Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 17649-17653 [E5-1612]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 66 (Thursday, April 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17649-17653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry 
Co., Ltd. (``Baoding Mantong''), the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). 
This review covers Baoding Mantong. The period of review (``POR'') is 
March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004. We preliminarily find that 
sales have been made below normal value (``NV''). The preliminary 
results are listed below in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of 
Review.'' If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
to assess the ad valorem margins against the entered value of each 
entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit 
comments are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument(s).

Effective Date: April 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey, Catherine Bertrand, or 
Shannon Fraser, at (202) 482-2313, (202) 482-3207, or (202) 482-0165, 
respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 29, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty 
Order: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 16116, (March 
29, 1995). On March 1, 2004, the Department published a Notice of 
Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 
9584 (March 1, 2004). On March 16, 2004, Baoding Mantong requested that 
the Department conduct an administrative review of its company's sales 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, in 
accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations. On 
April 28, 2004, the Department initiated the review for Baoding 
Mantong. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews in Part, 69 FR 23170 (April 28, 2004). On May 
26, 2004, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Baoding Mantong. On November 9, 2004, we invited interested parties to 
comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or 
significant production in the other potential surrogate countries and 
to submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production. On February 14, 2005, the Department received comments from 
Baoding Mantong on surrogate information with which to value the 
factors of production in this proceeding. With regard to Baoding 
Mantong, the Department received timely filed original and supplemental 
questionnaire responses.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is glycine, which is a free-
flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced 
at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, 
a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and 
a metal complexing agent. This review covers glycine of all purity 
levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act'') and 19 CFR 351.307, we conducted verification of the 
questionnaire responses of Baoding Mantong. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the production 
and sales facilities, and an examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the 
Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Sales and Factors Verification Report for Baoding Mantong Fine 
Chemistry Co., Ltd., dated March 31, 2005 (``Baoding Mantong 
Verification Report''). A public version of this report is on file in 
the Central Records Unit located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce 
Building.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can 
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to its export 
activities. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''). In this review, Baoding Mantong 
requested a separate company-specific rate. Accordingly, we have 
considered whether the company is independent from government control, 
and therefore eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate 
rate test to determine whether the exporter is independent from 
government control does not consider, in general,

[[Page 17650]]

macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 
minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to 
prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from the Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 
62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from Sparklers, as amplified 
by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with the separate rates 
criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if 
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over export activities.
    Baoding Mantong provided complete separate-rate information in its 
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, 
we performed a separate rates analysis to determine whether it is 
independent of government control.

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. Our analysis shows that the evidence on 
the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of 
government control for Baoding Mantong based on each of these factors. 
Baoding Mantong has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Foreign Trade 
Law of the People's Republic of China.'' See Attachment A-1 of Baoding 
Mantong's July 14, 2004 submission. The Foreign Trade Law allows the 
company full autonomy from the central authority in governing its 
business operations. We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the 
Foreign Trade Law, which states ``foreign trade dealers shall enjoy 
full autonomy in their business operation and be responsible for their 
own profits and losses in accordance with the law.'' During 
verification, Baoding Mantong also provided its ``Articles of 
Association,'' ``Certificate of Approval for Enterprises with Foreign 
Trade Rights in the People's Republic of China,'' and ``Foreign Trade 
Entity Registration Form.'' See Baoding Mantong Verification Report, 
Exhibit 1. As in prior cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws and 
approvals and found that they establish an absence of de jure control. 
See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of New Shipper Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) and 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). 
Baoding Mantong also submitted a copy of its business licence in 
Attachment A-2 of its July 14, 2004 submission. This license was issued 
by the Agency of Registration, Mancheng County, Industry and Commerce 
Administrative Bureau. Baoding Mantong indicates that its business 
operations are limited to the scope of the licence, and that the 
licence may be revoked if the company acts outside of its business 
scope, fails to pay taxes, or violates criminal laws. At verification, 
we reviewed Baoding Mantong's business license and found that it was 
granted in accordance with the relevant PRC laws. Moreover, the results 
of verification support the information provided regarding the PRC 
laws. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of 
de jure control over the export activities of Baoding Mantong.

Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its 
export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to, the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the respondent 
has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements; 
(3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making 
decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether 
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
government control which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates.
    Baoding Mantong has asserted the following: (1) It is a privately 
owned limited liability company; (2) there is no government 
participation in its setting of export prices; (3) its general manager 
has the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) it does not have to 
notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) 
there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its 
management is selected by its board of directors and it does not have 
to notify any government authorities of its management selection (See 
July 14, 2004 submission). We have examined the documentation provided 
and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among 
exporters of glycine from the PRC. Furthermore, our analysis of the 
responses during verification reveals no other information indicating 
the existence of government control. See Baoding Mantong Verification 
Report.
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over Baoding Mantong's 
export activities, we preliminarily determine that the company has met 
the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Baoding Mantong's sale of the subject 
merchandise to the United States was made at a price below NV, we 
compared its United States price to a normal value, as described in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' section of this notice.

United States Price

    For Baoding Mantong, we based United States price on export price 
(``EP'') in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, 
and constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by the facts 
on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the 
exporter to the first unaffiliated

[[Page 17651]]

customer in the United States. Although Baoding Mantong reported that 
its sale was made on an FOB basis, at verification the Department found 
that Baoding Mantong arranged and paid for the ocean freight from China 
to the U.S. port and then was reimbursed by the U.S. customer for the 
amount of freight expense. Accordingly, we have added the amount of 
freight revenue to the U.S. sales price and deducted the freight cost 
from the U.S. price. Because the Department verified that Baoding 
Mantong paid for the freight expense in renminbi, we valued the ocean 
freight using a surrogate value.
    Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or 
ocean freight were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in 
renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values or a 
U.S. surrogate value, as appropriate. (see ``Factors of Production'' 
section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were 
provided by a market-economy supplier and paid for in market-economy 
currency, we used the reported expense.

Normal Value

Non-Market-Economy Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the 
parties to this review have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we 
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which 
applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development, as identified in the October 15, 2004, Memorandum from the 
Office of Policy to Alex Villaneuva. See Attachment 1, Memorandum to 
the File from Shannon Fraser through James Doyle, ``Selection of a 
Surrogate Country,'' dated March 31, 2005 (``Surrogate Country 
Selection Memorandum''). In addition, based on publicly available 
information placed on the record (e.g., U.S. import data), India is a 
significant producer of the subject merchandise. Specifically, the 
United States imported 600,206 kilograms of glycine from India during 
the POR, making India the largest exporter of glycine to the United 
States. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for 
purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the 
Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See Surrogate 
Country Selection Memorandum.

Factors of Production

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. Factors of production include the following elements: (1) 
Hours of labor required, (2) quantities of raw materials employed, (3) 
amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and (4) representative 
capital costs. We valued all the input factors using publicly available 
information.
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final results of an administrative review, 
interested parties may submit publicly available information to value 
the factors of production no later than twenty days following the date 
of publication of these preliminary results.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited 
to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used factors 
of production reported by the producer or exporter for materials, 
energy, labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported 
unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian or U.S. values.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our 
practice. When we used publicly available import data from the Ministry 
of Commerce of India (``Indian Import Statistics'') for March 2003 
through February 2004 to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC 
suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight 
cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In instances where we 
relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and 
countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific 
subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e., 
Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value 
calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See, also, 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 
(November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final results at 69 
FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).
    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as 
published in the International Financial Statistics (``IFS'') of the 
International Monetary Fund (``IMF''), for those surrogate values in 
Indian rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant 
to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations, to U.S. dollars 
using the applicable average exchange rate for the POR. We based the 
average exchange rates on exchange rate data from the Import 
Administration Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/. 
See Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the 3/1/03-2/
29/04 Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China ``Factor Valuation Memo''.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:

[[Page 17652]]

Material and Packing Inputs

    To value the inputs of acetic acid, sulfur, liquid ammonia, 
formaldehyde, methyl alcohol, paper bags, and plastic liners, we used 
the weighted-average unit import value derived from Indian import 
statistics, as published in the World Trade Atlas for the period March 
1, 2003 through February 29, 2004. To value the input of liquid 
chlorine, we relied upon the average of two liquid chlorine prices, as 
obtained from the April 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003 financial 
statements of two Indian chemical companies, Bihar Caustic & Chemicals 
Limited and Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited.

Energy

    We valued electricity using the reported price for electricity in 
India in dollars per kilowatt hour for the year 2000 as reported by the 
International Energy Agency (IEA) in Key World Energy Statistics 
(2003), and we inflated the value for the POR by using the WPI for 
India. To value water, we relied upon public information from the 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web site. See https://
www.mcgm.gov.inStat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm. The Web site notes that the 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's data is for 2000 through 
2001. Because this data is not contemporaneous with the POR, an 
adjustment has been made for inflation using the WPI for India. To 
value coal, we used the weighted-average unit import value derived from 
Indian import statistics in the World Trade Atlas for the period March 
1, 2003 through February 29, 2004.

By-Products

    Baoding Mantong reported that it produced two by-products in its 
production of subject merchandise: Hydrochloric acid and ammonium 
chloride. At verification, we confirmed that Baoding Mantong made sales 
of these by-products. Accordingly, we adjusted the material cost 
downward to reflect a by-product offset to the material cost included 
in the normal value. We valued ammonium chloride by using the weighted-
average unit import values derived from Indian import statistics in the 
World Trade Atlas for the period March 1, 2003 through February 29, 
2004. We valued hydrochloric acid by using price information obtained 
from Chemical Weekly from March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004.

Labor

    For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at the Import 
Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected 
NME Countries, updated on November 15, 2004. See https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages/02wages/02wages.html. Because of the variability of wage rates 
in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, section 
351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a 
regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the 
Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 
2002, International Labour Office (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing.

Factory Overhead, Selling, General, and Administrative (``SG&A'') 
Expenses, and Profit

    To value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, we used the financial 
information obtained from the 2003-2004 financial statement of an 
Indian pharmaceutical producer, Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited 
(``Torrent''). The factory overhead ratio was calculated as a 
percentage of total manufacturing costs (which includes materials, 
labor, and energy). The SG&A ratio was calculated as a percentage of 
total factory overhead and total manufacturing costs. The profit ratio 
was calculated as a percentage of factory overhead, SG&A, and total 
manufacturing costs.

Transportation Expenses

    To value inland truck freight costs, we used freight prices 
published in the April 26, 2002 edition of the Iron & Steel Newsletter, 
which cites https://www.INFreight.com, which is an Indian logistics Web 
site that tracks freight rates for all of India. The Department 
averaged the rates from three points of origin (Mumbai, Dehli, and 
Calcutta) to all destinations for which distances were published by 
https://www.mapsofindia.com. Since the rate was not contemporaneous with 
the POR, we adjusted the rate for inflation using the WPI for India. To 
value ocean freight cost, we used information obtained from a U.S. 
international shipping company for a delivery from Baoding Mantong's 
reported port of export to the reported U.S. port of importation. See 
Memorandum to the File, ``Selection of Ocean Freight Cost,'' dated 
March 31, 2005.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminary determine that the following dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Manufacturer/export             Time period           Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry     3/1/03-2/29/04.....            76.72%
 Co., Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for assessment purposes, we will calculate 
importer-specific assessment rates for glycine from the PRC. We divide 
the total dumping margin for the reviewed sales by the total entered 
value of the reviewed sales for each importer during the POR. Upon 
completion of this review, we will direct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties based on a percentage of entered value equivalent to the 
company-specific dumping margin established in this review for each 
entry of subject merchandise made by Baoding Mantong during the POR. 
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly 
to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this 
administrative review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of the final results of this review for all shipments of glycine from 
the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of 
the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Baoding Mantong, the 
cash deposit rate will be that 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 the 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case 
the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed companies not listed above that have

[[Page 17653]]

separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash-
deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be the PRC-wide rate 
which is currently 155.89 percent; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for 
all other non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 
351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in 
accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any 
hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written 
request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an 
identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within 
five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal 
presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing no later than 48 hours before the scheduled time. The 
Department will issue the final results of this review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not 
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's 
regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
these review periods. 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 this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 31, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-1612 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P