[Federal Register: March 5, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10424-10428]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05mr04-49]
[[Page 10424]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
2002-2003 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 2002-2003 administrative
review and partial rescission of the review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of tapered roller
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's
Republic of China, were not made below normal value during the period
June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003. We are also rescinding the review,
in part, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries
of tapered roller bearings from Shanghai United Bearing Co., Ltd.
without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Anthony Grasso or Andrew Smith,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3853 and (202) 482-1276,
respectively.
Background
On June 15, 1987, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published in the Federal Register (52 FR 22667) the antidumping duty
order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and
unfinished (``TRBs''), from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').
The Department notified interested parties of the opportunity to
request an administrative review of this order on June 2, 2003 (68 FR
32727). The period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 2002, through May 31,
2003. On June 19, 2003, Shanghai United Bearing Co., Ltd. (``SUB'')
requested an administrative review. On June 20, 2003, Peer Bearing
Company--Changshan (``CPZ'') requested an administrative review. On
June 30, 2003, Yantai Timken Co., Ltd. (``Yantai Timken'') requested an
administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review on July 29, 2003 (68 FR 44524).
On August 6, 2003, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary General
of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for Import &
Export of Machinery and Electronics Products and requested that the
questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in our
initiation notice and to any subsidiary companies of the named
companies that produce and/or export the subject merchandise. In this
letter, we also requested information relevant to the issue of whether
the companies named in the initiation notice are independent from
government control. See the ``Separate Rates Determination'' section,
below. On August 6, 2003, courtesy copies of the questionnaire were
also sent to companies with legal representation.
On August 20, 2003, Yantai Timken requested that the Department
rescind its administrative review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
because Yantai Timken withdrew its request for review within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of this review and
no other party requested a review of this company, we are rescinding
the administrative review of Yantai Timken.
We received responses to the questionnaire in August, September,
and October 2003 from CPZ and SUB. We sent out supplemental
questionnaires to CPZ and SUB in December 2003, and received responses
to these supplemental questionnaires from both companies in December
2003.
On January 21, 2004, CPZ withdrew its request for an administrative
review. Although CPZ's withdrawal was submitted to the Department after
the 90 day deadline provided by 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), this section of
the Department's regulations permits the Department to extend the time
limit for rescission of administrative review if ``it is reasonable to
do so.'' As no other party requested a review of CPZ, and the
Department has not yet devoted extensive time and resources to this
review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the
administrative review of CPZ. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach,
``Partial Rescission of Review,'' dated January 29, 2004, which is on
file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), which is
located in Room B-099 of the main Department building.
Scope of the Review
Merchandise covered by this review includes TRBs and parts thereof,
finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and
hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller
housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or
without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise
is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS'') item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50,
8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,
8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Separate Rates Determination
The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'')
country in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), any
determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect
until revoked by the Department. None of the parties to this proceeding
has contested such treatment in this review. Moreover, parties to this
proceeding have not argued that the TRB industry in the PRC is a
market-oriented industry. Therefore, we are treating the PRC as an NME
country within the meaning of section 773(c) of the Act.
We allow companies in NME countries to receive separate antidumping
duty rates for purposes of assessment and cash deposits when those
companies can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law
and in fact, with respect to export activities. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14,
2003). To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the
Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991)
(``Sparklers''), as amplified by the 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''). As shown below,
SUB meets both the de jure and de facto criteria and is entitled,
therefore, to a separate rate.
[[Page 10425]]
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to apply a rate separate from
the PRC rate to SUB.
De Jure Analysis
The Department considers three factors that support, though do not
require, a finding of de jure absence of governmental control. These
factors include: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the 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.
During the POR, SUB was a foreign-joint venture formed under the
laws of the PRC and controlled by a board of directors. SUB is a joint
venture with majority interest held by a PRC company (that is not a
state-owned enterprise) and minority interest held by a U.S. company.
SUB submitted documents on the record that it claims demonstrates
the absence of de jure governmental control, including ``Foreign Trade
Law of the People's Republic of China'' (``Foreign Trade Law''),
``Company Law of the PRC'' (``Company Law''), and the ``Administrative
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the
Registration of Legal Corporations'' (``Administrative Regulations'').
See SUB's August 26, 2003, submission at Exhibit 2. In prior TRB cases,
the Department has analyzed similar PRC laws and regulations, and found
that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review,
66 FR 59569 (November 29, 2001).
The Foreign Trade Law grants autonomy to foreign trade operators in
management decisions and establishes accountability for their own
profits and losses. In prior cases, the Department has analyzed the
Foreign Trade Law and found that it establishes an absence of de jure
control. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's
Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995); Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). We have no
new information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider
this determination.
The Company Law is designed to meet the PRC's needs of establishing
a modern enterprise system, and to maintain social and economic order.
The Department has noted that the Company Law supports an absence of de
jure control because of its emphasis on the responsibility of each
company for its own profits and losses, thereby decentralizing control
of companies. See Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review 68 FR 40244, 40245 (July 7, 2003) (``Apple Juice
Preliminary Results'').
As noted in Apple Juice Preliminary Results, the Administrative
Regulations also safeguard social and economic order and established an
administrative system for the registration of corporations. The
Department has reviewed the Administrative Regulations and concluded
that they show an absence of de jure control by requiring companies to
bear civil liabilities independently, thereby decentralizing control of
companies. See Apple Juice Preliminary Results, 68 FR at 40245.
Moreover, according to SUB, TRB exports are not affected by quota
allocations or export license requirements. The Department has examined
the record in this case and does not find any evidence that TRB exports
are affected by quota allocations or export license requirements. By
contrast, the evidence on the record demonstrates that the producer/
exporter has the autonomy to set the price at whatever level it wishes
through independent price negotiations with its foreign customers and
without government interference. The business license issued to SUB
authorizes the company to manufacture and sell bearings as outlined in
the business scope section of the license.
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of
de jure government control over export pricing and marketing decisions
of the respondent.
De Facto Analysis
The Department uses four factors to determine de facto absence of
government control over export activities: (1) Whether each exporter
sets its own export prices independently of the government and without
the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3)
whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from
the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
SUB asserted that it establishes its own export prices. The board
of directors of SUB controls the company and chooses the general
manager. Other high-level officials are selected within the company.
SUB's sources of funds are its own revenues or bank loans. SUB retains
sole control over, and access to, its bank accounts, which are held in
SUB's own name. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on the use of
the respondent's revenues or profits, including export earnings. SUB's
general manager has the right to negotiate and enter into contracts,
and may delegate this authority to other employees within the company.
There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of
governmental approval. See SUB's August 26, 2003 submission, at pages
A-2 through A-11.
Based on the record evidence in this case, the Department notes
that SUB: (1) Establishes its own export prices; (2) negotiates
contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or
organizations; (3) makes its own personnel decisions; (4) retains the
proceeds from export sales and uses profits according to its business
needs without any restrictions; and (5) does not coordinate or consult
with other exporters regarding pricing decisions.
The information on the record supports a preliminary finding that
there is an absence of de facto governmental control of the export
functions of SUB. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that SUB has
met the criteria for the application of separate rates.
Export Price
For all sales made by SUB to the United States, we used export
price (``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because
the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States prior to importation into the United States and because
the CEP methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
We calculated EP based on the CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers.
From these prices we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine
insurance. We valued the deductions for foreign inland freight and
foreign brokerage and handling using surrogate data, which were based
on Indian freight costs. (We selected
[[Page 10426]]
India as the surrogate country for the reasons explained in the
``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below.) As the marine
insurance and ocean freight were provided by PRC-owned companies, we
valued the deductions using surrogate value data (amounts charged by
market-economy providers).
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine normal value (``NV'') for NME countries using a factors-of-
production (``FOP'') methodology if: (1) The subject merchandise is
exported from an NME country, and (2) the Department finds that the
available information does not permit the calculation of NV under
section 773(a) of the Act. We have no basis to determine that the
available information would permit the calculation of NV using PRC
prices or costs. Therefore, we calculated NV based on factors data in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.408(c).
Under the FOP methodology, we are required to value, to the extent
possible, the NME producer's inputs in a market-economy country that is
at a comparable level of economic development and that is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise. We chose India as the primary
surrogate country on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR
351.408(b). See the October 16, 2003, Memorandum to File: ``Requests
for Surrogate Values,'' which includes the September 2, 2003,
Memorandum to John Brinkmann from Ron Lorentzen: ``Antidumping
Administrative Review on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Request
for a List of Surrogate Countries'' and the March 1, 2004, Memorandum
to John Brinkmann: ``Selection of a Surrogate Country and Steel Value
Sources'' (``Steel Values Memorandum'') for a further discussion of our
surrogate selection. (Both memoranda are on file in the CRU.) However,
where we were unable to find suitable Indian data to value factors of
production, we have valued these inputs using public information on the
record for Indonesia, one of the comparable economies identified by the
Office of Policy. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003) and Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of
China: Amended Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review, 68 FR
75489 (December 31, 2003) (collectively, ``TRBs XV'').
We used publicly available information from India and Indonesia to
value the various factors. Pursuant to the Department's FOP
methodology, we valued the respondent's reported factors of production
by multiplying them by the values described below. For a complete
description of the factor values used, see the Memorandum to John
Brinkmann: ``Factors of Production Values Used for the Preliminary
Results,'' dated March 1, 2004, which is on file in the Department's
CRU.
1. Steel and Scrap. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the
production of cups and cones, we used an adjusted weighted-average of
Japanese export values to Indonesia from the Japanese Harmonized
Schedule (``HS'') category 7228.30.900 obtained from official Japan
Ministry of Finance statistics. We adjusted this data to include costs
incurred for ocean freight and marine insurance. This is the same
valuation methodology used in TRBs XV and Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of 2000-2001 Administrative Review, Partial
Rescission of Review, and Determination to Revoke Order, in Part, 67 FR
68990 (November 14, 2002) and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:
Amended Final Results of 2000-2001 Administrative Review, 67 FR 72147
(December 4, 2002) (collectively, ``TRBs XIV''). For cold-rolled steel
rods used in the production of rollers, we used Indonesian import data
under tariff subheading 7228.50.0000 obtained from the World Trade
Atlas (Statistics Indonesia). For cold-rolled steel sheet used in the
production of cages, we used Indian import data under Indian tariff
subheading 7209.1600 obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the
Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II--Imports and the World Trade Atlas. For
further discussion of selection of steel value sources, see Steel
Values Memorandum.
As in previous administrative reviews (see e.g., TRBs XIV), in this
proceeding, we eliminated from our calculation steel imports from NME
countries and imports from market economy countries that were made in
small quantities. For steel used in the production of cups, cones, and
rollers, we also excluded as necessary imports from countries that do
not produce bearing-quality steel (see, e.g., TRBs XIII). We made
adjustments to the import values to include freight costs using the
shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to
the PRC respondent or the domestic supplier to the PRC respondent. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 51410
(October 1, 1997); Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401
(Fed. Cir. 1997); Sigma Corporation v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 2d
1344, 1348 (CIT 2000).
We valued steel scrap recovered from the production of cups, cones,
and rollers using Indian import statistics from Indian HAS category
7204.2909 (``Others''), which was renumbered 7204.2990 as of April
2003. We relied on both HS numbers in our calculation. Scrap recovered
from the production of cages was valued using import data from Indian
HS category 7204.4100. This Indian trade data was obtained from the
World Trade Atlas. For further discussion of our calculations of these
values, see Steel Values Memorandum.
2. Labor. Section 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's
regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. We have
used the regression-based wage rate available on Import
Administration's internet Web site at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.
3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead,
selling, general, administrative expenses, and profit, we used
information contemporaneous to the POR (e.g., fiscal year 2002-2003)
obtained from the annual reports of three Indian bearing producers. We
calculated factory overhead and selling, general, and administrative
expenses as percentages of direct inputs and applied these ratios to
the PRC respondent's direct input costs. These expenses were calculated
exclusive of labor and electricity, but included employer provident
funds and welfare expenses not reflected in the Department's regressed
wage rate. This is consistent with the methodology we utilized in TRBs
XV and TRBs XIV. For profit, we totaled the reported profit before
taxes for two of the three Indian bearing producers and divided the
resulting total by the total calculated cost of production (``COP'') of
goods sold. Consistent with TRBs XV, we excluded from our profit
calculation the Indian company that reported a loss. This percentage
was applied to the respondent's total COP to derive a company-specific
profit value.
4. Packing. We calculated surrogate values for the packing
materials reported by SUB (e.g., wooden pallet, plastic bag, steel
strip) using import statistics reported in Monthly Statistics of the
Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II--
[[Page 10427]]
Imports by Commodity. We multiplied these surrogate values by the
reported usage factor to calculate SUB's packing costs.
5. Electricity. We calculated the surrogate value for electricity
based on an Indian electricity rate published in the Monthly Energy
Review by the Energy Information Agency. Because this information is
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the data to the POR using
Indian wholesale price indices (``WPI'') published by the International
Monetary Fund.
6. Diesel Oil. We calculated the surrogate value for diesel oil
based on the Indian high sulphur fuel oil for industry price published
in Energy Prices & Taxes by the International Energy Agency. Because
this information is not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the
data to the POR using the Indian WPI.
7. Foreign Inland Freight. To value truck freight rates, we used an
average of trucking rates quoted in Indian Chemical Weekly. This data
was contemporaneous to the POR.
8. Brokerage and Handling. To value brokerage and handling, we used
the public version of a U.S. sales listing reported in the
questionnaire response submitted by Meltroll Engineering for Stainless
Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 2000). Because this information is not
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the data to the POR by using
the Indian WPI.
9. Marine Insurance. Consistent with Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice
Concentrate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of the 2001-2002 Administrative Review, and Final
Results of the New Shipper Review, 68 FR 71062 (December 22, 2003), we
calculated a value for marine insurance based on the CIF value of
shipped TRBs based on a rate obtained by the Department through queries
made directly to an international marine insurance provider. We
adjusted this marine insurance rate to the POR using the U.S. purchase
price indices as published by the International Monetary Fund.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists
for the period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/manufacturer margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai United Bearing Co., Ltd........................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the date
of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs (see below). Interested parties may
submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of
filing the case briefs. Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings
should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and
a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case
briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3).
The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
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 exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this
review. We calculated an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem
rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered
value of the sales to that importer (or customer). In accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), where an importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is less than de minimis, we will
direct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties. Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis, and the entered value is not available, we will direct CBP to
apply the resulting per-unit dollar assessment rate against each unit
of merchandise in each of the importer's/customer's entries under the
order during the review period. We will calculate the per unit
assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margin (calculated as the
difference between NV and EP) for the importer/customer by the total
number of units sold to that importer/customer.
All other entries of the subject merchandise during the POR will be
liquidated at the antidumping duty rate in place at the time of entry.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication 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, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the PRC company
named above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for this firm
established in the final results of this review, except if the exporter
has a de minimis rate, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, then no deposit
will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters
with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific
rate established for the most recent period during which they were
reviewed; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC
country-wide rate, which is 60.95 percent (the highest margin from the
seventh administrative review of TRBs (1993-1994) pursuant the final
results of redetermination on remand from the Court of International
Trade, see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, signed on February 27,
2004); and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise
from the PRC, the cash deposit rate 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.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
[[Page 10428]]
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 1, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-5008 Filed 3-4-04; 8:45 am]