Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47429

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for each respondent will be the rate

established in the final results of these

administrative reviews (except that no

deposit will be required for firms with

zero or de minimis margins, i.e.,

margins lower than 0.5 percent); (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in these reviews, a

prior review, or the original LTFV

investigations, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in these or any prior reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 14.44

percent (for certain cold-rolled carbon

steel flat products) and 17.70 percent

(for certain corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products), the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigations.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23857 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–822, A–122–823]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products and certain cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Canada. These

reviews cover five manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States and the period August

1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (‘‘NV’’) by various companies

subject to these reviews. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of these administrative

reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs

to assess antidumping duties based on

the difference between the export price

(‘‘EP’’) and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn

Baranowski (Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco

Inc. (‘‘Dofasco’’)), Carrie Blozy

(Continuous Colour Coat (‘‘CCC’’)), Greg

Weber (Algoma, Inc. (‘‘Algoma’’)) and

Gerdau MRM Steel (‘‘MRM’’)), N. Gerard

Zapiain (Stelco, Inc. (‘‘Stelco’’)), or Rick

Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353, as they existed on April 1,

1996.

Background

On August 19, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 44162) the antidumping duty orders

on certain corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products and certain cut-tolength carbon steel plate from Canada.

On August 16, 1996, Algoma (cut-tolength steel plate) requested a review of

its exports of subject merchandise. On

August 21, 1996, MRM (cut-to-length

steel plate) requested a review of its

exports of subject merchandise. On

August 30, 1996, the following

companies also requested reviews for

their exports of subject merchandise:

CCC (corrosion-resistant steel), Dofasco

(corrosion-resistant steel), and Stelco

(corrosion-resistant steel and cut-tolength steel plate). On August 30, 1996,

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel

Group (a Unit of USX Corporation),

Inland Steel Industries Inc., Gulf States

Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel

Corporation, Geneva Steel, and Lukens

Steel Company, petitioners, requested

reviews of Algoma, CCC, Dofasco, MRM,

and Stelco on both classes or kinds of

merchandise. On September 17, 1996, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we

published a notice of initiation of

administrative reviews of these orders

for the period August 1, 1995, through

July 31, 1996 (61 FR 51892).

On October 10, 1996, petitioners

requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed by Algoma, CCC,

Dofasco, MRM, Sorevco, and Stelco

during the POR, pursuant to section

751(a)(4) of the Act. Section 751(a)(4)

provides that the Department, if

requested, will determine during an

administrative review initiated two

years or four years after publication of

the order whether antidumping duties

have been absorbed by a foreign

producer or exporter subject to the order

if the subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an importer who

is affiliated with such foreign producer

or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added

to the Act by the URAA. The

Department’s interim regulations do not

address this provision of the Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, i.e.,

orders in effect as of January 1, 1995,

§ 351.213(j)(2) of the Department’s May

19, 1997 regulations provides that the

Department will make a duty absorption

determination, if requested, for any

administrative review initiated in 1996

or 1998. See Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27394 (‘‘new regulations’’).
47430 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

Although these new regulations do not

govern these administrative reviews,

they do constitute a public statement of

how the Department will proceed in

construing section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

This approach assures that interested

parties will have the opportunity to

request a duty absorption determination

on entries for which the second and

fourth years following an order have

already passed, prior to the time for

sunset review of the order under section

751(c). Because the orders on corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products and

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Canada have been in effect since 1993,

these are transition orders in accordance

with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act;

therefore, based on the policy stated

above, the Department will consider a

request for an absorption determination

during a review initiated in 1996. This

being a review initiated in 1996 and a

request having been made, we are

making a duty-absorption determination

as part of these administrative reviews.

The statute provides for a

determination on duty absorption if the

subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an affiliated

importer. For all respondents, these

companies are themselves the importers

of record for either some (Algoma,

Stelco, and Dofasco) or all (CCC and

MRM) of their respective sales to the

U.S. (i.e., the exporter and the importer

are the same entity). In addition, some

of Dofasco’s U.S. sales are made through

a U.S. affiliate. Therefore, the importer

and the exporter are ‘‘affiliated’’ within

the meaning of 751(a)(4) for all Dofasco,

MRM and CCC transactions, and for

some Algoma and Stelco transactions.

With respect to CCC, we have

preliminarily determined that there is a

dumping margin on 7.39 percent of its

U.S. sales during the POR. For Dofasco,

we have preliminarily determined that

there is a dumping margin on 28.91

percent of its U.S. sales. For Algoma,

MRM, and Stelco, we have preliminarily

determined that there are zero or de

minimis dumping margins on these

companies’ U.S. sales during the POR.

In addition, for CCC and Dofasco, we

cannot conclude from the record that

the unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States will pay the ultimately assessed

duty. Under these circumstances,

therefore, we preliminarily find that

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by Dofasco on 28.91 percent of its U.S.

sales and by CCC on 7.39 percent of its

U.S. sales. For Algoma, MRM, and

Stelco, because there are no dumping

margins, we preliminarily find that

antidumping duties have not been

absorbed by Algoma, MRM, and Stelco

on their U.S. sales.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of

administrative reviews if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. On March 13, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to

September 2, 1997. See Extension of

Time Limit for Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 11813.

The Department is conducting these

reviews in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by these

administrative reviews constitute two

separate ‘‘classes or kinds’’ of

merchandise: (1) Certain corrosionresistant steel and (2) certain cut-tolength plate.

The first class or kind, certain

corrosion-resistant steel, includes flatrolled carbon steel products of

rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or

coated with corrosion-resistant metals

such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-,

aluminum-, nickel-or iron-based alloys,

whether or not corrugated or painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances in

addition to the metallic coating, in coils

(whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

under item numbers 7210.31.0000,

7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000,

7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090,

7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030,

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090,

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,

7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000,

7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030,

7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000,

7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,

7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000,

7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000,

7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000,

7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000,

7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000,

7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000,

7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and

7217.39.5000. Included are flat-rolled

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is

achieved subsequent to the rolling

process (i.e., products which have been

worked after rolling)—for example,

products which have been beveled or

rounded at the edges. Excluded are flatrolled steel products either plated or

coated with tin, lead, chromium,

chromium oxides, both tin and lead

(‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and

chromium oxides (‘‘tin-free steel’’),

whether or not painted, varnished or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances in addition to

the metallic coating. Also excluded are

clad products in straight lengths of

0.1875 inch or more in composite

thickness and of a width which exceeds

150 millimeters and measures at least

twice the thickness. Also excluded are

certain clad stainless flat-rolled

products, which are three-layered

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75

millimeters in composite thickness that

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

product clad on both sides with

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

These HTS item numbers are provided

for convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive. 33

The second class or kind, certain cutto-length plate, includes hot-rolled

carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e.,

flat-rolled products rolled on four faces

or in a closed box pass, of a width

exceeding 150 millimeters but not

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters,

not in coils and without patterns in

relief), of rectangular shape, neither

clad, plated nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape,

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances,

4.75 millimeters or more in thickness

and of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000,

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000,

7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000,

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000,

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,

7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000,

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

Included are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such

cross-section is achieved subsequent to

the rolling process (i.e., products which
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47431

have been worked after rolling)—for

example, products which have been

beveled or rounded at the edges.

Excluded is grade X–70 plate. These

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Algoma (cost), Dofasco (cost), Stelco

(cost), and MRM (sales and cost), using

standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by the respondent, covered by

the description in the Scope of the

Review section, above, and sold in the

home market during the POR, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the

most similar foreign like product on the

basis of the characteristics listed in

Appendix III of the Department’s

September 19, 1996, antidumping

questionnaire. In making the product

comparisons, we matched foreign like

products based on the physical

characteristics reported by the

respondent.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject

merchandise to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the EP to the NV, as described

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we

calculated monthly weighted-average

prices for NV and compared these to

individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price

For calculation of the price to the

United States, we used EP, in

accordance with subsections 772(a) and

(c) of the Act because the subject

merchandise was sold directly or

indirectly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and CEP was not otherwise

warranted based on the facts of record.

We will also examine for the final

results whether certain sales claimed by

respondents to be indirect EP should in

fact be considered CEP. We will

reexamine the issues surrounding the

affiliate’s selling activities in the United

States in determining whether a

particular sale should be considered

indirect EP or CEP.

Algoma

The Department calculated EP for

Algoma based on packed, prepaid or

delivered prices to customers in the

United States. We made adjustments to

the starting price for movement

expenses (foreign and U.S. movement,

brokerage and handling, and U.S.

Customs duties), in accordance with

section 772(c)(2) of the Act.

We used Algoma’s date of invoice as

the date of sale for both U.S. sales and

home market sales in accordance with

the Department’s standard practice. See,

e.g., Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 4723, 4725 (January 31,

1997). For a discussion of the

Department’s position with respect to

the normal use of invoice date as date

of sale, see Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Proposed Rule

(‘‘Proposed Regulations’’), 61 FR 7308,

7381 (February 27, 1996).

CCC

The Department calculated EP for

CCC based on packed, prepaid or

delivered prices to customers in the

United States.

We made deductions to the starting

price for movement expenses (foreign

and U.S. movement, brokerage and

handling, and U.S. Customs duties) in

accordance with section 772(c)(2), and

for discounts and rebates.

We used CCC’s date of invoice as the

date of sale for U.S. sales in accordance

with the Department’s standard

practice.

Dofasco

For purposes of these reviews, we

treated Dofasco, Inc. and Sorevco, Inc.

as one respondent, as we have done in

prior segments of the proceeding. See,

e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value, 58 FR 37099 (1993), and

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR

42511 (1995)). The Department

calculated EP for Dofasco based on

packed prices to customers in the

United States.

We made deductions to the starting

price for discounts, a rebate, and, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2),

movement expenses (foreign and U.S.

movement, U.S. Customs duty and

brokerage, and post-sale warehousing).

As in the prior review, U.S. further

processing expenses for certain sales

have not been treated as part of the

export price.

It is the Department’s current practice

normally to use the invoice date as the

date of sale; we may, however, use a

date other than the invoice date if we

are satisfied that a different date better

reflects the date on which the exporter

or producer establishes the material

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i) (62

FR at 27411).

The questionnaire we sent to the

respondents on September 19, 1996

instructed them to report the date of

invoice as the date of sale; it also stated,

however, that ‘‘(t)he date of sale cannot

occur after the date of shipment.’’ In this

review, Dofasco’s date of shipment in

many instances preceded the date of

invoice, and therefore we cannot use the

date of invoice as the new regulations

prescribe. Accordingly, as allowed by

the exception set forth in § 351.401(i) of

the new regulations, we used the dates

of sale described below. These sale

dates reflect the dates on which the

exporter or producer established the

material terms of sale.

We used the date of order

acknowledgment as date of sale, as

reported by Dofasco, Inc., for all

Dofasco, Inc. sales in both the U.S. and

the home market (except sales made

pursuant to long-term contracts). For

Dofasco, Inc.’s sales made pursuant to

long-term contracts, we used date of the

contract as date of sale.

We used the date of order

confirmation as the date of sale, as

reported by Sorevco, Inc., for all

Sorevco, Inc. sales in the U.S. and the

home market, except that when Sorevco

shipped more merchandise than the

customer originally ordered, and such

overages were in excess of accepted

industry tolerances, we used date of

shipment as date of sale for the excess

merchandise.

MRM

The Department calculated EP for

MRM based on packed, prepaid or

delivered prices to customers in the

United States. We made deductions to

the starting price for movement

expenses (foreign and U.S. movement,

brokerage and handling, and U.S.

Customs duties) pursuant to section

772(c)(2) of the Act.

We used MRM’s date of invoice as the

date of sale for its U.S. sales in

accordance with the Department’s

standard practice.
47432 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

Stelco

Corrosion-resistant products: We

calculated EP based on the packed price

to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. We

made deductions to the starting price for

movement expenses including foreign

and U.S. freight, brokerage and

handling, U.S. Customs duties, and

post-sale warehousing, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.

We used Stelco’s date of invoice as

the date of sale for EP corrosionresistant sales in accordance with the

Department’s standard practice.

Plate: We calculated EP based on the

packed price to unaffiliated purchasers

in, or for exportation, to the United

States. We made deductions for

movement expenses including foreign

and U.S. movement, brokerage and

handling, U.S. Customs duty and

warehousing, in accordance with

section 772(c)(2) of the Act. We made no

other adjustments for EP.

We used the date of invoice as the

date of sale for plate sales in accordance

with the Department’s standard

practice.

Normal Value

The Department determines the

viability of the home market as the

comparison market by comparing the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales. We found that each

company’s quantity of sales in its home

market exceeded five percent of its sales

to the U.S. Moreover, there is no

evidence on the record supporting a

particular market situation in the

exporting country that would not permit

a proper comparison of home market

and U.S. prices. We, therefore, have

determined that each company’s home

market sales are viable for purposes of

comparison with sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States,

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the

Act. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we

based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the home market, in the

usual commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade, at the same

level of trade as the export price.

We used sales to affiliated customers

only where we determined such sales

were made at arm’s-length prices, i.e., at

prices comparable to prices at which the

firm sold identical merchandise to

unaffiliated customers.

Considering first all respondents

except MRM, for both classes or kinds

of merchandise under review, the

Department disregarded sales below the

cost of production (‘‘COP’’) in the last

completed review (see Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews 62, FR 18448

(April 15, 1997)). We therefore had

reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect, pursuant to section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of

the foreign like product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in this review may have been made

at prices below the COP. With respect

to MRM, we note that Manitoba Rolling

Mills participated in the first

administrative review of plate from

Canada (See Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Canada: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews (61 FR

13815 (March 28, 1996)). However, on

June 1, 1995, Manitoba Rolling Mills

was acquired by Metalurgica Gerdau

S.A., with the new corporate entity

named Gerdau MRM Steel, Inc. Based

on information on the record, there is no

indication that Gerdau MRM Steel, Inc.

operates in a manner substantively

different from that of its predecessor,

with respect to either management,

production, suppliers, or customer base.

Therefore, the Department finds that,

with respect to initiation of a cost

investigation, the disregarding of MRM

sales in the first administrative review

provides sufficient grounds to believe or

suspect that sales by Gerdau MRM Steel,

Inc. of the foreign like product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in this review may have been made

at prices below the COP. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we initiated COP investigations of sales

by all respondents in the home market.

We compared sales of the foreign like

product in the home market with the

model-specific cost of production figure

for the POR (‘‘COP’’). In accordance

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we

calculated the COP based on the sum of

the costs of materials and fabrication

employed in producing the foreign like

product plus selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and all

costs and expenses incidental to placing

the foreign like product in condition

packed and ready for shipment. In our

COP analysis, we used home market

sales and COP information provided by

each respondent in its questionnaire

responses.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of subject

merchandise were made at prices below

COP and, if so, whether the below-cost

sales were made within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities

and at prices that did not permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. Because each individual

price was compared against the PORlong average COP, any sales that were

below cost were also not at prices which

permitted cost recovery within a

reasonable period of time. We compared

model-specific COPs to the reported

home market prices less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, and

rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities

within an extended period of time.

Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POR were at prices less than

the weighted-average COPs for the POR,

we disregarded the below-cost sales

because 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

were at prices which would not permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on

this test, we disregarded below-cost

sales with respect to all companies and

classes or kinds of merchandise.

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV

on sales at the same level of trade

(‘‘LOT’’) as the EP. If NV was calculated

at a different level of trade, we made an

additional adjustment, if appropriate

and if possible, in accordance with

section 773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level

of Trade section below.)

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we used CV as the basis for

NV when there were no usable sales of

the foreign like product in the

comparison market. We calculated CV

in accordance with section 773(e) of the

Act. We included the cost of materials

and fabrication, SG&A expenses, and

profit. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A

expenses and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by the respondent

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.56 for circumstance of sale (COS)

differences. For comparisons to EP, we

made COS adjustments by deducting
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47433

home market direct selling expenses

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in EP comparisons

pursuant to 19 CFR section 353.56(b).

Algoma

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to unaffiliated purchasers

(Algoma made no home market sales to

affiliated parties), in accordance with 19

CFR 353.45(a). Home market prices

were based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the home market.

We deducted discounts and rebates.

We made adjustments, where

applicable, for packing and movement

expenses in accordance with sections

773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also

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 for differences in COS in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison

to EP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses. These included direct selling

expenses (credit and warranty) in the

home market and credit and warranty

expenses in the U.S. market. When

comparisons were made to EP sales on

which commissions were paid, we made

adjustments for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset these U.S.

commissions pursuant to 19 CFR

section 353.56(b).

CCC

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to unaffiliated parties, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a).

Home market prices were based on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

affiliated (when made at prices

determined to be arm’s-length) or

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We adjusted for discounts and

rebates. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for packing and movement

expenses in accordance with sections

773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also

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 for COS differences in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison

to EP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses (credit) and adding U.S. direct

selling expenses (credit). When

comparisons were made where

commissions were paid on EP sales, we

made adjustments for home market

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions pursuant to 19 CFR

section 353.56(b).

Dofasco

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to affiliated (when made

at prices determined to be arm’s-length)

or unaffiliated parties, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market

prices were based on the packed, exfactory or delivered prices to affiliated

or unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We deducted discounts and

rebates. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for packing and movement

expenses in accordance with sections

773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also

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 for COS differences in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison

to EP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses (credit, royalties and warranty

expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses (credit, royalties and warranty

expenses). When comparisons were

made where commissions were paid on

EP sales, we made adjustments for home

market indirect selling expenses to

offset U.S. commissions pursuant to

§ 353.56(b).

MRM

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to unaffiliated purchasers

(MRM made no home market sales to

affiliated parties), in accordance with 19

CFR 353.45(a). Home market prices

were based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the home market.

We deducted discounts and rebates.

We made adjustments, where

applicable, for packing and movement

expenses in accordance with sections

773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also

made adjustments for differences in

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison

to EP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses. These included credit

expenses in the home market and credit

expenses in the U.S. market. When

comparisons were made to EP sales on

which commissions were paid, we made

adjustments for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset these U.S.

commissions pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(b).

Stelco

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to affiliated or unaffiliated

parties, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.45(a). Home market prices were

based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to affiliated or

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We made deductions for

discounts and rebates. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

packing and movement expenses, in

accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A)

and (B) of the Act. We also 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 for COS differences in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.56.

Corrosion resistant steel: We adjusted

home market prices for interest revenue

on certain sales. For comparison to EP,

we made COS adjustments by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

(credit, warranties, technical services)

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(credit and technical services).

Plate: For comparison to EP, we made

COS adjustments by deducting home

market direct selling expenses (credit,

warranties, technical services) and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(credit and technical services). When

comparisons were made to EP sales on

which commissions were paid, we made

adjustments for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset the U.S.

commissions pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(b).

Level of Trade (‘‘LOT’’)

To the extent practicable, we

determine NV for sales at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sales (either export

price (EP) or constructed export price

(CEP)). When there are no sales at the

same level of trade, we compare U.S.

sales to home market (or, if appropriate,

third-country) sales at a different level

of trade. The NV level of trade is that

of the starting-price sales in the home

market. When NV is based on CV, the

level of trade is that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

profit.
47434 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

For both EP and CEP, the relevant

transaction for the level of trade analysis

is the sale (or constructed sale) from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether home market

sales are at a different level of trade than

U.S. sales, we examine whether the

home market sales are at different stages

in the marketing process than the U.S.

sales. The marketing process in both

markets begins with goods being sold by

the producer and extends to the sale to

the final user, regardless of whether the

final user is an individual consumer or

an industrial user. The chain of

distribution between the producer and

the final user may have many or few

links, and each respondent’s sales occur

somewhere along this chain. In the

United States, the respondent’s sales are

generally to an importer, whether

independent or affiliated. We review

and compare the distribution systems in

the home market and U.S. export

markets, including selling functions,

class of customer, and the extent and

level of selling expenses for each

claimed level of trade. Customer

categories such as distributor, original

equipment manufacturer (OEM), or

wholesaler are commonly used by

respondents to describe levels of trade,

but, without substantiation, they are

insufficient to establish that a claimed

level of trade is valid. An analysis of the

chain of distribution and of the selling

functions substantiates or invalidates

the claimed levels of trade. Different

levels of trade necessarily involve

differences in selling functions, but

differences in selling functions, even

substantial ones, are not alone sufficient

to establish a difference in the levels of

trade. Different levels of trade are

characterized by purchasers at different

stages in the chain of distribution and

sellers performing qualitatively or

quantitatively different functions in

selling to them.

When we compare U.S. sales to home

market sales at a different level of trade,

we make a level-of-trade adjustment if

the difference in levels of trade affects

price comparability. We determine any

effect on price comparability by

examining sales at different levels of

trade in a single market, the home

market. Any price effect must be

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between home market

sales used for comparison and sales at

the equivalent level of trade of the

export transaction. To quantify the price

differences, we calculate the difference

in the average of the net prices of the

same models sold at different levels of

trade. We use the average difference in

net prices to adjust NV when NV is

based on a level of trade different from

that of the export sale. If there is a

pattern of no price differences, the

difference in levels of trade does not

have a price effect and, therefore, no

adjustment for level of trade is

necessary.

In the present review, none of the

respondents requested a level of trade

(LOT) adjustment. To ensure that no

such adjustment was necessary, in

accordance with the principles

discussed above, we examined

information regarding the distribution

systems in both the United States and

Canadian markets, including the selling

functions, classes of customer, and

selling expenses for each respondent.

Algoma

In both the home market and the

United States, Algoma reported one

LOT and one distribution system with

two classes of customers: end-users and

steel service centers (SSCs). We

analyzed the selling functions and

activities performed for both classes of

customers in both markets. We

preliminarily determine that Algoma’s

selling functions and activities are

substantially similar for both classes of

customers for sales of subject

merchandise and, therefore, warrant one

level of trade in both markets. Finally,

we compared the selling functions

performed at the home market LOT and

the LOT in the United States and found

them substantially similar. Thus, no

adjustment is appropriate. For a further

discussion of the Department’s LOT

analysis with respect to Algoma, see

Memorandum to the File: Analysis

Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of Review for Algoma, pg. 2,

September 2, 1997.

CCC

CCC reported three different LOTs in

the home market based on class of

customer: original equipment

manufacturers (OEMs), steel service

centers, and scrap merchants. However,

we examined the reported selling

functions and found that CCC provides

the same selling functions to its home

market customers regardless of

distribution level, marketing phase, or

the equivalent. Overall, we

preliminarily determine that the selling

functions between the reported LOTs

are sufficiently similar to consider them

as one LOT in the comparison market.

CCC stated that it sells to two LOTs

in the United States: OEMs and steel

service centers. Again, we examined the

selling functions at both claimed levels,

and found they were the same.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that the selling functions between the

reported LOTs are sufficiently similar to

consider them as one LOT in the United

States market. Finally, we compared the

selling functions performed at the home

market LOT and the LOT in the United

States and found them substantially

similar. Therefore, no adjustment is

appropriate. For a further discussion of

the Department’s LOT analysis with

respect to CCC, see Memorandum to the

File: Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for CCC,

pg. 2, September 2, 1997.

Dofasco

Dofasco reported three LOTs in the

home market. Dofasco defined its LOT

categories by customer category: service

center, automotive, and construction

and converters/manufacturers

(‘‘construction’’). We examined the

selling functions performed at each

claimed level and found that there was

a significant difference in selling

functions offered between the

automotive and service center sales

levels. Moreover, Dofasco has

established a separate sales division for

its automotive sales. Additionally, sales

to automotive customers are sales to end

users, while sales to service centers are

sales to resellers. In sum, these sales

were made at different stages of

marketing. Therefore, we preliminarily

conclude that the automotive and

service center classes of customer

constitute separate levels of trade.

Between the automotive and

construction sales channels, although

Dofasco sales to both of these classes of

customer are sales to OEMs, we note

that both quantitatively and

qualitatively, the selling functions

offered to automotive customers involve

significantly greater resources and thus

represent a distinct stage of marketing.

Specifically, Dofasco performed only

five of the same or similar selling

functions between these LOTs.

Dofasco’s functions for these two

channels differed with respect to

numerous other activities. Therefore,

given these differences, we

preliminarily conclude that automotive

and construction constitute separate

levels of trade.

Between the construction and service

center sales channels, we note that sales

to construction customers are sales to

end users, while sales to service centers

are sales to resellers. Furthermore, there

were numerous differences in selling

functions between these two channels.

We found that these differences

suggested distinct stages of marketing.

Therefore, we preliminarily conclude

that construction and service centers

constitute different levels of trade.

Overall, we determine that the selling

functions between the automotive,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47435

service center, and construction

customer categories are substantially

dissimilar to one another. Furthermore,

sales to service centers are made at a

different stage of marketing than sales to

automotive and construction customers.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that the automotive, service center, and

construction customer categories should

be treated as three LOTs in the

comparison market.

Respondents reported the same three

LOTs in the U.S. market: automotive,

service center, and construction and

converters/manufacturers

(‘‘construction’’). We preliminarily

determine that the results of our

analysis of U.S. LOTs are identical to

those of the comparison market. There

were only insignificant differences in

selling functions at each LOT between

the comparison market and the U.S.

market.

The Department did not find that

there existed a pattern of consistent

price differences between the three

levels of trade. Therefore, we did not

make LOT adjustments when

calculating the final margins for

Dofasco. For a further discussion of the

Department’s LOT analysis with respect

to Dofasco, see Memorandum to the

File: Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for

Dofasco, pp. 2–3, September 2, 1997.

MRM

In both the home market and the

United States, MRM reported one LOT

and one distribution system with two

classes of customers: distributors and

original equipment manufacturers

(OEMs). We analyzed the selling

functions and activities performed for

both classes of customers in both

markets. We found that MRM’s selling

functions and activities were

substantially similar for both classes of

customers for sales of subject

merchandise and, therefore, constitute

one level of trade in both markets.

Finally, we compared the selling

functions performed at the home market

LOT and the LOT in the United States

and found them substantially similar.

Thus, no adjustment was appropriate.

For a further discussion of the

Department’s LOT analysis with respect

to MRM, see Memorandum to the File:

Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for MRM,

pp. 1–2, September 2, 1997.

Stelco

Stelco identified one level of trade

and two classes of customers (end-users

and resellers) in the home market for

each class or kind of merchandise. We

examined the selling functions

performed for each class of customer

and found that Stelco provided many of

the same or similar selling functions in

each, including: personnel training,

engineering services, and technical

advice. We found few differences

between selling functions for

transactions made through the two

classes of customers and that Stelco’s

prices did not vary consistently based

on the type of customer. Overall, we

determine that the selling functions

between the two classes of customers

are sufficiently similar to consider them

one LOT in the comparison market for

sales of both corrosion-resistant

products and plate products.

In the United States, Stelco sold

corrosion-resistant products through

one distribution system and to end users

only. Stelco’s U.S. sales of plate

products were made to end users and

service centers. We preliminarily

determine that the results of our

analysis of U.S. LOTs are identical to

those of the comparison market: the

selling functions performed for sales to

the United States are sufficiently similar

to consider them one LOT for both

corrosion-resistant products and plate

products. Additionally, we consider this

LOT to be the same as that identified in

the comparison market. Therefore, no

adjustment is appropriate. For a further

discussion of the Department’s LOT

analysis with respect to Stelco, see

Memorandum to the File: Analysis

Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of Review for Stelco, pg. 2,

September 2, 1997.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margins (in percent)

for the period August 1, 1995, through

July 31, 1996 to be as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Corrosion-Resistant Steel:

Dofasco ................................... 3.02

CCC ......................................... 1.16

Stelco ...................................... 0.22

Cut-to-Length Plate:

Algoma .................................... 0.37

MRM ........................................ 0.00

Stelco ...................................... 0.24

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs,

limited to issues raised in those briefs,

may be filed not later than 37 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including its analysis of issues raised in

the case and rebuttal briefs, not later

than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of

review, the Department shall determine,

and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Because the

inability to link sales with specific

entries prevents calculation of duties on

an entry-by-entry basis, we will

calculate an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for each

class or kind of merchandise based on

the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory NV and

statutory EP, by the total statutory EP

value of the sales compared, and

adjusting the result by the average

difference between EP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR).

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for each reviewed company

will be that established in the final

results of review (except that no deposit

will be required for firms with zero or

de minimis margins, i.e., margins less

than 0.5 percent); (2) for exporters not

covered in this review, but covered in

the LTFV investigation or previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

from the LTFV investigation; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a previous review, or the

original 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 merchandise; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all

others’’ rates made effective by the

LTFV investigations, which were 18.71

percent for corrosion-resistant steel

products and 61.88 percent for plate
47436 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

(see Amended Final Determination, 60

FR 49582 (September 26, 1995)). These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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.

These administrative reviews and

notices are published in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23848 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration A–

351–817

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Brazil: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

the respondent, Usinas Siderurgicas de

Minas Gerais (‘‘USIMINAS’’), and from

petitioners (Bethlehem Steel

Corporation; U.S. Steel Company, a Unit

of USX Corporation; Inland Steel

Industries, Inc.; Geneva Steel; Gulf

States Steel Inc. of Alabama; Sharon

Steel Corporation; and Lukens Steel

Company), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Brazil. This review covers the above

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States. The

period of review (POR) is August 1,

1995, through July 31, 1996.

We preliminarily determine the

dumping margin for USIMINAS and its

affiliate Companhia Siderurgica Paulista

(‘‘COSIPA’’) to be 10.49 percent during

the POR. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samantha Denenberg or Linda Ludwig,

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0413 or (202) 482–

3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 353

(1997).

Background

On July 9, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 37062) the final affirmative

antidumping duty determination on

certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate

from Brazil. We published an

antidumping duty order on August 19,

1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 44164). On August

12, 1996, the Department published the

Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review of this order for

the period August 1, 1995–July 31, 1996

(61 FR 41768). The Department received

requests for an administrative review of

USIMINAS’’ exports from USIMINAS

itself, a producer/exporter of the subject

merchandise, and from the petitioners.

We published a notice of initiation of

the review on September 17, 1996 (61

FR 48882).

Significant inflation was an issue in

the previous segments of this

proceeding. The Department required

that USIMINAS report monthly inflation

rates for 1995–1996. The Department’s

analysis of the inflation rates

determined that inflation did not exceed

15% during the POR. The Department

did not require USIMINAS to report

monthly costs, as it was determined that

inflation was not significant during the

period of review. See the Department’s

letter from Linda Ludwig to Christopher

S. Stokes, dated October 22, 1996. We

are not using the Department’s

inflationary methodology in these

preliminary results of the review.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for issuing a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to complete the preliminary

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On March 21, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to 365

days after the last day of the month in

which the anniversary date of the order

occurred. See Extension of Time Limit

for Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 13596 (March 21, 1997).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Affiliated Respondents

Pursuant to section 771 (33) of the

Act, the Department considers the

following persons or parties to be

affiliated:

A. Members of a family, including

brothers and sisters (whether by the

whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors,

and lineal descendants.

B. Any officer or director of an

organization and such organization.

C. Partners.

D. Employer and employee.

E. Any person directly or indirectly

owning, controlling, or holding with

power to vote, five percent or more of

the outstanding voting stock or shares of

any organization and such organization.

F. Two or more persons directly or

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or

under common control with, any

person.

G. Any person who controls any other

person and such other person.

For the purposes of this paragraph, a

person shall be considered to control

another person if the person is legally or

operationally in a position to exercise

restraint or direction over the other

person.

USIMINAS acknowledges that

COSIPA is affiliated with it under the

antidumping statute because, during the

POR, as indicated by publicly available

information on the record, USIMINAS

owned 49 percent of the voting stock of

COSIPA. See Section A Response at 3.

It is the Department’s practice to

collapse affiliated producers for

purposes of calculating a margin when

the facts demonstrate that the

relationship is such that there is a strong

possibility of manipulation of prices