[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7206-7215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3913]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-811]


Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

[[Page 7207]]

SUMMARY: On October 10, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the second 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel wire rods from France. This review covers Imphy S.A., 
and Ugine-Savoie, two manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is January 
1, 1995, through December 31, 1995. We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Based on our 
analysis of the comments received, we have changed the results from 
those presented in the preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Jacques, AD/CVD Enforcement 
Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    On October 10, 1996, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of the second administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire rods from 
France (61 FR 53199, October 10, 1996). The Department has now 
completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of 
the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are certain 
stainless steel wire rods (SSWR), products which are hot-rolled or hot-
rolled annealed, and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons, or 
other shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by 
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of 
chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only 
manufactured by hot-rolling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are 
of solid cross section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States 
is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed, and pickled. The most 
common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
    The SSWR subject to this review is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 
7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and 
7221.00.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order 
is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent by using standard verification procedures, 
including onsite 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received comments and rebuttal comments from 
Imphy S.A. and Ugine-Savoie, manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise (respondents), and from Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., 
Armco Stainless & Alloy Products, Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic 
Engineered Steels, Talley Metals Technology, Inc., and United 
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (petitioners).
    Comment 1: Respondents argue that the Department incorrectly set 
the payment date for every U.S. sale to the projected final results 
date instead of only those sales with unreported payment dates.
    Petitioners contend that respondents' assertion that the Department 
incorrectly set the payment dates for all U.S. sales is wrong. 
Petitioners argue that the Department's computer program correctly used 
the projected date of the final results for only those U.S. sales with 
unreported payment dates and that the Department should reject 
respondents' proposed computer code correction.
    Petitioners further note that the sample computer printout from the 
Department's preliminary margin calculations indicates that the date of 
payment for all ten sample sales remained the same after the execution 
of the programming language that established a payment date for those 
sales with unreported payment dates. Petitioners assert that a review 
of the Department's sample sales in the preliminary results 
demonstrates that the Department did not reset the payment date and 
therefore there is no need for the Department to revise the computer 
code as recommended by respondents.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. In the 
preliminary results, the computer program correctly set the date of 
payment to the projected final results date only for those sales with 
unreported payment dates. Therefore, for the final results, we have 
made no changes to the computer program.
    Comment 2: Respondents allege that the Department's formula to 
calculate U.S. credit expense for unpaid sales had two errors. First, 
respondents contend that the formula used an unadjusted gross unit 
price instead of being based on the gross unit price less discounts and 
billing adjustments plus freight revenue. Second, respondents assert 
that the Department used the home market interest rate rather than the 
appropriate U.S. short-term rate.
    Petitioners agree with respondents that modifications of the 
computer program are necessary to adjust gross price and to use the 
correct rate of interest in the credit calculation.
    Department's Position: We agree and have corrected the calculation 
of credit expenses for the final results.
    Comment 3: Respondents contend that the price paid by Imphy to an 
affiliated supplier for remelting services is an arm's-length price and 
should not have been adjusted by the Department. Respondents assert 
that the price Imphy paid for subcontracted remelting services is a 
negotiated, arm's-length price based on the affiliate's budgeted cost 
for the remelting services that included both fixed and variable costs. 
Respondents argue that this subcontracting arrangement is fair and 
benefits both Imphy and the affiliated party. In support of their 
position, respondents state that the arrangement allowed the affiliated 
party to make use of its excess remelting capacity, and thus to lower 
its overall cost of operations. Respondents also assert that the 
arrangement benefits Imphy which has the ability to efficiently produce 
products requiring the remelting process.
    Respondents note that the Department disregarded the actual price 
charged by the affiliated party on the ground that the price did not 
reflect variances from

[[Page 7208]]

budgeted costs or SG&A expenses. However, respondents assert that 
variances can go in either direction and do not affect the arm's-length 
nature of the price. In addition, respondents claim that arm's-length 
prices do not necessarily have to be at or above cost of production for 
purposes of section 773(f)(2). Consequently, respondents assert that 
there is no justification for the Department having adjusted the price. 
Also, respondents contend that the remelting services did not represent 
a ``major input'' for which cost information is pertinent pursuant to 
section 773(f)(3). Accordingly, respondents argue that the Department 
should retract its adjustment to the price Imphy paid the affiliated 
party and, instead, utilize the verified, actual price paid for such 
services in computing cost of manufacture.
    Petitioners disagree with respondents and contend that 
respondents'' arguments are similar to those submitted by a respondent 
in a Bearings review that were rejected by the Department. See Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in 
Part of an Antidumping Finding: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan, 61 FR 57629, 57643-4 (November 7, 1996)(Bearings).
    Petitioners contend that there is no statutory requirement that the 
remelting cost be a ``major input'' to the production of subject 
merchandise for the Department to disregard a transfer price between 
affiliated parties that is below cost. Petitioners note that section 
773(f)(2) of the amended statute gives the Department authority to 
disregard ``any element of value'' in transactions between affiliated 
parties that does not reflect the market value of the merchandise.
    Petitioners note that Imphy had no remelter other than its 
affiliated supplier to use as a basis for establishing market value. 
Accordingly, the Department examined the cost of the remelting rather 
than the transfer price. Petitioners contend that the Department's 
practice in this regard was in accordance with Section 773(f)(2) and 
consistent with the past practice in the Bearings review.
    Petitioners also disagree with respondents'' contention that cost 
variances can go in either direction and do not affect the arm's-length 
nature of the price. Petitioners argue that Imphy had relied on 
estimated costs that understated actual costs. Consequently, 
petitioners assert that the addition of the cost variances permitted 
the Department to account for all costs incurred.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Pursuant to 
section 773(f)(2), the Department, in general, determines whether the 
affiliated party prices were below normal market value. We do not use 
transfer prices between related companies if such prices do not fairly 
reflect the amount usually reflected in the sales of the merchandise 
under consideration.
    As we discussed in the Bearings case, related party parts or inputs 
do not need to be a ``major input'' for the Department to examine 
whether they are obtained at a transfer price which reflects their 
normal market value. Two separate sections of the Act allow the 
Department to disregard transfer prices for transactions between 
affiliated parties: section 773(f)(2) allows us to disregard such 
transactions if the transfer prices for ``any element of value'' do not 
reflect their normal market value and section 773(f)(3) allows the 
Department to disregard such transactions if the transfer prices for 
``major inputs'' are below their cost of production.
    In this review, the affiliated party did not sell remelting 
services to unaffiliated customers, nor did Imphy purchase remelting 
services from any unaffiliated party during the POR. Consequently, 
there were no arm's-length prices to serve as a basis of comparison. In 
such situations, ``Commerce generally use[s] the cost of the components 
as representative of the value reflected in the market under 
consideration.'' (See Bearings, 61 FR at 57644; and NSK Ltd. v. United 
States, 910 F. Supp. 663, 669 (CIT 1995)). Therefore, in accordance 
with our standard practice, we have based the value of the remelting 
services on cost, including variances and SG&A, for the final results.
    Comment 4: Respondents allege that the Department improperly 
overstated the adjustment to cost of manufacture for products involving 
remelting services. Respondents note that in its preliminary results, 
the Department stated that it intended to increase the cost of 
manufacture for remelting services to include the sum of the affiliated 
party's cost variance, activity variance and SG&A that was not included 
in the price that Imphy paid to the affiliated party. Respondents 
contend that the Department adjusted the total cost of manufacture for 
those Imphy products utilizing the remelting services, instead of 
adjusting only the manufacturing cost. Respondents argue that the 
Department incorrectly increased all of the materials, labor and 
overhead costs for the product, rather than adjusting the cost 
attributable to the remelting services obtained from the related party. 
Respondents argue that the Department should correct its calculation 
error by applying an adjustment factor.
    Petitioners agree with respondents that the Department overstated 
the adjustment to cost of manufacture for remelting services.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents and petitioners. 
We have applied the adjustment factor for remelting cost variances and 
SG&A to the cost of remelting only and not to the total cost of 
manufacture.
    Comment 5: Respondents allege that the Department should have made 
a circumstance-of-sale adjustment to constructed value (CV) for home 
market credit expense. Respondents contend that the Department should 
recognize the propriety of subtracting home market credit expense from 
CV as a circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustment, as the Department has 
previously done (citing Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan, 61 FR 38139, 
38147 (July 23, 1996) (Newspaper Printing Presses)).
    Respondents argue that the Department's general methodology 
regarding the determination of normal value and COS adjustments 
recognizes that home market price covers all costs and expenses, 
including the imputed home market credit expense. Respondents assert 
that imputed credit expenses are likewise included in determining CV 
and an adjustment should be made. Respondents contend that the profit 
included in the CV calculation represents the difference between the 
home market prices and production and SG&A expenses included in CV. 
They assert that since home market credit expense is included in home 
market price, it is imbedded in the calculated CV through a combination 
of the interest expense and home market profit. Therefore, respondents 
argue that to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, the Department 
must subtract home market credit expense from CV as a COS adjustment.
    Petitioners note that respondents' arguments concerning a COS 
adjustment to CV for imputed home market credit expense were rejected 
by the Department in the amended final results of the first 
administrative review (See Amended Final Results of Certain Stainless 
Steel Wire Rods from France,

[[Page 7209]]

61 FR 58523, 58524 (November 15, 1996)).
    Petitioners note further that in its amended final, the Department 
cited Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30361 (June 14, 1996) which states that 
the Department is required to calculate selling, general and 
administrative costs, including interest expenses, based upon the 
actual experience of the company. Petitioners assert that because the 
interest expense for CV now reflects actual amounts incurred and not 
imputed credit expense, a COS adjustment for home market imputed credit 
is inappropriate. Petitioners contend that in Newspaper Printing 
Presses, the Department also stated that it can only account for actual 
credit expenses in CV and that ``imputed credit is, by its nature, not 
an actual expense.''
    Petitioners also disagree with respondents' arguments that imputed 
credit expenses are ``imbedded in the calculated CV'' and therefore 
subject to adjustment. Petitioners assert that this analysis is not 
valid, as it attempts to equate the expenses incurred in production of 
the product with the final price of the product by assuming the profit 
component necessarily reflects opportunity costs. Petitioners contend 
that respondents' argument would result in the assumption that any 
component that did not reflect an actual cost is somehow imbedded in 
the profit figure and, hence, require a COS adjustment. Petitioners 
argue that such a result would be inconsistent with the express 
statutory language limiting expenses included in CV to ``actual'' 
expenses (See 19 U.S.C. 1677b(e)).
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. As we stated in 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy et al.; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081, 2119 (January 15, 
1997), consistent with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, an adjustment to 
NV is appropriate when CV is the basis for NV. The Department uses 
imputed credit expenses to measure the effect of specific respondent 
selling practices in the United States and the comparison market. 
Therefore, for these final results, we have deducted imputed credit 
expenses as a COS adjustment from CV in the calculation of NV. To the 
extent that the amended final of Wire Rod from France (See, 61 FR 
58523, 58524 (November 15, 1996)) describes the Department's 
methodology differently, it was in error.
    Comment 6: Respondents contend that the Department's product 
concordance inadvertently matched to CV those U.S. sales that had a 
entry date outside the POR. Respondents request the Department modify 
the model match program to correct this error.
    Petitioners agree with respondents and contend the error should be 
corrected for the final results.
    Department's Position: We agree and have corrected the error for 
the final results.
    Comment 7: Respondents contend that the Department should clarify 
language regarding its duty assessment methodology. They assert that 
the methodology stated in the preliminary results is consistent with 
the assessment methodology set forth in the Department's proposed 
regulations and preamble, as well with the duty assessment methodology 
stated in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Finding: Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan and Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan, 61 FR 57629, 57649 (November 7, 1996); 
however, respondents claim that the language in the Department's 
preliminary results is unclear.
    Petitioners contend that the Department's assessment methodology 
must ensure that the full amount of dumping duties is collected. 
Petitioners claim that the Department should follow the duty assessment 
language in the preliminary results of this review and assess a 
weighted-average ad valorem margin calculated by dividing the total 
dumping duties due by the total EP and CEP values calculated by the 
Department.
    Department's Position: The Department will follow the duty 
assessment language in the preliminary results. Therefore, the 
Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated an 
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate 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. As noted in 
the preliminary results, this is equivalent to dividing the total 
amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated by taking the 
difference between statutory NV and statutory EP or CEP, by the total 
statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared, and adjusting the 
result by the average difference between EP or CEP and customs value 
for all merchandise examined during the POR.
    Comment 8: Respondents allege that the Department's computer 
program erroneously set at zero the profit for any sale with a negative 
profit, regardless of whether the sale passed the Department's below-
cost test. They assert that pursuant to section 773(b)(1), individual 
sales of a particular product that are made at a loss are outside the 
ordinary course of trade only if 20 percent or more of the sales of 
that product are at prices below the cost of production. Respondents 
argue that unless 20 percent or more of the sales of the product were 
made below cost, all sales of the product, including those sold at a 
loss, are by definition in the ordinary course of trade. Respondents 
further contend that section 773(e)(2)(A) provides that the calculation 
of CV profit be based on the actual amount of profit realized on all 
sales in the ordinary course of trade of the foreign like product. They 
allege that by excluding the amount of the losses on certain sales in 
the ordinary course of trade, the Department overstated CV profit.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents that this is a 
ministerial error and have revised the final results in order to 
calculate CV profit on the actual amount of profit on all sales in the 
ordinary course of trade.
    Comment 9: Respondents allege that in the preliminary results, the 
Department weight-averaged the profit percentage calculated on each 
individual sale, rather than calculating an aggregate profit and COP 
amount and then calculating the percentage. Respondents allege that 
this percentage methodology is a departure from the Department's 
customary practice and artificially inflated respondents' CV profit 
rate. Respondents argue that the Department has recognized that 
calculating the CV profit ratio by first computing a profit percentage 
for each home market sales transaction, and then weight-averaging the 
percentages by quantity, introduces serious distortion into the 
calculations (see, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from 
the United Kingdom, 61 FR 56514 (November 1, 1996)). Respondents 
request that the Department make the same correction in this review.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. In accordance 
with our position outlined in Lead and Bismuth

[[Page 7210]]

Carbon Steel Products, we have revised our computer programming 
language for the final results.
    Comment 10: Petitioners assert that the Department should revise 
its CEP calculation by deducting all direct and indirect selling 
expenses that relate to U.S. sales as required by statute (see 19 
U.S.C. 1677a(d)(1) (1996)). Petitioners claim the statutory language is 
mandatory, allowing no room for discretion in agency interpretation as 
to which expenses may or may not be deducted.
    Petitioners claim that the Department's conclusion that the URAA 
changed prior law with respect to the calculation of CEP is not 
consistent with the statute or the SAA (see, 19 U.S.C 1677d(1)). They 
argue that the Department must deduct all indirect selling expenses 
incurred by the foreign producer or exporter in its home country that 
related to U.S. sales (see, Silver Reed America, Inc. v. United States, 
12 CIT 250, 683 F. Supp. 1393, 1397 (1988).
    Petitioners further contend that the URAA did not limit the types 
of deductions to CEP from prior law, but rather provided a more precise 
definition without changing the calculation of export price or CEP. 
They note that the SAA states ``[t]he statute is intended to merely 
provide a more precise definition and not change the calculation of 
export price or constructed export price'' (see, SAA at 824). 
Petitioners contend that even if the SAA suggested a change in agency 
practice, it cannot override the plain statutory language requiring the 
deduction of all selling expenses (see, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. 
National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
    Petitioners argue that even if the Department determines that all 
indirect selling expenses relating to U.S. sales are no longer 
deductible from CEP, at a minimum it must deduct inventory carrying 
costs incurred after importation in calculating CEP, as these costs are 
necessarily attributable to U.S. sales. In support of their position, 
petitioners cite Silver Reed and Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30352 
(June 14, 1996).
    Respondents contend that petitioners have submitted the same 
argument concerning deduction of indirect selling expenses in the first 
administrative review and that the Department properly rejected their 
contention. They argue that there is nothing new in the law or the 
facts of this review that should cause the Department to reconsider its 
decision. Respondents assert that these indirect expenses should not be 
deducted from CEP as they do not represent expenses ``associated with 
economic activities occurring the United States'' (see, SAA at 153).
    Respondents state the Department's approach in this review is 
consistent with its practice in other cases (see, Calcium Aluminate 
Flux From France; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 40396, 40397 (August 2, 1996) and 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, 
Thailand and the United Kingdom, 61 FR 35713, 35716 (July 8, 1996). 
They also contend that the Department's decision is consistent with the 
Proposed Regulations as the commentary of the Proposed Regulations 
makes a clear distinction between expenses associated with selling to 
the affiliated reseller in the United States and those expenses 
attributable to the sale made to the affiliated reseller's unaffiliated 
customer. Respondents claim that the expenses at issue are clearly 
expenses associated with selling to the affiliated reseller in the 
United States and thus, are not properly deducted in the calculation of 
CEP.
    Finally, respondents disagree with petitioners' request to deduct, 
at a minimum, inventory carrying costs incurred after import. 
Respondents assert that these expenses relate to the respondents' U.S. 
affiliate and not to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. As we stated 
in the final results of the first administrative review of this order 
(see Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 47874, 47882 (September 
11, 1996) (Wire Rod from France)), the Department does not deduct 
indirect expenses incurred in selling to the affiliated U.S. importer 
under section 772(d) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 
30352 (June 14, 1996). As stated clearly in the SAA, section 772(d) of 
the Act is intended to provide for the deduction of expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States. See SAA at 
823; see also, GATT 1994 Antidumping Agreement, article 2.4. However, 
some of the respondents' indirect expenses incurred in the home market 
are actually associated with economic activities in the United States. 
Specifically, liability insurance purchased in France is associated 
with U.S. economic activities to the extent it covers subject 
merchandise while warehoused in the United States. On the other hand, 
some indirect selling expenses involved in this case relate solely to 
the sale to the affiliated importer. For example, the inventory 
carrying costs incurred prior to exportation relate solely to the sale 
to the affiliated importer. Further, unlike the situation in Pasta from 
Italy, the inventory carrying costs in the present case do not relate 
exclusively to the product sold to the unaffiliated purchaser in the 
Untied States as verified by the Department (cf. Pasta from Italy, 61 
FR at 30352). We agree with petitioners that the inventory carrying 
costs incurred after import relate to respondents' economic activity in 
the United States and are properly deducted as indirect selling 
expenses.
    Comment 11: Petitioners contend that the Department should begin 
its level-of-trade analysis with the starting price to the unaffiliated 
purchaser, as required by statute (See 19 U.S.C. 1677a(b)). Petitioners 
argue that comparison of an adjusted CEP to an unadjusted normal value 
in an apples-to-oranges comparison and is inconsistent with past agency 
practice (See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, 58 FR 43227, 
43330 (August 16, 1993) and AOC International, Inc. v. United States, 
721 F. Supp. 314, 317 (1989), citing Smith-Corona Group v. United 
States, 713 F.2d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 
1022 (1984)).
    Petitioners argue that use of the starting CEP price as the basis 
of the level-of-trade comparison would result in a finding of no 
differences in levels of trade between CEP and normal value (NV) sales 
and, thus, no basis for a CEP offset. Thus, they contend that by 
defining the CEP level of trade based on an adjusted price rather than 
the starting price, the Department has created a level of trade for CEP 
sales that is different from the EP sales and the NV sales, even though 
in commercial reality the level of trade of all these sales is the 
same.
    Respondents argue that petitioners challenged the Department's 
decision to grant a CEP offset in the first administrative review and 
that the Department rejected their argument. Respondents contend that 
the Department's decision in this review is consistent with the first 
administrative review as well as other reviews (See Tapered Rolling 
Bearings, 61 FR 57391, 57395; Large Newspaper Printing Presses, 61 FR 
38139, 38143; Aramid

[[Page 7211]]

Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the 
Netherlands: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 15766, 15768 (April 9, 1996)). Respondents claim that 
there is nothing new in the law or the facts of the second 
administrative review to alter the Department's decision from those in 
the preliminary results.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners' contention 
that the Department should base the level of trade on the starting 
price of CEP sales. As the Department has previously discussed (See 
Wire Rod from France, and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Singapore, Thailand and the United Kingdom; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 35713 (July 
8, 1996); Proposed Regulations, 61 FR at 7347), the Department believes 
that this position is not supported by the SAA, and that it is neither 
reasonable nor logical. The statute requires that comparisons between 
NV and EP or CEP are to be made, to the extent practicable, at the same 
level of trade. Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In CEP cases, the starting price is not the basis for comparison. 
The comparison is based on the CEP, which is net of the CEP deductions. 
Thus, it is the level of trade of that comparison price (the CEP) that 
is relevant. If the starting price is used to determine the level of 
trade for CEP sales, the Department's ability to make meaningful 
comparisons at the same level of trade (or appropriate adjustments for 
differences in levels of trade) would be severely undermined in cases 
involving CEP sales. Using the starting price to determine the level of 
trade of both EP and CEP sales would result in a finding of different 
levels of trade for an EP and a CEP sale adjusted to a price that 
reflected the same selling functions. Moreover, using the adjusted CEP 
for establishing the level of trade is consistent with the purposes of 
the CEP adjustment; to determine what the sales price would have been 
had the transaction been an export price sale. See Proposed Regulations 
at 61 FR at 7347. Accordingly, we have followed our practice in Wire 
Rod from France, which specifies that the level of trade analyzed for 
EP sales is that of the starting price, and for CEP sales it is the 
level of trade of the price after the deduction of U.S. selling 
expenses and profit.
    Comment 12: Petitioners assert that the Department should calculate 
dumping margins based on all sales made during the POR, regardless of 
when entries were made (before or after suspension of liquidation). 
Petitioners assert that this practice has been sustained by the Court 
of International Trade (see, The Ad Hoc Committee of Southern 
California Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 914 F. 
Supp. 535, 544 (1995) and NSK Ltd. v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 315, 
320 (1993)). They further state that although the Department may not 
assess duties on CEP sales that entered prior to suspension of 
liquidation, the Gray Portland Cement case allows the Department to use 
those sales in the calculation of dumping margins.
    Petitioners contend that the Department's preliminary decision to 
exclude from its analysis sales made during the POR of merchandise 
entered into the U.S. prior to suspension of liquidation has granted 
respondents a license to dump merchandise following issuance of the 
antidumping duty order in this case.
    Petitioners argue that in the hearing of the previous review, 
counsel for respondents admitted that the respondents had restructured 
their business in an effort to avoid dumping liability. Petitioners 
assert that by linking sales with entries, respondents excluded a large 
part of the high margin sales from the dumping calculation.
    Petitioners assert that there is an issue of potential price 
manipulation as their analysis reveals that respondents inconsistently 
priced CEP sales that entered the U.S. prior to suspension of 
liquidation when compared to POR sales. Specifically, they allege that 
gross unit prices differ in a number of instances for identical CEP 
products sold on the same day to the same customer off the same 
invoice. Petitioners argue that these sales from the same commercial 
invoice would constitute a package price to the customer. They allege 
that the respondents should not be permitted to avoid a finding of 
dumping by inconsistent pricing.
    Further, petitioners state that their analysis indicates that the 
difference in the net prices cannot be explained by the difference in 
inventory carrying costs between the products.
    Lastly, petitioners contend that given the evidence of differing 
prices on the same invoice for products sold in the POR, some of which 
entered both prior and after suspension of liquidation, the Department 
should reconsider its decision to exclude those sales that entered 
prior to suspension of liquidation. If the Department decides to 
exclude those sales, petitioners alternatively request that the 
Department average the two gross unit prices to determine the actual 
price the customer paid for the merchandise.
    Respondents agree with the Department's decision to exclude 
merchandise proven to have entered the U.S. prior to suspension of 
liquidation. Respondents argue that the decision is legally correct. 
They further assert that the arguments raised by petitioners are 
identical to the arguments made in the first administrative review 
which the Department rejected. Respondents contend that there is no 
need for the Department to reconsider its decision.
    Respondents also state that petitioners' allegations of 
inconsistent pricing and sales manipulation are devoid of substance, 
involve distorted analysis and ignore the verified facts. Respondents 
claim that petitioners' claims are flawed as they are based on three 
faulty assumptions: first, petitioners assume the Control Number 
(CONNUM) represents the product as sold in the U.S., whereas it 
designates the product as imported; second, petitioners are comparing 
different line items of an invoice and therefore comparing sales of 
different products; and third, petitioners performed a misleading 
comparison of net, rather than gross, prices.
    Respondents note that the Department examined and rejected this 
issue in the first administrative review. Also, respondents assert that 
the Department examined invoices mentioned in petitioners' case brief 
and found no validity to petitioners' claim.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. As we stated in 
Wire Rod from France and the preliminary results of this review, the 
exclusion of sales of merchandise entered prior to suspension of 
liquidation requires that a respondent must demonstrate, to the 
satisfaction of the Department, the linkage between the entry and the 
sale. (See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Australia; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 42507 (1995) (the Department did not 
exclude certain sales because the respondent was unable to link the 
sales to specific pre-suspension entries)). This stringent requirement, 
coupled with the provisions on critical circumstances, eliminates any 
significant risk of using pre-suspension entries to manipulate or 
distort margins following the issuance of an order.
    We disagree with petitioners' contention that linkage would 
encourage dumping as most producers would not have the necessary 
linkage information that would meet the

[[Page 7212]]

Department's requirements in a verification. In fact, the necessary 
linkage has been demonstrated in only one other case. (See High-
Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn, Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 59 FR 32181 (June 22, 1994)).
    We examined the issue of potential manipulation of prices and 
dumping margins throughout the review, including at our verifications 
of respondents. We found no evidence of ``paired sales,'' where the 
price of the sale that entered prior to suspension of liquidation was 
priced lower than a simultaneous sale of the same merchandise to the 
same customer. After examining the issue, we found no evidence that 
respondents were engaged in price manipulation with sales of pre-POR 
entries (see Final Analysis Memorandum). In the absence of price 
manipulation, and for the reasons discussed in Wire Rod from France, we 
have excluded sales of merchandise which entered the United States 
prior to the suspension of liquidation from the dumping margin 
calculation.
    Comment 13: Petitioners argue that the Department should treat 
post-sale warehousing incurred by MAC as a direct selling expense. 
Petitioners state that respondents admitted that MAC incurs post-sale 
warehousing expenses in connection with staged-delivery sales, but 
failed to identify these costs as direct U.S. selling expenses. 
Petitioners contend that it is Departmental practice to treat post-sale 
warehousing expenses as direct selling expenses that must be deducted 
from U.S. price.
    Respondents argue that petitioners' position that post-sale 
warehousing should have been reported as a direct selling expense is 
incorrect. Respondents state that they correctly reported their 
warehousing expenses according to the Department's questionnaire 
instructions. Respondents contend that the warehousing expenses do not 
fit the Department's criteria for direct selling expenses and are 
properly classified as indirect selling expenses.
    Department's Position: We disagree with both petitioner and 
respondent, since warehousing is not a selling expense, either direct 
or indirect. Rather it is a movement expense and deducted from the 
starting price under section 772(c)(2)(A), as confirmed by the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) (see H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 
103d Cong., 2d sess. (1994) at 823).
    Comment 14: Petitioners contend that the Department should treat 
costs incurred by Techalloy with respect to this antidumping proceeding 
as direct U.S. selling expenses. Petitioners argue that these were 
actual costs for sales of subject merchandise imported during the POR 
and that respondents did not include these costs in the direct or 
indirect selling expenses or in the valued-added general and 
administrative expenses for products that were further manufactured by 
Techalloy.
    Respondents argue that there is no basis for the Department to 
treat administrative costs connected to an administrative review as 
direct selling expenses. Respondents contend that it is the 
Department's practice to exclude expenses related to participation in 
an antidumping proceeding from the margin calculation, and not treat 
them as a selling expense (citing, Color Television Receivers From the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Administrative Review of 
Antidumping Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 50333, 50336 
(September 27, 1993); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France: et al.: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360, 28413 (June 24 
1992); Television Receivers, Monochrome and Color, From Japan: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 38417, 38418 
(August 13, 1991)).
    Respondents also assert that the Department's practice has been 
upheld by the Court of International Trade (citing Federal Mogul Corp. 
v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993) (``Federal-
Mogul''); Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 770 F. Supp. 648 
(Ct. Int'l Trade 1991); Daewoo Electronics Co. Ltd. v. United States, 
712 F. Supp. 931 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1989)).
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. In this 
review, we have followed the Department's policy from previous reviews, 
which the CIT sustained in Daewoo Electronics. We do not consider 
expenses incurred in connection with participating in an antidumping 
review to constitute expenses related to sales made during this POR. 
Such expenses are incurred to defend against an allegation of dumping. 
Accordingly, they are not expenses incurred in selling merchandise in 
the United States. Moreover, to deduct administrative review related 
expenses as selling expenses would effectively penalize respondents 
based on their participation in proceedings before the Department. 
Therefore, we have not deducted administrative review related expenses 
for the final results.
    Comment 15: Petitioners allege that respondents failed to report 
U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse for certain U.S. sales.
    Respondents contend that their U.S. freight expense was fully and 
properly reported in the questionnaire response. Furthermore, 
respondents argue that the Department's sales verification at Imphy 
confirmed the accuracy of the freight amounts and that no discrepancies 
were found.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. We examined 
this issue at verification and confirmed the accuracy of the 
questionnaire response for freight. In addition, we found no evidence 
that respondents did not report freight amounts. Therefore, we have 
accepted the reported amounts for freight expense for the final 
results.
    Comment 16: Petitioners contend that respondents reported erroneous 
amounts for freight revenues in respondents' questionnaire response. 
Petitioners assert that the reported sales terms are those generally 
applicable to the customer, rather than for the specific sale. 
Petitioners claim that the respondents' supplemental questionnaire 
response provided dubious explanations and raised serious questions as 
to the ``special services'' provided to customers and how the 
respondents recorded these costs. Petitioners contend that the 
Department should not accept respondents' reported freight revenues for 
the final results for two terms of sale given the serious problems 
associated with the reported freight revenue.
    Respondents contend that there is no substance to petitioners' 
assertion that there are errors in respondents' reported freight 
revenue. Respondents assert that the sales terms that appear on the 
invoice and that are reported in the response are the normal sales 
terms for the customer because respondents' computer system only allows 
one sales term to be associated with a customer. Respondents note that 
the transactions listed by petitioners in their case brief are 
instances where the respondents accommodated a customer's special 
request to deliver merchandise using alternative transportation. 
Respondents contend that they bill the customer for the service and 
correctly reported this in the questionnaire response. Respondents also 
note that the Department examined this issue at verification and found 
no discrepancies.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. We examined this 
issue at verification and found no evidence that respondents reported 
incorrect amounts for freight revenues. At verification, we selected 
and examined sales concerning

[[Page 7213]]

this issue that petitioner identified in their pre-verification 
comments to the Department. We found no discrepancies between 
respondents' submissions and their records. We also found no evidence 
to contradict respondents' claim in the supplemental questionnaire 
response that the terms of sale reported in the U.S. sales file are the 
normal sales terms for each customer and that respondents billed the 
customer for the cost of the alternative transportation source that was 
reported in the U.S. sales file as freight revenue. In addition, we 
agree with respondents that in cases where alternative transportation 
sources were used, the amount billed the customer appears as freight 
revenue on the U.S. sales file. Thus, for sales that used the 
alternative transportation, the freight revenue was greater than the 
expense. Consequently, we have used the reported freight revenue 
amounts for the final results.
    Comment 17: Petitioners contend that the Department should revise 
its calculation of constructed value (CV) profit by excluding from the 
profit calculation those sales that were otherwise excluded from the 
Department's analysis as non-arm's length sales. Petitioners assert 
that the statute is mandatory in requiring the Department to calculate 
CV profit based on sales in the ordinary course of trade (See 19 U.S.C. 
1677b(e)(2)(A)). Petitioners contend that transactions disregarded 
under section 773(f)(2) as non-arm's length sales, and transactions 
disregarded as below-cost, are explicitly defined as outside the 
ordinary course of trade (See 19 U.S.C. 1677(15)). Thus, they contend 
that section 773(e)(2)(A) prohibits the Department from using sales 
that are outside the ordinary course of trade in the CV profit 
calculation. In addition, petitioners argue that the calculation of 
profit is pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(A) and not section 
773(e)(2)(B). They argue that in a recent determination, the Department 
indicated that while sales at below-cost prices might be included in 
the profit calculation when that calculation was undertaken pursuant to 
section 773(e)(2)(B) of the statute, sales that were otherwise excluded 
at below-cost prices could not be included in the profit calculation 
where section 773(e)(2)(A) of the statute applies (See Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, FR 61 56515, 56518 (November 1, 
1996)). Accordingly, petitioners assert that the Department should 
exclude non-arm's length sales in the calculation of CV profit.
    Respondents agree with petitioners that the Department erroneously 
included sales outside the ordinary course of trade, e.g., non arm's-
length sales in the CV profit calculation.
    Department's Position: We agree with both respondents and 
petitioners that we should exclude non-arm's length sales from the CV 
profit calculation.
    Comment 18: Petitioners contend that the Department should adjust 
respondents' reported net interest expenses so that long-term income is 
not deducted from total net interest expenses. Petitioners state that 
it is the Department's policy to calculate net interest expenses by 
subtracting short-term interest income from the total of short-term and 
long-term interest expenses. However, petitioners allege that the net 
interest expenses reported by respondents and used in the preliminary 
results, subtracted long-term interest income from total interest 
expenses.
    Respondents had no rebuttal to this comment.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. It is the 
Department's policy in calculating net interest expense for COP to 
include interest expense relating to both long-and short-term 
borrowings and to reduce the amount of interest expense incurred by any 
interest income earned on short-term investments on its working capital 
(See Department of Commerce Questionnaire of March 21, 1996 at page D-
20). Respondents' net interest expense reported to the Department 
included a deduction for long-term interest income; therefore, for the 
final results, the Department added the amount of long-term interest 
income to respondents' net interest expense figure.
    Comment 19: Petitioners contend that the Department should revise 
respondents' general and administrative (G&A) expenses to include 
expenses recorded in the financial link account. Petitioners note that 
in the LTFV investigation, the Department found that costs listed in 
respondents' financial link account had not been included in the 
expenses reported, even though respondents could not identify or 
reconcile those costs and, therefore, the Department included the costs 
in the calculation of interest and G&A rates (See Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods 
from France, 58 FR 68865, 68874 (December 29, 1993)). Petitioners 
contend that it is the Department's policy where additional costs 
cannot be identified or reconciled, to include such costs in the 
calculation of COP and CV. Accordingly, petitioners urge the Department 
to revise the general and administrative expenses for Imphy and Ugine-
Savoie to include the costs and expenses in the financial link account.
    Respondents state that there is no evidence on the record to 
suggest that the account relates in any way to the subject merchandise 
and, therefore, there is no basis for the Department to include it in 
the G&A expenses. Respondents assert that they properly reported all 
G&A expenses and that the Department examined this issue at 
verification. They further contend that the ``Financial Link Account'' 
is a function of the consolidation process among the several hundred 
companies in the Usinor-Sacilor group. Thus, respondents argue that the 
account does not reflect an expense attributable to a particular 
company and therefore there are no grounds for imputing the balance in 
the account to respondents' cost for subject merchandise.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. As we did in the 
LTFV Final Determination, we have included the amount in the financial 
link account in the calculation of the general and administrative 
expenses. At verification, respondents stated that due to the large 
number of companies submitting information to the parent company, 
neither Usinor-Sacilor nor Imphy could segregate Imphy's costs from the 
costs of the other companies in the Usinor-Sacilor group that were also 
included in the financial link account. Since these costs could not be 
specifically identified or reconciled, it is possible that they relate 
to the subject merchandise. It is the Department's practice to include 
all costs relevant to the subject merchandise in the calculation of COP 
and CV; therefore we included these additional costs in the calculation 
of the G&A rates (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France, 58 FR 68885, 
68874 (December 29, 1993)).
    Comment 20: Petitioners contend that the Department should adjust 
the cost of manufacture for subcontracted coating work by an affiliated 
party. Petitioners note that at verification, the Department found that 
Imphy subcontracts both remelting and coating to affiliated party 
suppliers. Petitioners note that the Department found that Imphy failed 
to report cost variances and GS&A expenses for the affiliated remelter 
and adjusted remelting costs accordingly. Petitioners state that given 
the error found in these costs, and given respondents' failure to 
demonstrate the arm's-length nature of the coating costs reported, the 
Department should assume that subcontracted coating costs are

[[Page 7214]]

similarly understated and adjust them accordingly for the final 
results.
    Petitioners argue that adjustment of Imphy's coating expenses for 
cost variances and SG&A expenses would be consistent with law. In 
support of their position, petitioners cite decisions by the Court of 
International Trade in NSK Ltd. v. United States, 910 F. Supp. 663, 671 
(1995) and Micron Technology v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 21, 37 
(1995).
    Respondents argue that under section 773(f)(2) the Department may 
examine the arm's-length nature of transactions between affiliated 
parties. Respondents contend that such an examination is discretionary 
and the statute does not require the Department to do so. Respondents 
assert that the coating work performed by the affiliated party did not 
represent a ``major input'' for which cost information is pertinent 
pursuant to section 773(f)(3). Respondents note that the coating amount 
as a percentage of the cost of goods sold is extremely small.
    Respondents argue that since they provided all requested 
information concerning coating and because the Department did not 
request that respondents provide further coating information, there is 
no basis for the Department to adjust the price Imphy paid for the 
subcontracted work.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. During the cost 
of production verification, the Department found that the prices that 
respondents paid to an affiliate for subcontracted remelting did not 
include the affiliated party's cost variance expenses nor the 
affiliated party's selling, general and administrative expenses and, 
for that reason, an adjustment was made to the reported remelting 
costs. See Comment 3.
    However, the coating is performed by another affiliated company. 
Respondents reported that this affiliated party performed coating 
services at arm's-length prices. We examined the issue of arm's-length 
prices in depth at verification. At verification we found that, other 
than the affiliated party's prices for remelting services, all other 
affiliated party prices for inputs were comparable to arm's-length 
prices (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, please see the 
public version of the Cost of Production Verification Report of Imphy, 
S.A., October 7, 1996, at 10-15).
    Comment 21: Petitioners allege that the Department's computer 
margin calculation program did not convert respondents' reported U.S. 
repacking expenses from a per-pound basis to a per kilogram basis.
    Respondents did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners and have properly 
converted the repacking expense for the final results.
    Comment 22: Petitioners contend that the Department failed to 
deduct U.S. commissions in the calculation of U.S. price for 
respondents' CEP and CEP further manufactured (CEP/FM) sales.
    Respondents agree with petitioners. However, respondents contend 
that petitioners' proposed solution contains three typographical errors 
in the variable names.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners and will deduct 
U.S. commissions paid to unaffiliated selling agents for CEP and CEP/FM 
sales for the final results. We also agree with respondents' assertion 
concerning the typographical errors and we will make the necessary 
corrections for the final results.
    Comment 23: Petitioners assert that although the Department 
adjusted the cost of manufacture for remelting services, the Department 
failed to adjust respondents' cost of manufacture (COM) for CV for the 
remelting services. Petitioners request that the Department revise 
respondents' COM for CV using the programming language used to adjust 
the COM for home market sales.
    Respondents assert that in the event that the Department disagrees 
with respondents and determines that it is proper to adjust COM for 
products remelted by the affiliated party, they recognize that it would 
also be appropriate similarly to adjust the reported cost of 
manufacture for constructed value purposes.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners and have revised 
respondents' COM for CV for the final results.
    Comment 24: Petitioners note that during verification the 
Department found that there were two experimental heat sales in the 
respondents' home market sales database. Petitioners note that the 
experimental heat sales were incorrectly identified as secondary 
material in the respondents' May 21, 1996 submission. Petitioners 
request that the Department correct respondents' coding for these two 
sales for the final results.
    Respondents agree with petitioners concerning the experimental heat 
sales. However, respondents contend that the petitioners' proposed 
programming change to the computer program is incorrect. Respondents 
request that the Department use the computer code submitted in their 
rebuttal brief.
    Department's Position: We agree that the two sales from the 
experimental heat should be classified as prime material. We also agree 
with respondents concerning the computer code needed to correct the 
error and have corrected this error in our final results.
    Comment 25: Petitioners assert that the Department should 
recalculate the G&A and interest expenses for home market COP and CV to 
reflect the changes the Department made to respondents' COM. They note 
that the Department revised respondents' COM for understating certain 
costs by failing to account for total remelting expenses. Therefore, 
they contend that G&A and interest expenses for COP and CV must be 
revised accordingly.
    Respondents state that in the event that the Department disagrees 
with respondents and determines that it is proper to adjust COM for 
products remelted by the affiliated party, they recognize that it is 
also proper to recalculate G&A and interest amounts, to ensure that 
these items remain at the same percentage of the revised COM.
    However, respondents assert that petitioners' proposed computer 
language corrections are wrong and suggest modifications.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners and have revised 
the G&A and interest expenses for COP and CV. We also agree with 
respondents concerning the computer coding to correct the error and 
have included it in the final results.
    Comment 26: Petitioners allege that the Department made a data 
entry error by misspelling one of respondents' product codes in the 
computer program.
    Department's Position: We agree and have corrected this error for 
the final results.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
          Manufacturer/exporter                Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imphy/Ugine-Savoie.......................     1/1/95-12/31/95       6.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and normal value may vary from 
the percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon

[[Page 7215]]

publication of this notice of final results of review for all shipments 
of certain stainless steel wire rods from France entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates for those firms as 
stated above; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, 
or the original 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; and (3) the cash deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 24.51 
percent for stainless steel wire rods, the all others rate established 
in the LTFV investigation. See Amended Final Determination and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France 
(59 FR 4022, January 28, 1994).
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a final 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.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review 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: February 7, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-3913 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P