G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24  
 
1 April 2016  
(16-1822)  Page: 1/9  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS  UNDER  
ARTICLE 18.5 OF THE AGREEMENT  
UNITED STATES 
Supplement 
The following communication, dated 25 March 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Pursuant to Article 18.5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the United States hereby notifies: 
 
Modifications of Regulations Regarding Price Adjustments in Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 
81 Fed. Reg. 15641 (Mar. 24, 2016).  
The United States is notifying a modification to its regulations pertaining to price adjustments in 
antidumping duty proceedings. These modification s clarify that the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(Commerce) does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale 
unless the interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to 
such an adjustment. Commerce has further adopted in this final rule a non-exhaustive list of 
factors that it may consider in determining whether to accept a price adjustment that is made after 
the time of sale. 
 The rule is effective April 25, 2016.  
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2016)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Pages 15641-15646] 
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] 
[FR Doc No: 2016-06698] 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
International Trade Administration 
19 CFR Part 351 
[Docket No. 140929814-6136-02]  
RIN 0625-AB02 Modification of Regulations Regarding Price Adjustments in Antidumping Duty 
Proceedings 
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of 
Commerce. 
ACTION:  Final rule. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 2 - 
 
  SUMMARY:  The Department of Commerce (the Department) is modifying its regulations 
pertaining to price adjustments in antidumping duty proceedings. These modifications clarify that the Department does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to 
such an adjustment. The Department has further adop ted in this final rule a non-exhaustive list of 
factors that it may consider in determining whether to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale. 
 
DATES:  Effective date: April 25, 2016. Applicability date: This rule will apply to all proceedings 
initiated on or after April 25, 2016.  
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jessica Link at (202) 482-1411, James Ahrens at 
(202) 482-3558, or Melissa Skinner at (202) 482-0461.  
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  
 Background 
 
Section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) provides that when a company is selling foreign merchandise into the United States at less than fair value, and material injury or t h r e a t  o f  m a t e r i a l  i n j u r y  i s  f o u n d  b y  t h e  I n t e rnational Trade Commission, the Department shall 
impose an antidumping duty. An antidumping du ty analysis involves a comparison of the 
company's sales price in the United States (known as the export price or constructed export price) 
with the price or cost in the foreign market (k nown as the normal value). See 19 CFR 351.401(a). 
See also section 772 of the Act (defining export price and constructed export price) and 
section 773 of the Act (defining normal value). The prices used to establish export price, 
constructed export price, and normal value involve certain adjustments. See, e.g., 
19 CFR 351.401(b). In its May 19, 1997 final rulemaking, the Department promulgated regulatory 
provisions governing the use of price adjustments in the calculation of export price, constructed export price, and normal value in antidu mping duty proceedings. Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997) ("1997 Final Rule''). In particular, 
the Department promulgated the current regulation at 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38), which provides a 
definition of "price adjustment.'' In providing this definition, the Department stated that "[t]his term is intended to describe a category of changes to a price, such as discounts, rebates and 
post-sale price adjustments, that affect the net outlay of funds by the purchaser.'' 1997 Final Rule, 
62 FR at 27300.  
The Department also enacted 19 CFR 351.401(c) that explains how the Department will use a 
price net of price adjustments. In the 1997 Final Rule, the Department explained that 19 CFR 351.401(c) was intended to "restate[] the Department's practice with respect to price adjustments, such as discounts and rebates.'' Id., 62 FR at 27344. 
 
The Department also addressed the following comm ent received on the 1997 Final Rule's proposed 
rulemaking, regarding whether "after the fact'' price adjustments, that were not contemplated at 
the time of sale, would be accepted under 19 CFR 351.401(c): 
 One commenter suggested that, at least for purposes of normal value, the regulations should 
clarify that the only rebates Commerce will consider are ones that were contemplated at the time 
of sale. This commenter argued that foreign producers should not be allowed to eliminate dumping margins by providing "rebates'' only after the existence of margins becomes apparent. 
 
The Department has not adopted this suggestion at this time. We do not disagree with the 
proposition that exporters or producers will not be allowed to eliminate dumping margins by providing price adjustments "after the fact.'' However, as discussed above, the Department's 
treatment of price adjustments in general has b een the subject of considerable confusion. In 
resolving this confusion, we intend to proceed cautiously and incrementally. The regulatory revisions contained in these final rules constitute a first step at clarifying our treatment of price 
adjustments. We will consider adding othe r regulatory refinements at a later date. 
 Id., 62 FR at 27344. Since enacting these regulations, the Department has consistently applied its practice of not granting price adjustments wher e the terms and conditions were not established 
and known to the customer at the time of sa le (sometimes referred to as determining the G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 3 - 
 
  "legitimacy'' of a price adjustment) because of the potential for manipulation of the dumping 
margins through so-called "after-the-fact '', or post-sale, adjustments. See, e.g., Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value , 
79 FR 41979 (July 18, 2014) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Cmt. 3; 
Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 22078 (April 20, 2011) (Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Cmt. 3; Canned Pineapple Fruit from 
Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
71 FR 70948 (Dec. 7, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Cmt. 1; Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany,  Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Cmt. 19. 
 On March 25, 2014, the Court of International Trade issued Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. 
United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (Koehler AG), remanding the 
Department's decision in Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, noted above. The Court 
ordered the Department to reconsider Papierfabrik August Koehler AG's rebate program. The Court 
disagreed with the Department's determination th at the regulations permitted it to disregard 
certain price adjustments, the terms and conditions of which were not established or known to the customer at the time of sale, stating that "the regulations set forth a broad definition of price adjustment encompassing 'any change in the price charged for . . . the foreign like product' that 
'are reflected in the purchaser's net outlay.' '' 971 F. Supp. 2d at 1251-52 (quoting 
19 CFR 351.102(b)(38)) (emphasis added by Court). In accordance with the Court's order, on remand, under protest, the Department granted an adjustment for the rebates at issue. See Final 
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, 
Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United Stat es, Court No.11-00147, Slip Op.14-31 (Ct. Int'l 
Trade March 25, 2014), dated June 20, 2014. 
 
On December 31, 2014, the Department published a proposed modification of its regulations, 
19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c), which concern price adjustments in antidumping duty proceedings. See Modification of Regulati ons Regarding Price Adjustments in Antidumping 
Duty Proceedings, 79 FR 78742 (December 31, 2014) (Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule 
explained the Department's proposal, in light of the Court of International Trade's decision in 
Koehler AG, to clarify that the Department generally will not consider a price adjustment that 
reduces or eliminates dumping margins unless the party claiming such price adjustment 
demonstrates that the terms and conditions of the adjustment were established and known to the customer at the time of sale. 
 
The Department received numerous comments on the Proposed Rule and has addressed these comments below. The Proposed Rule, comments received, and this final rule can be accessed using the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.Regulations.gov  under Docket Number 
ITA-2014-0001. After analyzing and carefully considering all of the comments that the Department 
received in response to the Proposed Rule, the Department has adopted the modification with certain changes, and is amending its regulations accordingly. 
 
Explanation of Regulatory Provision and Final Modification  
The Department is modifying two of its regulations relating to price adjustments in antidumping 
duty proceedings: the definition of the term "p rice adjustment'' in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38), and the 
Department's explanation of its use of prices net of price adjustments in 19 CFR 351.401(c).  
In the Proposed Rule, the Department proposed minor refinements to the definition of price 
adjustment in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38). In this fina l rule, and in light of a party's comment, as 
discussed in further detail below, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to refine 
the definition of price adjustment. In particular, we are including language in 
19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to clarify that a price adjustment is not limited to discounts or rebates, but encompasses other adjustments as well. 
 
Prior to the Proposed Rule, 19 CFR 351.401(c) provid ed an explanation of the Department's use of 
prices net of price adjustment in calculating ex port price (or constructed exported price) and 
normal value (where price is used as the basis for normal value). In the Proposed Rule, the 
Department proposed to modify 19 CFR 351.401(c), in light of the Court of International Trade's G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 4 - 
 
  decision on Koehler AG, in two respects. First, in the first sentence of 19 CFR 351.401(c), the 
Department proposed language indicating that it would normally use a price that is net of any price adjustment. Second, the Department proposed to add a second sentence to 
19 CFR 351.401(c) that clarified the Department generally would not consider a price adjustment 
that reduces or eliminates a dumping margin unless the party claiming such price adjustment 
demonstrates that the terms and conditions of the adjustment were established and known to the customer at the time of sale. 
 
In the final rule, as discussed below, in light of comments received from interested parties, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.401(c) to clarify that the Department does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party 
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an adjustment. The 
Department has further provided in this final rule, as discussed in further detail below, a non-exhaustive list of factors which it may consider in determining whether to accept price adjustments 
that are made after the time of sale, also referred to as "after-the-fact'' or "post-sale'' 
adjustments.   
Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule 
 The Department received numerous comments on its Proposed Rule. Below is a summary of the comments, grouped by issue category, followed by the Department's response. 
 
1. Whether Any Changes to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c) Are Necessary  
Several commenters argue that the Proposed Rule is the appropriate response to Koehler AG and 
is necessary to maintain the integrity of th e Department's proceedings and to prevent the 
manipulation of dumping margins through "after -the-fact'' adjustments. These commenters argue 
that in Koehler AG, the Court improperly found that the plain language of the current regulations 
precludes the disallowance of any post-sale pric e adjustments. Without the Proposed Rule, these 
commenters argue that foreign producers and exporters would have every incentive to calculate the U.S. price reduction necessary to eliminate dumping, and then lower their prices accordingly 
through retroactive rebates to customers in the home or third-country market, thereby reducing or 
eliminating the dumping margins and undermining the integrity of the Department's proceedings.  
One commenter argues that the Proposed Rule is unnecessary because the Department has 
provided no evidence of respondents utilizing ma nipulative post-sale price adjustments and that 
existing regulations are sufficient to maintain the integrity of the Department's proceedings 
because, under 19 CFR 351.401(b)(1), the Department can already deny a price adjustment if it 
determines that the adjustment is not bona fide. This commenter further argues that the Proposed Rule unduly burdens respondents operating in industries where many discounts and rebates are agreed to on an ad hoc basis without documentation over the course of multiple transactions many 
months before the Department's proceedings. 
 Response:  The Department finds that the proposed changes will help protect the integrity of our 
proceedings and are an appropriate response to  Koehler AG, which hinders the Department's 
ability to address after-the-fact rebates which present the potential for manipulation of dumping margins. In Koehler AG the Court of International Trade held that the Department did not have the 
discretion under 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c)--as currently written--to address 
such manipulative after-the-fact rebates. See 971 F. Supp. 2d at 1251-52. The Proposed Rule, and the further modifications adopted in this final rule, codify the Department's intent and discretion to prevent certain post-sale price adjustments, like those at issue in Koehler AG, and therefore are 
appropriate to protect the integrity of our proceedings. We believe that these further 
modifications, discussed below, should address any concerns that the Proposed Rule was unduly burdensome and does not account for actual business practices. 
 
2. Whether the Proposed Rule Is Consistent With  the Statute and U.S. International Obligations 
 
Several commenters state that the Proposed Rule is consistent with the Department's general 
statutory authority to impose antidumping duties pursuant to section 731 of the Act. One commenter argues that the Proposed Rule is inconsistent with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. This commenter argues that a discount or rebate, regardless of when it is established and known 
to the customer, is a circumstance of sale which falls within the statute's instruction that normal G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 5 - 
 
  value shall be increased or decreased by the amount of any difference between export price (or 
constructed export price) and normal value established to the Department's satisfaction to be due to differences in the circumstances of sale. This commenter notes that the statute does not include a requirement that the customer have knowle dge of the adjustment prior to the sale. 
 
This same commenter argues that the Proposed Rule is inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Antidumping (AD) Agreement, which provides that due allowance shall be made for differences 
that affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale. This 
commenter notes the opinion of Dispute Settlemen t Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) in United States – Stainless Steel (Korea)  that a condition or term of sale within the 
meaning of Article 2.4 is a condition or term that  reasonably can be anticipated and accounted for 
at the time of sale. An additional commenter argues that any regulation that would necessarily 
disallow an adjustment only if it reduced or eliminated dumping margins could be construed as violating the "fair comparison'' requiremen t of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement. 
 
Response:  The Department disagrees with the commenter's argument that the Department's 
proposed modifications to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c) are inconsistent with the 
statute. As an initial matter, the commenter argues that these modifications are inconsistent with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, which states that normal value shall be increased or decreased by the amount of any difference between export price (or constructed export price) and normal 
value established to the Department's satisfaction to be due to differences in the circumstances of 
sale. However, the statutory basis for the price adjustments addressed in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) 
and 19 CFR 351.401(c) is not section 773(a)(6)(C )(iii) of the Act, but rather, is found in 
sections 772(a) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i), which provide that in determining export price or normal 
value the Department begins with the price at which the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product is first sold-in other words, the basic "starting price'' provisions. See 1997 Final Rule, 62 FR at 27344 ("[The] use of a net price is consistent with the view that discounts, rebates and 
similar price adjustments are not expenses, but instead are items taken into account to derive the 
price paid by the purchaser.'') This is confirmed by the Department's treatment of the price adjustments described in 19 CFR 351.401(c) as something other than a circumstance of sale adjustment. Compare 19 CFR 351.401(c) (addressing use of price net of price adjustments) with 
19 CFR 351.410 (addressing circumstances of sale adjustments which specifically cover direct 
selling expenses and assumed expenses between the seller and the buyer).  
We disagree with the commenter's contention that the Proposed Rule was nevertheless 
inconsistent with the statute, which requires the Department to make adjustments for differences which affect price comparability, as well as the Department's obligation under U.S. law to calculate 
dumping margins as accurately as possible. As several commenters recognized, and as discussed 
in further detail below, the Department has a lo ngstanding practice of denying certain post-sale 
price adjustments where there exists a potential fo r manipulation of the dumping margins, and the 
courts have affirmed this practice as consistent with the statute. See Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG v. 
United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 834, 840 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998) ("Commerce's decision to reject 
price amendments that present the potentia l for price manipulation was a permissible 
interpretation of the statute.''); Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 538, 555 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade 1988) ("The ITA has been vested with authority to administer the antidumping laws in 
accordance with the legislative intent. To this end, the ITA has a certain amount of discretion [to act] . . . with the purpose in mind of preventing the intentional evasion or circumvention of the 
antidumping duty law.''), aff'd 898 F.2d 1577 (1990). 
 The Proposed Rule, in proposing certain modifications to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) and 19 CFR 351.401(c), was intended to codify the Department's intent to prevent such potentially 
manipulative post-sale price adjustments. As discussed below, in this final rule the Department 
has made further modifications to these regulations to clarify that the Department does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made afte r the time of sale unless the interested party 
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an adjustment. These 
final modifications continue to be consistent with the Department's statutory authority, in setting the "starting price'' of normal value or export price, and prevent the potential manipulation of 
dumping margins through certain post-sale price adjustments. 
 Finally, the Department disagrees with those commenters that argue that the Proposed Rule was inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations. To the contrary, the Department finds that 
the Proposed Rule was consistent with U.S. law, which is consistent with our obligations under the G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 6 - 
 
  AD Agreement. In any case, the relevant language which one commenter objected to with respect 
to specifically disallowing adjustments which reduce or eliminate dumping margins does not appear in the final rule.  
3. Whether the Proposed Rule Is Consistent With the Department's Practice 
 Several commenters argue that the Proposed Rule codifies the Department's longstanding practice 
of disallowing price adjustments that reduce or  eliminate dumping margins where the terms and 
conditions of the adjustment were not established and known to the customer at the time of sale. Several of these commenters argue that the Proposed  Rule is consistent with other aspects of the 
Department's practice based on the principle that the Department's proceedings should be free 
from outcome-driven manipulation and that du mping margins should reflect the respondent's 
pricing behavior in the ordinary course of business.  
One commenter argues that the Proposed Rule in its current form is overly broad and, if adopted, 
threatens to eliminate certain legitimate post-sale price adjustments that were previously granted by the Department. This commenter argues that the Department's practice has allowed for at least 
three categories of post-sale price adjustments that the Proposed Rule would preclude: (1) Price 
protection adjustments whereby a buyer seeks a price adjustment to sell a commodity downstream when commodity prices are rapidly ch anging; (2) post-invoice consumer rebates that 
offer the buyer a rebate at the time it sells the product to an end user, where such rebates often 
are not fixed at the time of the first sale; and (3) quality-upon-receipt discounts, which are 
common for perishable goods.  
Response:  W e  f i n d  t h a t  th e  P r op o s e d  R u l e  w a s  i n t e n d ed to codify the Department's intent and 
discretion to prevent certain post-sale price adjustments. However, in light of certain comments, we recognize that the proposed modifications to 19 CFR 351.401(c) could have the unintended 
effect of limiting the Department's discretion to accept certain post-sale price adjustments which 
the Department has previously accepted. Therefore, as discussed below, we have made further modifications to 19 CFR 351.401(c) to ensure that the Department maintains its intended discretion. 
 
4. Whether the Department Should Implement Any Changes to the Proposed Rule  
Several commenters argue that the Department shou ld adopt the Proposed Rule in its entirety, as 
it is an appropriate and necessary codification  of the Department's established practice of 
disallowing certain post-sale price adjustments. 
 
One commenter argues that the Department should clarify that the Proposed Rule is not intended to limit the Department's discretion to address post-sale price adjustments other than rebates or discounts, such as billings adjustments. This commenter observes that whereas prior to this 
modification 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) listed discounts, rebates, and post-sale price adjustments as 
examples of changes in price that could qualify as  price adjustments, the Proposed Rule does not 
include the term "post-sale price adjustments.'' This same commenter suggests that the 
Department consider a set of factors in determining whether to grant a price adjustment normally 
under its regulations. This commenter suggests that the Department could consider the following: (1) How common such post-sale price adjustments are for the industry; (2) the timing of the 
adjustment; (3) the number of such adjustments in the proceeding; (4) whether the reported 
changes reflect both increases and decreases to the originally negotiated prices in the relevant markets; (5) whether there is commercial documentation maintained in the ordinary course of business demonstrating that the price changes were  negotiated by the parties and resulted in a 
change in the purchaser's net outlay and a change in the producer's net revenues; and (6) any 
other factors tending to reflect on the legitimacy of the claimed adjustment.  
Other commenters argue that the Proposed Rule in its current form is inconsistent with normal 
business practices in many industries investigated by the Department.  
One commenter proposes modifying 19 CFR 351.401(c) to allow for a price adjustment if the party 
seeking the adjustment can demonstrate that the adjustment at issue is within the party's standard business practice that existed prior to the initiation of the proceeding.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Response:  With respect to the proposed changes to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) in the Proposed Rule, 
these modifications were not intended to foreclose other types of price adjustments, such as billing adjustments and post-sale decreases to home market prices or increases to U.S. prices. Nonetheless, in light of a party's comment, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to 
refine the definition of price adjustment and to clarify that a price adjustment is not just limited to 
discounts or rebates, but encompasses other adjustments as well.  
With respect to 19 CFR 351.401(c), in light of concer ns that the modifications in the Proposed Rule 
may have the unintended consequence of being overly restrictive and limiting the Department's discretion to accept certain post-sale price adjustments which it has previously accepted, the Department is modifying 19 CFR 351.401(c) to clarify that the Department generally will not 
accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party 
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an adjustment.  
In determining whether a party has demonstrated its entitlement to such an adjustment, the 
Department may consider: (1) Whether the terms and conditions of the adjustment were established and/or known to the customer at the time of sale, and whether this can be 
demonstrated through documentation; (2) how common such post-sale price adjustments are for 
the company and/or industry; (3) the timing of the adjustment; (4) the number of such adjustments in the proceeding; and (5) any other factors tending to reflect on the legitimacy of the claimed adjustment. The Department may consider any one or a combination of these factors 
in making its determination, which will be made on a case-by-case basis and in light of the 
evidence and arguments on each record.  
As demonstrated above, the Department is expressly referencing in this final rule certain of the 
factors suggested by one commenter. Other factors which are not expressly adopted here might fall under the last category we identify,  i.e., "any other factors tending to reflect on the legitimacy 
of the claimed adjustment.'' 
 We have not adopted the one commenter's suggestion, either in the regulation itself, or in this final rule, to accept post-sale price adjustments if a company can demonstrate that the adjustment 
at issue is part of its standard business practice that existed prior to the initiation of the 
proceeding. We believe that the list we have identified above provides adequate factors for the Department to consider in determining whether a company has demonstrated its entitlement to an 
adjustment. We also note that the timing of the adjustment is one of those criteria. However, we 
believe that allowing a company to simply show that certain adjustments are part of its standard business practice might permit certain adjustments, such as those at issue in Koehler AG, that 
have the potential to manipulate the dumping margins. As discussed above, it is the Department's 
intention to codify its discretion to reject those types of adjustments.  5. Effective Date of Final Rule 
 
One commenter agrees with the Department's proposal in the Proposed Rule to set the effective date of the final rule to apply to proceedings initiated on or after 30 days following the publication 
of the final rule. This commenter states that the pr oposed effective date is appropriate, and that it 
would be unfair to apply the final rule to shipments that took place prior to publication of the final rule. 
 
Response:  The Department agrees that it is appropriate that the final rule be effective for 
proceedings which are initiated on or after 30 days  following the date of publication of the final 
rule. We note that the final rule will therefore apply to entries of merchandise that took place prior 
to publication of the final rule. However, we believe this does not result in unfairness as the 
regulations, both in their current form and in this final rulemaking, merely guide the Department on what adjustments to make to export price or constructed export price and normal value under 
certain factual scenarios in the course of an anti dumping duty proceeding. The final rule therefore 
impacts the way in which the Department makes certain calculations in antidumping duty proceedings, and no entities would be required to undertake additional compliance measures or 
expenditures on entries that have already taken place. 
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Changes From the Proposed Rule 
 In the final rule, the Department has added further refinements to the definition of price adjustment in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38) to clarify that a price adjustment is not limited to discounts 
or rebates, but encompasses other adjustments as  well. The Department has also made certain 
modifications to the new second sentence of 19 CFR 351.401(c) to clarify that the Department does not intend to accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the 
interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Department, its entitlement to such an 
adjustment.  Classifications 
 
Executive Order 12866  
It has been determined that this rule is not si gnificant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. 
 Paperwork Reduction Act 
 
This rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.  
Executive Order 13132 
 This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in 
section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)). 
 Regulatory Flexibility Act 
 
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , the Chief Counsel for 
Regulation at the Department of Commerce has ce rtified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small 
Business Administration, that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published with the 
Proposed Rule and is not repeated here. No co mments were received regarding the economic 
impact of this rule. As a result, the conclusion in the certification memorandum for the Proposed 
Rule remains unchanged and a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and one has not 
been prepared.  
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351 
 Administrative practice and procedure, Antidump ing, Business and industry, Cheese, Confidential 
business information, Countervailing duties, Freedom of information, Investigations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. 
 Dated: March 17, 2016. 
Paul Piquado, 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.  
For the reasons stated, 19 CFR part 351 is amended as follows: 
 PART 351 – ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES  
1. The authority citation for 19 CFR part 351 continues to read as follows: 
 
Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 
et seq. ; and 19 U.S.C. 3538. 
 2. In Sec. 351.102, revise paragraph (b)(38) to read as follows: 
 
Sec. 351.102 Definitions.  * * * * * 
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 
 
- 9 - 
 
  (b) * * * 
(38) Price adjustment.  "Price adjustment'' means a change in the price charged for subject 
merchandise or the foreign like product, such  as a discount, rebate, or other adjustment, 
including, under certain circumstances, a change that is made after the time of sale (see 
Sec. 351.401(c)), that is reflected in the purchaser's net outlay. 
 * * * * * 
 
3. In Sec. 351.401, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:  Sec. 351.401 In general. 
 
* * * * *  
(c) Use of price net of price adjustments . In calculating export price, constructed export 
price, and normal value (where normal value is based on price), the Secretary normally will use a price that is net of price adjustments, as defined in Sec. 351.102(b), that are reasonably 
attributable to the subject merchandise or the foreign like product (whichever is applicable). The 
Secretary will not accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, its entitlement to such an adjustment. 
 
* * * * *  
[FR Doc. 2016-06698 Filed 3-23-16; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
 
 
 
__________