.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be
scheduled upon determination of the briefing schedule.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the
respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and
rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case
briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be determined
by the Department. All interested parties will be notified of the
briefing schedule once it has been established. Parties who submit case
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary
of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of
the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication
of this notice.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service. The final results of this
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and
for future deposits of estimated duties. For assessment purposes, we
intend to calculate importer/customer-specific assessment rates for the
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for
all U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total quantity
of those sales.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash 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 the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those established in the final results of this
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the
cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or
exporters will continue to be 11.35 percent, the ``All Others'' rate
made effective by the LTFV investigation.
[[Page 39354]]
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: May 31, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-14376 Filed 6-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S