Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from V & M do Brasil, S.A. (VMB), the respondent, and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), the petitioner, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Brazil (A-351-826). This administrative review covers imports of seamless pipe from VMB. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that sales of seamless pipe by VMB have not been made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit: (1) A statement of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
May 26, 2006.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helen Kramer or David Kurt Kraus, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0405 or (202) 482-7871, respectively.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On August 3, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Brazil. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). On August 1, 2005, the Department published the opportunity to request administrative review of, inter alia, seamless pipe from Brazil for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on August 31, 2005, the respondent VMB and the petitioner U.S. Steel, requested that we conduct an administrative review of VMB's sales of seamless pipe. On September 28, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005).
On October 7, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to VMB. VMB submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on November 10, 2005, the responses to sections B and C on November 30, 2005, and the response to section D on December 16, 2005. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C on December 20, 2005, and a supplemental questionnaire for section D on January 20, 2006. The Department received the supplemental questionnaire response for sections A, B, and C on January 30, 2006, and the supplemental questionnaire response for section D on February 17, 2006.
Period of Review
The period of review is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are seamless pipes produced to the ASTM Start Printed Page 30380A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification.
For purposes of this order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thickness are commonly referred to as tubes.
The seamless pipes subject to this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The following information further defines the scope of this order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above:
Specifications, Characteristics and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent ASTM A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple-certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple-certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and offshore), such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe that, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. Specifically excluded from this order are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line or pressure applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are excluded from the scope of this order, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. Finally, also excluded from this order are redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the production of cold-drawn pipe or tube.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether VMB made sales of seamless pipe to the United States at less than fair value, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described below. Specifically, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NV.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we considered all products produced by VMB covered by the descriptions in the Scope of the Order section of this notice to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to VMB's U.S. sales of seamless pipe.
We have relied on the following six criteria to match U.S. sales of seamless pipe to sales in Brazil of the foreign like product: product specification, manufacturing process (cold-finished or hot-rolled), outside diameter, wall thickness, surface finish, and end finish. All U.S. sales were matched to sales of identical merchandise in the home market. Start Printed Page 30381
Constructed Export Price
Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by, or for the account of, the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d).
In the instant review, VMB sold seamless pipe through an affiliated company, Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes Corporation (VM Corp.) of Houston, Texas. VMB reported all of its U.S. sales of seamless pipe as CEP transactions. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined that VMB's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the United States and were made through its U.S. affiliate to an unaffiliated buyer. Such a determination is consistent with section 772(b) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AK Steel). In AK Steel, the Court of Appeals examined the definitions of export price (EP) and CEP, noting that “the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.” Id. at 1369. The court stated, “the critical differences between EP and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,” and noted that the phrase “outside the United States” had been added to the 1994 statutory definition of EP. Id. at 1368-70. Thus, the classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the contract for sale was concluded (i.e., inside or outside the United States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with the U.S. importer. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that VMB's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales.
For these CEP sales transactions, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty-paid prices to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement expenses included foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which also included imputed credit expenses and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
A. Home Market Viability
To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared VMB's volume of home market sales of seamless pipe to the volume of U.S. sales of seamless pipe, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because VMB's aggregate volume of home market sales of seamless pipe was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of seamless pipe, we determined that the home market was viable. See Section A Response, at Exhibit 1.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of production (COP) and therefore excluded such sales from its calculation of NV. See Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 24524 (May 10, 2005). The Department's affirmative findings of sales-below-cost in the preliminary results of the prior period review did not change in the final results. Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether VMB's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of VMB's material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. We relied on the COP data reported by VMB, except that we revised VMB's reported total cost of manufacturing by recalculating the correction factor (i.e., INDCOR) by allocating certain costs related only to seamless pipe over the reported cost of manufacture of seamless pipe, and allocating costs related to both subject and non-subject merchandise over the cost of goods sold of all products. For further details regarding this adjustment, see the Department's Cost of Production Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results V & M do Brasil, S.A. (COP Memorandum), dated June 2, 2006.
We compared the weighted-average COP figures to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of any applicable billing adjustments, indirect taxes (ICMS, IPI, COFINS and PIS), and any applicable movement charges.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Our cost test for VMB revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also Start Printed Page 30382indicated that for certain models, more than 20 percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.
C. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We matched all U.S. sales to NV. We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, interest revenue, indirect taxes, and the per-unit value of any post-transaction complementary invoices (or credit notes) that were issued to adjust for any errors in the originating invoice. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, insurance and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and commissions. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. We consider only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price after the deduction of expenses incurred in the United States and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. We analyze whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP sales. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. In the present review, VMB claimed that there was no LOT in the home market comparable to the LOT of the CEP sales, and requested a CEP offset. See Section A Response at A-29.
VMB claimed two LOTs in the home market based on distinct channels of distribution to two categories of customers: distributors and end-users. We examined the reported selling functions and found that VMB's home market selling functions for all customers include sales forecasting, planning, order processing, general selling functions performed by VMB sales personnel, technical assistance, and provisions for warranties, guarantees, and freight/delivery. VMB also claimed packing as a selling function performed for all customers. See Section A Response at Exh. 12. However, packing is an activity related to preparing the finished merchandise for shipment to the customer, and as such, does not constitute a selling activity that is relevant to a LOT analysis.
In addition, VMB reported several selling functions unique to each channel of distribution. Personnel training, sales promotion, distributor/dealer training, sales/marketing support, market research, and a provision for cash discounts are selling functions performed only in sales to distributors. While many sales to distributors go through unaffiliated warehouses, VMB does not incur inventory carrying costs for these sales. In contrast, engineering services, advertising, procurement/sourcing services, and after-sales services are provided solely to end-users. VMB also paid commissions on sales to some end-users. In addition, VMB reported the selling function of inventory maintenance with regard to sales to one end-user customer, for which a small percentage of VMB's sales are transferred to unaffiliated warehouses from which this customer regularly extracts merchandise on a just-in-time basis. See Section A Response at A-23; see also Section B Response at B-59. Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported home market channels of distribution are sufficiently different to consider them as two distinct LOTs.
Because VMB reported that all of its U.S. sales are CEP sales made through one channel of distribution to its U.S. affiliate, we preliminarily agree with VMB's claim that there is only one LOT in the U.S. market. We examined the claimed selling functions for VMB's CEP sales, i.e., the selling functions performed for sales to VM Corp., which include sales forecasting, order processing, technical assistance, delivery of the merchandise, and warranties. See Section A Response at Exh.12; see also VMB's Supplemental A-C Questionnaire Response dated January 30, 2006, at 12. VM Corp. handles the remaining selling functions of strategic planning, sales negotiations and promotion, sales support, and customer service involved in the CEP sales to the unaffiliated customer in the United States, which are not considered in our LOT analysis.
Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily determine that there is no LOT in the home market comparable to the CEP LOT, and it is therefore not possible to determine whether the difference in LOT affects price comparability. Consequently, we examined whether a CEP offset may be appropriate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(f) of the Department's regulations. We find that the selling functions VMB performs for sales to its Start Printed Page 30383U.S. affiliate are fewer and less complex than the selling functions VMB performs for either LOT in the home market. Compared to U.S. sales, the chain of distribution in the home market is at a level much more advanced. For example, many sales to distributors go through unaffiliated warehouses and VMB provides after-sales services to end-users. In contrast, VMB's selling functions for U.S. sales end with delivery at the port of entry.
Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, we preliminarily determine that a CEP offset adjustment is appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) 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
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005, to be as follows:
|Manufacturer / Exporter||Margin (percent)|
|V & M do Brasil, S.A.||0.00|
The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date. The Department will issue the final results of these preliminary results, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 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), we have calculated an importer-specific ad valorem rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to liquidate entries subject to this review without regard to antidumping duties.
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed company did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review 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 will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established 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) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 124.94 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). These deposit rates, 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)(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 with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of 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.Start Signature
Dated: May 19, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-8178 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S