[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45651-45655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15640]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-813]
Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by certain producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise and the petitioners,\1\ the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand.
This review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are Maui Pineapple Company Ltd. and the
International Longshoreman's and Warehouseman's Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has preliminarily determined that the companies
subject to this review made U.S. sales at prices less than normal value
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results of review. We will issue the final results of review no later
than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective August 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
4162 or (202) 482-4406, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the
antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1,
2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), during July 2004, the
following producers/exporters requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of their sales and entries of subject merchandise
into the United Stated during the POR: Vita Food Factory (1989) Co.,
Ltd. (Vita); Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC); and the
Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole
Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, Dole). Additionally, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on July 29, 2004, the petitioners requested that
the Department conduct a review of The Thai Pineapple Public Company
(TIPCO); Vita; The Parchuab Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. (PRAFT); Dole; and
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. (KFC).
[[Page 45652]]
On August 30, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review
of PRAFT, TPC, and Vita.\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department did not initiate an administrative review of
Dole, KFC, and TIPCO because it revoked the order on CPF from
Thailand with respect to these companies in the final results of the
prior (July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003) administrative review.
See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part: Canned
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR 50164 (August 13, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 20, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to PRAFT, TPC, and Vita. On September 1, 2004, PRAFT
informed the Department that it had no sales or shipments of the
subject merchandise during the POR. In September and October 2004, TPC
and Vita responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire.
Subsequently, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to TPC
and Vita. Throughout this administrative review, the petitioners have
submitted comments regarding the respondents' questionnaire responses.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (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
245 days. On February 28, 2005, the Department extended the time limits
for the preliminary results of review until August 1, 2005 (see Canned
Pineapple Fruit From Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
10952 (March 7, 2005).
During March 2005, the Department conducted a verification of Vita.
On June 3, 2005, TPC submitted a letter to the Department in which it
stated it would not participate in the scheduled verifications of its
sales and cost information and would no longer participate in the
administrative review.
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Period of Review
The POR is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is canned pineapple fruit, defined
as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms,
including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits and crushed pineapple, that is
packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar
syrup added. Imports of canned pineapple fruit are currently
classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS
2008.20.0010 covers canned pineapple fruit packed in a sugar-based
syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e.,
juice-packed). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered
buy this order is dispositive.
Partial Preliminary Rescission of Review
As noted above, PRAFT informed the Department that it had no
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
The Department confirmed, through CBP data, that there were no entries
of subject merchandise from PRAFT during the POR. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the
Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review of
PRAFT. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey;
Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in
Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127, 53128
(September 9, 2003).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during March 2005, the
Department conducted a verification of the sales and cost information;
provided by Vita. The Department conducted the verification using
standard procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's
facilities, examination of relevant sales, cost of production, and
financial records, and selection of relevant source documentation as
exhibits. The Department's verification findings may be found in the
memorandum to the file dated July 21, 2005, the public version of which
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099, of the
Department's main building.
Use of Adverse Facts Available (AFA)
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
In a letter submitted to the Department on June 3, 2005, TPC
declined to participate in the Department's scheduled verifications of
its responses, and withdrew from further participation in the instant
administrative review. Because TPC did not agree to the requested
verification, the accuracy and completeness of its submitted
information has not been established and such information cannot be
relied upon. TPC's refusal to allow verification has hindered the
calculation of an accurate dumping margin for the company and impeded
the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of
the Act, we have based TPC's dumping margin on total facts available
(FA).
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997). As a general matter, it is
reasonable for the Department to assume that TPC possessed the records
necessary for the Department to complete its verification of TPC's
responses. Therefore, by declining to participate in verification, TPC
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. See Crawfish Processors
Alliance v. United States, 343 F. Supp.2d 1242 (CIT 2004) (approving
use of AFA when respondent refused to participate in verification). As
TPC failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, we are applying an
adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Specifically,
we have preliminarily assigned to TPC as AFA, a rate of 51.16 percent,
the highest rate determined for any respondent during any segment of
this proceeding. This rate was calculated for a respondent in the less
than fair value investigation.
[[Page 45653]]
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination:
Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 36775 (July 18, 1995).
A. Corroboration of Information
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as AFA
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other
information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary
information is defined as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the
petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994), and 19 CFR
351.308(d).
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value (see SAA at 870). The SAA also states that independent
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information to be used. However, unlike other types of
information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated dumping margins. This, in an
administrative review, if the Department chooses as total AFA a
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevancy aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is
not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers From
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the
highest margin as AFA because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin). We preliminarily determine that this rate is appropriate
because it was calculated for another respondent in a prior segment of
this proceeding, and it has been judicially invalidated. Thus, we
consider the calculated rate of 51.16 to be corroborated.
Comparison Methodology
In order to determine whether Vita sold CPF to the United States at
prices less than NV, the Department compared the export price (EP) of
individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of
the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade (see
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the
Act). In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, the Department
considered all products within the scope of the order under review that
the respondent sold in the comparison market during the POR to be
foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product
comparisons to CPF sold in the United States. The Department compared
U.S. sales to sales made in the 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 made in the comparison market in the
ordinary course of trade, the Department compared U.S. sales to sales
of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of
trade. In making product comparisons, the Department selected identical
and most similar foreign like product based on the physical
characteristics reported by Vita in the following order of importance:
weight, form, variety, and grade. Where there were no appropriate sales
of foreign like product to compare to a U.S. sale, we compared the
price of the U.S. sale to constructed value (CV), in accordance with
section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
Export Price
The Department based the price of each of Vita's U.S. sales of
subject merchandise on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act,
because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States, or to unaffiliated purchasers for
exportation to the United States. We calculated EP using the packed
prices charged to unaffiliated customers in the United States or
unaffiliated customers for exportation to the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, in calculating EP, we
made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses,
including, where applicable, charges for transportation, handling, bill
of lading preparation, containerization, exportation and port use,
documentation, and haulage. See Analysis Memorandum for Vita Food
Factory (1989) Co., Ltd., (Vita Analysis Memorandum) dated concurrently
with this notice.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability and whether home market sales
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for Vita as noted in the
``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' sections
of this notice.
A. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) 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 (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is
greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared the aggregate volume of Vita's home market sales of
the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of the U.S. sales of
subject merchandise. Because the aggregate volume of Vita's home market
sales of foreign like product is less than five percent of the
aggregate volume of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we based NV
on sales of the foreign like product in a country other than Vita's
home market. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Specifically, we
based NV for Vita on sales of the foreign like product in Germany, and
third-country market with the greatest volume of foreign like product
sales.
B. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
In the most recently completed administrative review, the
Department determined that Vita sold foreign like product at prices
below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales
from the calculation of NV. As a result, the Department determined that
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the
instant POR, Vita sold the foreign like product at prices below the
cost of producing the merchandise, see section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act, and the Department initiated a sales below cost inquiry for Vita.
[[Page 45654]]
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each unique
foreign like product sold by Vita during the POR, we calculated a
weighted average COP based on the sum of the respondent's materials and
fabrication costs and selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expertise, including interest expenses, and packing costs. Consistent
with the position taken by the Department in prior segments of this
proceeding, for reporting purposes, Vita allocated certain costs
between solid and juice products using the net realizable value (NRV)
of the products during the five-year period of 1990 through 1994. We
relied on the costs submitted by Vita except for the following items,
which were revised based upon our verification findings: pineapples,
citric acid, steam and labor. For details regarding these revisions,
see the Vita verification report (Vita Verification Report), dated July
21, 2005, and the Vita Analysis Memorandum.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the
COP, on a product-specific basis we compared the respondent's weighted
average COPs, adjusted as noted above, to the prices of its comparison
market sales of foreign like product, as required under section 773(b)
of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,
in determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at
prices less than the COP we examined whether such sales were made: (1)
In substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. We compared the COP to comparison market sales prices,
less any applicable movement charges.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that
product because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities''
and within an extended period of time (i.e., one year) pursuant to
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on our comparison of
POR average costs to reported prices, we also determined, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that certain sales were not made
at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. As a result, we disregarded such below-cost sales.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
Where it was appropriate to base NV on prices, we used the prices
at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the
comparison market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary
of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (LOT)
as the comparison U.S. sale.
For Vita, we based NV on the prices of its sales to unaffiliated
customers in Germany. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for
physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A),
(B), and (C) of the Act, where appropriate, we deducted from the
starting price movement expenses. We also made circumstance of sale
adjustments to account for differences in packing, credit and other
direct selling expenses incurred in the comparison and U.S. markets. In
addition, where applicable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we made a
reasonable allowance for other selling expenses where commissions were
paid in only one of the markets under consideration. Based on our
verification findings, we revised credit, indirect selling expenses,
and bank charges reported by Vita. For details regarding these
revisions, see the Vita Verification Report, and the Vita Analysis
Memorandum. In accordance with the Department's practice, where all
contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale resulted in difference-in-
merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of
manufacturing the product sold in the United States, we based NV on CV.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV
when we were unable to compare the U.S. sale to a comparison market
sale of an identical or similar product. For each unique CPF product
sold by Vita in the United States during the POR, we calculated a
weighted-average CV based on the sum of the respondent's materials and
fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, including interest expenses, packing
costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act,
we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized
by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption
in Germany. We based selling expenses on weighted-average actual
comparison market direct and indirect selling expenses. In calculating
CV, we adjusted the reported costs as described in the COP section
above.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market
at the same LOT as the EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price
sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the
sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the
U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually
from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information
from Vita regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and
comparison market sales, including a description of the selling
activities performed by Vita for each channel of distribution.
Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same, the functions and
activities of the seller at each level should be similar. Conversely,
if a party reports that LOTs are different for different groups of
sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for each
group should be dissimilar.
Vita reported that it sold the merchandise under review to two
types of customers, sales agents and end users, in the United States
and Germany through one channel of distribution in each market. See
Vita's September 7, 2004, and October 12, 2004, questionnaire responses
at 19-23. In each channel of distribution, Vita engaged in the
following selling activities for both types of customers: order
processing, packing, freight and delivery, providing warranties, and
paying sales commissions. Because the
[[Page 45655]]
one sales channel in the United States involves the same functions for
all sales, and the one sales channel in Germany also involves the same
functions for all sales, we have preliminarily determined that there is
one LOT in the United States and one LOT in Germany. Moreover, because
Vita performed nearly identical selling functions for U.S. and German
sales (the only difference being that, at times, Vita arranged the
international shipping for German sales, whereas it did not provide
this service for U.S. sales), we have preliminarily determined that,
during the POR, Vita sold the foreign like product and subject
merchandise at the same LOT. Therefore, we have determined that a LOT
adjustment is not warranted.
Currency Conversion
Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts
expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts 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
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determined that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1,
2003, through June 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd................................ 9.12
Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd.................. 51.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of
this review, we will disclose to interested parties, any calculations
performed in connection with the preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 Sec.
351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, or the first
workday thereafter. Interested parties are invited to comment on the
preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case
briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Also, interested
parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later
than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who
submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and, (3) a
table of authorities. Further, we request that parties submitting
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an
electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Unless the
deadline for issuing the final results of review is extended, the
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written
comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in
the Federal Register.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated
importer-specific assessment rather for Vita's subject merchandise.
Since Vita did not report the entered value for its sales, we
calculated per-unit assessment rates for its merchandise by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and
dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine
whether the per-unit duty assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent ad valorem), in accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad
valorem ratios based on export prices. For TPC, the respondent received
a dumping margin based upon AFA, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of
publication of the final results of this review.
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 rate for the reviewed
companies will be the rate established in the final results of the
review (except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis,
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated or review companies not
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to
be the ``all others'' rate of 24.64 percent, which is the ``all
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit
rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative review.
Notification of Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
within this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption
that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-15640 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M