Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9737

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that rate established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in

earlier reviews or the original

investigation, whichever is the most

recent; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will

be 162.14 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

This notice also 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 the 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 a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR § 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of an APO is a violation

which is subject to sanction.

This administrative review and this

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR § 353.22(h).

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–5229 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION

[A–489–807]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars From

Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson, Cameron Werker, or

Fabian Rivelis, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–1776, (202) 482–3874, or

(202) 482–3853, respectively.

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).

Final Determination

We determine that certain steel

concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from

Turkey are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV), as provided in § 735 of

the Act.

Case History

Since the preliminary determination

in this investigation (Notice of

Preliminary Determination and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars

from Turkey, 61 FR 53203, (Oct. 10,

1996)), the following events have

occurred:

In October 1996, we issued

supplemental sales and cost

questionnaires to Colakoglu Metalurji

A.S. (Colakoglu), Ekinciler Demir Celik

A.S. (Ekinciler), and Habas Sinai Ve

Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.

(Habas), and a supplemental cost

questionnaire to Izmir Metalurji

Fabrikasi Turk A. S. (Metas). Responses

to these questionnaires were also

received in October 1996.

From October through December

1996, we verified the questionnaire

responses of Colakoglu, Ekinciler,

Habas, and Metas. We also verified that

the following companies had no

shipments of subject merchandise to the

United States during the period of

investigation (POI): Cebitas Demir Celik

Endustrisi A.S., Cukurova Celik

Endustrisi A.S., Icdas Istanbul Celik ve

Demir Izabe Sanayii A.S., Diler Demir

Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Diler

Dis Ticaret A.S., and Yazici Demir Celik

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

On January 14 and 27, 1997, the

Department requested that Colakoglu

and Habas submit new computer tapes

to include data corrections identified

through verification. This information

was submitted on January 17 and 29,

1997, respectively.

Petitioners (i.e., AmeriSteel

Corporation and New Jersey Steel

Corporation) and three of the

respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Ekinciler,

and Habas) submitted case briefs on

January 22, 1997, and rebuttal briefs on

January 27, 1997. No case or rebuttal

briefs were received from any other

interested party.

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is all stock deformed steel

concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight

lengths and coils. This includes all hotrolled deformed rebar rolled from billet

steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy

steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar,

(ii) rebar that a processor has further

worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated

rebar. Deformed rebar is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

under item numbers 7213.10.000 and

7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings

are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The POI is January 1, 1995, through

December 31, 1995.

Facts Available

One of the respondents in this case,

Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (IDC),

failed to respond completely to the

Department’s requests for information.

Specifically, IDC submitted a response

to Sections A, B, and C of the May 9

questionnaire, but did not provide any

subsequent information, including a

response to the supplemental sales

questionnaire and the cost of production

(COP) questionnaire.

On August 12, 1996, IDC informed the

Department that it would not be able to

provide any additional information in a

timely manner and requested that the

Department use the information already

on the record in its analysis. However,

we were unable to perform any analysis

for IDC without a COP response because

COP data is an essential component in

our margin calculations. We afforded

IDC an opportunity to request additional

time for completion of its responses.

However, IDC neither requested an

extension nor submitted any additional

data.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if an interested party: (1) Withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department; (2) fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested; (3)

significantly impedes a determination

under the antidumping statute; or (4)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall, subject to subsections

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, use facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. Because IDC
9738 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

1 The region identified by the petitioners

includes Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut,

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey,

New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama,

Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

failed to respond to the Department’s

supplemental and COP questionnaires

and because that failure is not overcome

by the application of subsections

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, we must use

facts otherwise available with regard to

IDC.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used

against a party that has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information. See also Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870. IDC’s

failure to reply to the Department’s

requests for information demonstrates

that IDC has failed to act to the best of

its ability in this investigation. Thus, the

Department has determined that, in

selecting among the facts otherwise

available, an adverse inference is

warranted with regard to IDC. As facts

otherwise available, we are assigning to

IDC the highest margin stated in the

notice of initiation, 41.8 percent.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides

that, when the Department relies on

secondary information (such as the

petition) in using the facts otherwise

available, it must, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources that are

reasonably at its disposal. Corroborative

means that the secondary information to

be used has probative value. See SAA at

870. In analyzing the petition, the

Department reviewed all of the data the

petitioners relied upon in calculating

the estimated dumping margins, and

adjusted those calculations where

necessary. See Memorandum to the File

from Case Analysts, dated March 26,

1996. These estimated dumping margins

were based on a comparison of a home

market price list to: (1) A contracted

price to a U.S. customer; and (2) an offer

of sale to a U.S. customer. The estimated

dumping margins, as recalculated by the

Department, ranged from 27.4 to 41.8

percent. The Department corroborated

all of the secondary information from

which the margin was calculated during

our pre-initiation analysis of the

petition to the extent appropriate

information was available for this

purpose at that time. For purposes of

this determination, the Department reexamined the price information

provided in the petition in light of

information developed during the

investigation and found that it

continued to be of probative value.

Fair Value Comparisons

Petitioners have requested that the

Department and the ITC find that there

is a regional industry 1 and perform the

requisite analysis, in accordance with

§ 771(4)(C) of the Act. Section 736(d)(1)

of the Act directs the Department to

assess duties only on the subject

merchandise of the specific exporters

and producers that exported the subject

merchandise for sale into the region

concerned during the POI. In our notice

of initiation we indicated that the

petition had met the requirements of

§ 771(4)(C) and § 732(c)(4)(C) of the Act.

However, because respondents were not

able to provide requested information

on sales which were ultimately made in

the region, we have not limited our

analysis in the LTFV investigation to

only shipments entering ports located in

the region. We will again attempt to

collect this information during any

subsequent administrative reviews, in

the event that an antidumping duty

order is issued in this case.

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Colakoglu,

Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas to the

United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the Export

Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV), as

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

Regarding Habas, we calculated NV

based on constructed value (CV) in

accordance with § 773(a)(4) of the Act

because Habas’s home market sales did

not provide an appropriate basis for

calculating NV. See the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section of this notice, below, for further

discussion.

Regarding Metas, we calculated NV

on the basis of CV because we found no

home market sales at prices above COP.

See the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this

notice, below, for further discussion.

Regarding Colakoglu and Ekinciler, as

set forth in § 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we calculated NV based on sales at the

same level of trade as the U.S. sale. In

accordance with § 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of

the Act, we compared weighted-average

EPs to weighted-average NVs. In

determining averaging groups for

comparison purposes, we considered

the appropriateness of such factors as

physical characteristics, level of trade,

and significant inflation.

(i) Physical Characteristics

In accordance with § 771(16) of the

Act, we considered all products covered

by the description in the Scope of

Investigation section, above, produced

in Turkey and sold in the home market

during the POI, to be foreign like

products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales. Regarding Colakoglu and

Ekinciler, where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market pursuant to § 771(16)(B) of the

Act, to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis

of the physical characteristics listed in

Appendix III of the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire.

(ii) Level of Trade

In its preliminary determination, the

Department found that no differences in

level of trade existed between home

market and U.S. sales for any

participating respondent. Our findings

at verification confirmed that the

respondents performed essentially the

same selling activities for each reported

home market and U.S. marketing stage.

Accordingly, we determine that all price

comparisons are at the same level of

trade and that an adjustment pursuant

to § 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is

unwarranted.

(iii) Significant Inflation

Turkey experienced significant

inflation during the POI, as measured by

the Wholesale Price Index (WPI)

published by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF) in the International

Financial Statistics. Accordingly, to

avoid the distortions caused by the

effects of significant inflation on prices,

we calculated EPs and NVs on a

monthly-average basis, rather than on a

POI-average basis. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from

Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30315 (June 14,

1996) (Pasta).

Export Price

We calculated EP, in accordance with

subsections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act,

where the subject merchandise was sold

directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and where constructed

export price was not otherwise

warranted based on the facts of record.

A. Colakoglu

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions to EP for

foreign inland freight, dunnage

expenses, lashing expenses, loading

charges, despatch expenses (which

included an adjustment for revenue that

was realized on a contractual agreement

between Colakoglu and its ocean freight
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9739

carrier), demurrage expenses, and ocean

freight, where appropriate, in

accordance with § 772(c)(2)(A) of the

Act. We disallowed an adjustment to EP

for wharfage revenue and freight

commissions earned by an affiliated

party because we were unable to make

a corresponding deduction for the

affiliate’s costs (see Comment 8).

We based our calculations on the

revised U.S. sales database submitted by

Colakoglu after verification. We revised

the amount of despatch revenue

received on one U.S. sale based on our

findings at verification because this

correction was not incorporated into the

revised sales listing.

B. Ekinciler

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight, warehousing expenses,

loading charges, tallying expenses,

forklift expenses, dunnage expenses,

demurrage expenses (which included an

adjustment for despatch revenues),

ramneck tape expenses, customs fees,

detention expenses, stevedoring

expenses, wharfage expenses, overage

insurance, and ocean freight, where

appropriate, in accordance with

§ 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed

an adjustment to EP for agency fee

revenue and freight commissions earned

by an affiliated party because we were

unable to make a corresponding

deduction for the affiliate’s costs (see

Comment 8).

We made the following corrections to

the data reported by Ekinciler, based on

our findings at verification: a) we

revised the price and quantity for two

U.S. sales; b) we revised the control

number used for matching purposes for

certain U.S. sales; c) we revised the

following movement expenses for

certain U.S. sales: international freight,

forklift expenses, inland freight from

plant to port, overage insurance, and

pre-sale warehouse expenses; and d) we

revised bank fees for two U.S. sales. In

addition, we disallowed Ekinciler’s

claim for dunnage revenue on certain

U.S. sales (see Comment 13).

C. Habas

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions to EP for

foreign inland freight, dunnage

expenses, despatch expenses (which

included an adjustment for revenue that

was realized on a contractual agreement

between Habas and its customer),

brokerage and handling, demurrage

expenses, customs fees, ocean freight,

and marine insurance, where

appropriate, in accordance with

§ 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed

an adjustment to EP for freight revenue

earned by an affiliated party because we

were unable to make a corresponding

deduction for the affiliate’s costs (see

Comment 8). We revised the amounts

reported for demurrage, brokerage,

international freight, marine insurance,

and export fees for certain vessels based

on our findings at verification.

D. Metas

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight, lashing expenses,

brokerage and handling, demurrage

expenses (which included an upward

adjustment for revenue that was realized

on a contractual agreement between

Metas and its ocean freight carrier), and

ocean freight, where appropriate, in

accordance with § 772(c)(2)(A) of the

Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared each

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

§ 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because each

respondent’s aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

was greater than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was viable for

each respondent.

Regarding Habas, however, we did not

use home market sales as the basis for

NV. Rather, we based NV on CV in

accordance with § 773(a)(4) of the Act.

In its questionnaire responses, Habas

notified the Department that its home

market was a residual market and that

it did not maintain the records

necessary to accurately report the

unique physical characteristics of its

home market products. We examined

Habas’s record-keeping practices at

verification and confirmed that Habas

was unable to report specific product

characteristics for its home market

database. Consequently, we are unable

to use these products to make price-toprice comparisons according to the

matching criteria listed in Appendix III

of the Department’s questionnaire.

Regarding Ekinciler and Metas, these

respondents made sales of subject

merchandise to affiliated parties in the

home market during the POI.

Consequently, we tested these sales to

ensure that, on average, they were made

at ‘‘arm’s-length’’ prices, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.45. To conduct this

test, we compared the gross unit prices

of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated

customers net of all movement charges,

rebates, and packing. Based on the

results of that test, we discarded from

each respondent’s home market

database all sales made to an affiliated

party that failed the ‘‘arm’s-length’’ test.

Based on the cost allegation submitted

by petitioners, the Department

determined, pursuant to § 773(b) of the

Act, that there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that sales in the

home market were made at prices below

the cost of producing the merchandise.

Consequently, the Department initiated

an investigation to determine whether

the respondents made home market

sales during the POI at prices below

their respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for home

market selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A), in

accordance with § 773(b)(3) of the Act.

As noted above, we determined that the

Turkish economy experienced

significant inflation during the POI.

Therefore, in order to avoid the

distortive effect of inflation on our

comparison of costs and prices, we

requested that respondents submit

monthly COP figures based on the

current production costs incurred

during each month of the POI. See

Pasta.

We used the respondents’ monthly

COP amounts, adjusted as discussed

below, and the WPI from the IMF (see

Comment 2) to compute an annual

weighted-average COP for each

respondent during the POI. We

compared the weighted-average COP

figures to home market sales of the

foreign like product, as required under

§ 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales had been

made at prices below their COP. On a

product-specific basis, we compared the

COP to the home market prices, less any

applicable movement charges, rebates,

and packing expenses. We did not

deduct selling expenses from the home

market price because these expenses

were included in the SG&A portion of

COP.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined: 1) whether,

within an extended period of time, such

sales were made in substantial

quantities; and 2) whether such sales

were made at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time.
9740 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POI were at prices below the

COP, we found that sales of that model

were made in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’

and within an extended period of time,

in accordance with § 773(b)(2) (B) and

(C) of the Act. To determine whether

prices were such as to provide for

recovery of costs within a reasonable

period of time, we tested whether the

prices which were below the per-unit

COP at the time of the sale were above

the weighted-average per-unit COP for

the POI, in accordance with

§ 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. If prices that

were below cost at the time of sale were

above the weighted-average cost for the

POI, we included such prices in

determining NV (for all respondents

except Habas). Otherwise, we

disregarded them.

In accordance with § 773(e) of the Act,

we calculated CV based on the sum of

each respondent’s cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A, profit, and U.S.

packing costs, except as noted in the

company-specific sections below. In

accordance with § 773(e)(2)(A) of the

Act, where possible, we based SG&A

expenses and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by each of these

companies in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

In addition, to account for the effects of

inflation on costs, we calculated each

respondent’s CV based on the

methodology described in the

calculation of COP above. Companyspecific calculations are discussed

below.

A. Colakoglu

We relied on the respondent’s COP

and CV amounts except in the following

instances:

(1) We adjusted Colakoglu’s submitted

scrap cost to include the transfer prices

it paid to an affiliated company for

freight service because the transfer

prices were made at arm’s length and

represent the actual cost to Colakoglu

(see Comment 11).

(2) Colakoglu based its reported SG&A

and financing expense rates on amounts

contained in the company’s tax return.

However, because the Department

prefers to use figures from audited

financial statements, we revised the

SG&A and financing expense rates for

COP and CV using amounts reported in

Colakoglu’s 1995 audited financial

statements.

(3) We indexed the submitted

monthly SG&A and financing expenses

using the IMF’s WPI (see Comment 2).

(4) We included translation losses in

financing expense (see Comment 3).

(5) Because Colakoglu did not report

costs for products which were oncefolded, we assigned to these products

the COP and CV amounts calculated for

the same products sold in straight

lengths, based on our findings at

verification confirming that there were

no appreciable cost differences

associated with folding.

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based NV on ex-factory

prices to home market customers. In

accordance with § 773(a)(6) of the Act,

we deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs. In

addition, we adjusted for differences in

the circumstances of sale, in accordance

with § 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These

adjustments included differences in

imputed credit expenses (offset by the

interest revenue actually received by the

respondent), bank charges, testing and

inspection fees, and Exporters’’

Association fees. We revised the interest

revenue amounts received on certain

home market sales based on our

findings at verification. In addition, we

recalculated credit expenses using the

interest rates associated with

Colakoglu’s actual borrowings in the

home market (see Comment 7). Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to

NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

§ 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.57.

Where we compared CV to export

prices, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct

selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific

direct selling expenses.

B. Ekinciler

We relied on the respondent’s COP

and CV amounts except in the following

instances:

(1) We revised the reported COP and

CV amounts to account for the costs of

rebar produced by subcontractors.

(2) We used the IMF’s WPI to inflate

the idle asset revalued depreciation

expense adjustment, SG&A and

financing expense (see Comment 2).

(3) We included translation losses in

financing expense and amortized them

over the remaining life of the loans (see

Comment 3).

(4) We disallowed Ekinciler’s offset to

financing expenses for foreign exchange

gains related to accounts receivable

because they occurred after the sale date

and therefore are not relevant to the

Department’s margin calculations.

(5) We added intra-factory freight

expense to the cost of billets (see

Comment 19).

(6) We reduced G&A expenses by nonoperating revenue and increased G&A

expenses by non-operating expenses

(see Comment 17).

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based NV on ex-factory, exwarehouse or delivered prices to home

market customers. We excluded from

our analysis home market sales by

Ekinciler of non-subject merchandise

because this merchandise was not

within the class or kind of merchandise

subject to investigation (see Comment

12 and § 731 and § 771(16) of the Act).

Where appropriate, we made deductions

from the starting price for foreign inland

freight, inland insurance, and direct

warehousing expenses. We revised

certain foreign inland freight expenses

based on our findings at verification. In

accordance with § 773(a)(6) of the Act,

we deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs. As facts

available for a portion of Ekinciler’s

total packing expenses, we used the

highest verified packing expense for one

of Ekinciler’s mills (see Comment 15). In

addition, we adjusted for differences in

the circumstances of sale, in accordance

with § 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These

adjustments included differences in

imputed credit expenses, bank charges,

warranty expenses, testing and

inspection fees, and Exporters’’

Association fees. Where appropriate, we

made adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

§ 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

§ 353.57.

Where we compared CV to export

prices, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct

selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific

direct selling expenses.

C. Habas

As noted in the ‘‘Fair Value

Comparisons’’ section above, we

determined NV for Habas on the basis

of CV. We relied on the respondent’s CV

amounts except in the following

instances:

(1) We revised the reported CV

amounts to account for the cost of billets

and rebar produced by subcontractors.

(2) Because Habas could not

accurately report the unique physical

characteristics of its home market

products, we were unable to determine

whether Habas made home market sales

in the ordinary course of trade (e.g.,

perform the cost test). Consequently, we

based Habas’s SG&A expenses and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9741

profit on the weighted average of the

profit and SG&A data computed for

those respondents with home market

sales of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade (i.e., Colakoglu

and Ekinciler) in accordance with

§ 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Because we were unable to use

Habas’s home market sales data for

purposes of making price-to-price

comparisons, we compared export

prices to CV. We deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct

selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific

direct selling expenses. Home market

direct selling expenses were based on

the weighted average of the selling

expense data computed for Colakoglu

and Ekinciler (the respondents for

whom we found home market sales of

the foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade after performing the cost

test) in accordance with

§ 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. U.S. direct

selling expenses included imputed

credit expenses, bank charges, testing

and inspection fees, and Exporters’

Association fees. We revised the total

bank fee amount to account for

unreported bank fees based on our

findings at verification.

Regarding Habas’s U.S. packing

expenses, we revised the monthly

reported figures based on corrections

found at verification.

D. Metas

We relied on the respondent’s COP

and CV amounts except in the following

instances:

(1) We used the IMF’s WPI to

recalculate the company’s SG&A and

financing expenses (see Comment 2).

(2) We adjusted material costs by

using the actual mix of scrap purchased

during 1995 (see Comment 23).

(3) We adjusted SG&A expenses to

exclude expenses associated with the

movement of finished goods because

COP is calculated on an ex-factory basis,

in accordance with § 773 of the Act.

(4) Because Metas made no home

market sales in the ordinary course of

trade (i.e., all sales were found to be

below cost), we based the profit and

SG&A expenses used in CV on the

weighted average of the profit and

SG&A data computed for Colakoglu and

Ekinciler, in accordance with

§ 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Because all of Metas’s home market

sales were sold below their COP, we

compared export prices to CV. We

deducted from CV the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses

and added the weighted-average U.S.

product-specific direct selling expenses.

Home market direct selling expenses

were based on the weighted average of

the selling expense data computed for

Colakoglu and Ekinciler (those

respondents with home market sales of

the foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade after performing the cost

test), in accordance with

§ 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. U.S. direct

selling expenses included imputed

credit expenses (offset by the interest

revenue actually received by the

respondent), bank charges, testing and

inspection fees, and Exporters’

Association fees.

Currency Conversion

The Department’s preferred source for

daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. However, the Federal

Reserve Bank does not track or publish

exchange rates for Turkish Lira.

Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily

exchange rates from the Dow Jones

News/Retrieval Service. See 19 CFR

§ 353.60. See e.g., Pasta.

Critical Circumstances

In the petition, petitioners made a

timely allegation that there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that critical circumstances exist with

respect to imports of subject

merchandise.

According to § 733(e)(1) of the Act, if

critical circumstances were alleged

under § 733(e) of the Act, the

Department will determine whether:

(A)(i) there is a history of dumping

and material injury by reason of

dumped imports in the United States or

elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose

account, the merchandise was imported

knows or should have known that the

exporter was selling the subject

merchandise at less than its fair value

and that there was likely to be material

injury by reason of such sales, and

(B) there have been massive imports

of the subject merchandise over a

relatively short period.

In this investigation, the first criterion

is satisfied because the Republic of

Singapore began imposing antidumping

measures against rebar from Turkey in

1995. Therefore, we determine that

there is a history of dumping of rebar by

Turkish producers/exporters. Because

there is a history of dumping, it is not

necessary to address whether the

importer had knowledge that dumping

was occurring and material injury was

likely.

Because we have found that the first

statutory criterion is met, we must

consider the second statutory criterion:

whether imports of the merchandise

have been massive over a relatively

short period. Pursuant to 19 CFR

353.16(f) and 353.16(g), we consider the

following to determine whether imports

have been massive over a relatively

short period of time: (1) Volume and

value of the imports; (2) seasonal trends

(if applicable); and (3) the share of

domestic consumption accounted for by

the imports.

When examining volume and value

data, the Department typically compares

the export volume for equal periods

immediately preceding and following

the filing of the petition. Under 19 CFR

353.16(f)(2), unless the imports in the

comparison period have increased by at

least 15 percent over the imports during

the base period, we will not consider

the imports to have been ‘‘massive.’’

To determine whether or not imports

of subject merchandise have been

massive over a relatively short period

for all respondents, except IDC, we

compared each respondent’s export

volume for the seven months

subsequent to and including the filing of

the petition to that during the

comparable period prior to the filing of

the petition. Based on our analysis, we

find that imports of the subject

merchandise from Ekinciler, Habas, and

Metas increased by more than 15

percent over a relatively short period,

whereas the imports of subject

merchandise from Colakoglu did not

increase by more than 15 percent.

Moreover, regarding IDC, as facts

available, we are making the adverse

assumption that imports have been

massive over a relatively short period of

time in accordance with § 735(a)(3)(B) of

the Act.

Therefore, because there is a history

of dumping of such or similar

merchandise, and because we find that

imports of rebar from all respondents

except Colakoglu have been massive

over a relatively short period of time, we

determine that critical circumstances

exist with respect to exports of rebar

from Turkey by Ekinciler, Habas, IDC,

and Metas. Regarding Colakoglu,

because we find that imports of rebar

from this company have not been

massive over a relatively short period of

time, we determine that critical

circumstances do not exist with respect

to exports of rebar from Turkey by

Colakoglu. For further discussion, see

Comment 10.

Regarding all other exporters, because

we find that critical circumstances exist

for three of the four investigated

companies, we also determine that

critical circumstances exist for

companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’

rate.
9742 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

Verification

As provided in § 782(i) of the Act, we

verified the information submitted by

the respondents for use in our final

determination. We used standard

verification procedures, including

examination of relevant accounting and

production records and original source

documents provided by respondents.

Interested Party Comments

A. General

Comment 1: Use of Total Facts

Available for the Final Determination

Petitioners assert that the Department

should base its final determination with

regard to Ekinciler on total facts

available due to the numerous errors

discovered by the Department at

verification. Petitioners contend that

these errors are so numerous and

substantial that they call into question

the propriety of using Ekinciler’s

response as the basis for calculating a

dumping margin. Petitioners cite the

following examples: (1) Ekinciler

included non-subject merchandise in its

home market sales database; (2)

Ekinciler’s packing expenses contained

errors; (3) Ekinciler did not report the

cost of old stocks (i.e., fuel oil) and

certain service production costs; and (4)

Ekinciler was unable to provide the

Department with heat sheets for grade

60 billets as requested.

In support of their position,

petitioners cite to Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe from South Africa:

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR 24274

(May 14, 1996) (Steel Pipe), where the

Department used facts available because

‘‘the number of errors discovered draw

into question the completeness and

accurateness of respondent’s remaining

sales (i.e., sales not specifically

reviewed at verification).’’ Petitioners

state that the antidumping law and the

Department’s practice require that the

Department strive to calculate accurate

margins, but that an accurate and fair

comparison is not possible in view of

the errors in Ekinciler’s responses.

Therefore, according to petitioners, the

final determination for Ekinciler should

be based on total facts available.

Moreover, petitioners urge the

Department to consider applying total

facts available to Colakoglu and/or

Habas on the same basis, even though

their errors were not as egregious or

numerous as those of Ekinciler.

Ekinciler argues that its reported sales

and cost data were substantially verified

by the Department and, as a result, the

use of total facts available for the final

determination is not supported by

evidence on the record. Respondent

cites to Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 13834 (March 28, 1996),

where the Department rejected

petitioner’s request to base the final

results of the review on total best

information available because

respondent had been cooperative

throughout the proceeding and the

errors found at verification were not so

large as to render the respondent’s

reported information unusable.

Ekinciler maintains that, pursuant to

§ 776(a)(2) of the Act, when errors or

gaps appear in otherwise timely and

verified information and the respondent

has been cooperative, the Department

will simply revise the information or fill

the gaps using non-adverse facts

available. Accordingly, Ekinciler asserts

that the Department should, consistent

with this practice, fill the gaps in its

reported data found at verification with

non-adverse facts available.

Colakoglu and Habas argue that the

information they have submitted on the

record was also substantially verified,

and, thus, the use of total facts available

is not supported by evidence on the

record.

DOC Position

We agree with respondents. Although

our verifications uncovered certain

errors in the responses of these

companies, those errors are not so

egregious as to resort to total facts

available for purposes of the final

determination. The errors found at

Ekinciler consisted primarily of minor

variations in the reported movement

expenses due to clerical errors and

inadvertent omissions—errors that the

Department routinely corrects in making

its final determination. Regarding the

inclusion of non-subject merchandise,

the Department normally excludes sales

from its analysis which were found at

verification to have been incorrectly

included. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 61 FR

69067, 69068 (Dec. 31, 1996), Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Extruded

Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 61 FR

54767 (Oct. 22, 1996), and Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from

Brazil, 60 FR 31960, 31965 (June 19,

1995).

Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, the

errors found at Ekinciler were not of the

same magnitude as the errors described

in Steel Pipe. The errors encountered at

verification in Steel Pipe undermined

the fundamental components of the

respondent’s submitted data and

included most notably quantity and

value reconciliation errors, unreported

sales, and incorrect prices for a majority

of sales. Such errors led the Department

to determine that respondent’s

questionnaire responses were

unverifiable. In the instant case, the

discrepancies found in Ekinciler’s

responses are not so material and

pervasive as to warrant use of total facts

available. Consequently, in accordance

with our practice, we have used facts

available only for certain aspects of

Ekinciler’s response, as discussed in

other comments below.

Comment 2: Selection of Inflation Index

Respondents argue that monthly costs

should be inflated to year-end values

using the WPI published by the IMF

rather than the primary metals index

(PMI) published by the Turkish Institute

of Statistics. Respondents note that the

WPI was used to determine that Turkey

was experiencing hyperinflation and,

thus, this index should be used to

account for distortions caused by

hyperinflation. Additionally,

respondents argue that they paid for

major material inputs using U.S. dollars.

For this reason, respondents argue that

the Department should use the WPI—

which is a general indicator of the price

levels of the whole economy—because it

provides a reliable, macroeconomic

indicator of the relative values of the

Turkish lira and the U.S. dollar.

Respondents assert that the PMI does

not reflect macroeconomic

considerations.

Petitioners counter that PMI should

be used to inflate monthly costs to yearend values because this index is

industry-specific and, unlike the WPI, it

is not subject to influences which are

irrelevant to the merchandise under

investigation. Petitioners argue that the

test of whether an economy is

experiencing hyperinflation is a

threshold test and the use of a particular

index to determine whether the

threshold has been met does not imply

that the same index should be used to

measure the impact of inflation.

Petitioners also claim that it is irrelevant

whether the index used is a reliable

indicator of the relative values of the

Turkish lira and the U.S. dollar because

the index is being used for a different

purpose—to inflate Turkish liradenominated monthly expenses and

cost of sales to year-end amounts.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners that it is

irrelevant whether the index used is a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9743

2 Foreign currency translation is the process of

expressing amounts denominated in one currency

in terms of a second currency, by using the

exchange rate between the currencies. Assets and

liabilities are translated at the current exchange rate

on the balance sheet date. The Department typically

includes foreign exchange translation gains and

losses in a respondent’s financial expenses if such

gains and losses are related to the cost of acquiring

debt for purposes of financing the production of the

subject merchandise.

macroeconomic indicator of the relative

value of the Turkish lira and the U.S.

dollar since inflation adjustments

concern only the Turkish lira. However,

we have reconsidered our use of the

PMI in the preliminary determination

and, for the reasons set forth below,

have used instead the WPI published by

the IMF to account for inflation in the

final determination.

There are no financial reporting

requirements prescribed by Turkish

authorities that require the financial

statements of Turkish companies to be

restated to account for the effects of

inflation. Consequently, in the absence

of this requirement, none of the

respondents restated their financial

statements to correct for the effects of

inflation. Accordingly, in this instance,

we relied on International Accounting

Standard (IAS) 29 entitled ‘‘Financial

Reporting in Hyper-inflationary

Economies’’ for guidance on an

appropriate methodology. (See

Memorandum to the File from Paul

McEnrue, dated February 12, 1997.)

According to IAS 29, financial

statements prepared in the currency of

a highly inflationary economy must be

restated to account for the effects of

inflation. The statement requires the use

of a general price index that reflects

changes in general purchasing power to

restate financial statements. The IAS

statement also notes that the same index

should be used for all enterprises that

report in the currency of the same

economy. Because the WPI measures

changes in the general price index,

while the PMI does not, we find that it

is more appropriate to use the WPI to

account for inflation for purposes of the

final determination.

Comment 3: Translation Losses 2

Respondents contend that translation

losses from their foreign currency

borrowings (which were principally

U.S. dollar-denominated) should be

excluded from the submitted costs.

Respondents reason that, since the

translation losses are not a result of cash

transactions, the losses are fictional.

Respondents explain that the translation

losses result from converting dollardenominated loans into their Turkish

lira equivalents as of the balance sheet

date. Respondents argue that the

translation losses are equivalent to

monetary corrections on domestic loans

and the Department’s practice is to

exclude monetary corrections from

reported costs. Respondents note that,

where the indexation (i.e., adjustment

for inflation) of domestic loan balances

is required by the generally accepted

accounting principles (GAAP) of a

hyperinflationary economy, the

Department’s practice has been to

exclude the monetary corrections on

such loan balances and to treat the

indexation of those loan balances as an

adjustment which is not relevant to the

determination of cost (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Tubeless Disc Wheels From

Brazil, 52 FR 8947, 8949 (March 20,

1987) and Notice of Amended Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 59

FR 8598, 8598 (Feb. 23, 1994)).

Respondents maintain that their

adjustment of foreign currency loan

balances for translation losses is

equivalent to the indexation of domestic

loans and, thus, the Department should

not include respondents’’ translation

losses in COP and CV. Additionally,

because costs included in CV are

eventually converted into dollars,

respondents argue that the Department

should base loan costs on the U.S.

dollar-denominated loan balances and

avoid the conversion from dollars to

Turkish lira and back to dollars which

creates a loss that does not exist in

dollar terms.

Petitioners argue that translation

losses are ‘‘real costs’’ that should be

included in COP and CV. To support

their position, petitioners cite the

decision of the Court of International

Trade (CIT) in Micron Tech. v. United

States, 993 F. Supp. 21, 29–30 (CIT

1995). In that case, the CIT held that

‘‘increased liability for borrowed funds

caused by fluctuations in the exchange

rate . . . are akin to an increased cost

of borrowing funds that should be

included in any reasonable measure of

the cost climate faced by the company

during the period of investigation. . .’’

Moreover, petitioners maintain that it is

the Department’s practice to include

foreign exchange translation losses in

the cost of manufacturing (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon

Steel Products, Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Products, Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel

Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR

37176, 37187 (July 9, 1993)).

Petitioners contend that respondents’’

argument for excluding translation costs

from COP and CV fails for the following

reasons. First, CV is the cost of

producing merchandise in the exporting

country and not the cost of producing

merchandise in the United States or in

U.S. dollars. Therefore, the fact that a

translation loss does not exist in dollars

is irrelevant. Second, the Department’s

practice of excluding from costs

monetary adjustments from the

indexation of domestic loan balances

does not apply in this case because

respondents do not index their foreign

currency or domestic loans and Turkish

GAAP does not call for such indexation.

Third, respondents did not cite any

precedent which establishes the

Department’s position regarding the

treatment of monetary corrections for

foreign currency loans. Thus, petitioners

urge the Department to include

respondents’’ translation losses in COP

and CV.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. The cases

cited by respondents are not specifically

related to the Department’s treatment of

monetary corrections for foreign

currency loans. The Department does

not agree with respondents’ supposition

that their translation losses are fictional.

The translation losses are recorded in

respondents’’ financial statements in the

ordinary course of business. In the past,

the Department has found that

translation losses represent an increase

in the actual amount of cash needed by

respondents to retire their foreign

currency-denominated loan balances.

See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut

Roses from Ecuador, 24 FR 7019, 7039,

(Feb. 6, 1995). We have therefore

included the translation losses in our

calculation of COP and CV and have

amortized these expenses over the

remaining life of the companies’’ loans.

Comment 4: Waste and Discarded

Material

Petitioners note that the accounting

method used by each respondent to

record the value of scrap (either

generated from or recycled back into

rebar production) can result in a

significant understatement of costs.

Petitioners reason, therefore, that the

Department should closely scrutinize

the quantity, value and accounting

treatment of scrap reported by each

respondent.

Respondents maintain that each

company’s treatment of scrap is

reasonable and does not result in a

significant understatement of costs.

DOC Position

We reviewed and verified the

respondents’ accounting treatment of
9744 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

scrap. We found respondents’ treatment

accurately reflects the value of scrap.

See Colakoglu Cost Verification Report

at 6 and 7; Ekinciler Cost Verification

Report at 10 and 18; Habas Cost

Verification Report at 9 and 17; and

Metas Cost Verification Report at 10 and

18.

Comment 5: Treatment of Defective Bar

and ‘‘Out-of-form’’ Billets

Petitioners assert that Colakoglu and

Habas improperly treated defective bar

and ‘‘out-of-form’’ billets, respectively,

as co-products. Petitioners argue that

both respondents should have treated

these products as by-products.

Petitioners state that by-products are: (1)

products that have low sales value

compared to the sales value of the main

product; and (2) produced

unintentionally as part of the

manufacturing process from the

intended product. Petitioners assert that

Colakoglu’s defective bar and Habas’s

out-of-form billet satisfy all the byproduct criteria and, therefore, should

be treated as such.

Colakoglu maintains that its coproduct accounting treatment of

defective bar is proper, stating that a coproduct accounting methodology is

consistent with the manner in which

defective bar is treated in its books and

records in the normal course of

business. Colakoglu argues that during

verification the Department did not find

its co-product methodology distortive.

Habas argues that it properly treated

‘‘out-of-form’’ billet as a co-product

because billets are a finished good and

are treated as such in Habas’s books.

Furthermore, Habas contends that it

accounts for such billets in the same

manner as it accounts for plain billets in

the ordinary course of business. Habas

also states that the only difference

between billet and rebar production

processes is the additional rolling time

required for rebar.

DOC Position

We agree with respondents. We

believe that the methods used by

Colakoglu and Habas to account for

defective bar and ‘‘out of form’’ billet,

respectively, are reasonable because we

found that they do not distort the cost

of producing rebar. Consequently, we

have relied on them for purposes of the

final determination.

According to § 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act,

‘‘costs shall normally be calculated

based on the records of the exporter or

producer of the merchandise, if such

records are kept in accordance with the

generally accepted accounting

principles of the exporting country (or

the producing country, when

appropriate) and reasonably reflect the

costs associated with the production

and sale of the merchandise.’’ See also

H.R. Doc. No. 316 (SAA) at 834 and 835.

The CIT has upheld the Department’s

use of expenses recorded in the

company’s financial statements, when

those statements are prepared in

accordance with the home country’s

GAAP and do not significantly distort

the company’s actual costs. See e.g.,

Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, Slip

Op. 94–160 at 22 (CIT 1994).

Accordingly, our practice is to adhere

to an individual firm’s recording of

costs, if we are satisfied that such

principles reasonably reflect the costs of

producing the subject merchandise and

are in accordance with the GAAP of its

home country. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit

from Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29559

(June 5, 1995); Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Stainless Steel Welded Pipe from the

Republic of Korea, 57 FR 53693, 53705

(Nov. 12, 1992); and Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from South

Africa, 60 FR 22550, 22556 (May 8,

1995). Normal accounting practices

provide an objective standard by which

to measure costs, while allowing

respondents a predictable basis on

which to compute those costs. However,

in those instances where it is

determined that normal accounting

practices result in an unreasonable

allocation of production costs, the

Department will make certain

adjustments or may use alternative

methodologies that more accurately

capture the costs incurred. See, e.g.,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: New Minivans from

Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21952 (May 26,

1992).

In the instant proceeding, therefore,

the Department examined whether

respondents’ accounting methodology

for defective bar and ‘‘out of form’’ billet

reasonably reflects the cost of producing

the subject merchandise. We found that

the quantity of defective bar and ‘‘out of

form’’ billet produced by these

companies, in relation to total

production of all bar products, is so

small as to not significantly affect the

per-unit cost for rebar. See Colakoglu

Cost Verification Report at 12 and Habas

Cost Verification Report at 11. As such,

we have determined that respondents’

methods of accounting for defective bar

and ‘‘out of form’’ billet do not distort

the cost of producing rebar. Moreover,

these methods are used in the normal

course of business. Accordingly, we

have accepted these methods for

purposes of the final determination.

Comment 6: Revised Cost Databases

Submitted by Colakoglu and Habas

Petitioners argue that several fields in

the cost databases submitted after

verification were revised without

explanation from those used for the

preliminary determination. Therefore,

petitioners argue that the Department

should use facts available instead of the

unexplained values contained in the

altered fields. If the Department has the

information at its disposal, petitioners

ask that the Department explain why

certain fields were omitted from the

revised cost databases.

In addition, petitioners state that

Habas reported costs for certain

products for months during which there

was no production of those products.

Petitioners maintain that the

Department should ensure that Habas

did not fail to account for all costs

actually incurred and that the method

Habas used to calculate monthly costs

appropriately allocated all costs.

Petitioners argue that the Department

should use total facts available if

Habas’s submissions do not account for

all costs actually incurred, or if all costs

are accounted for but inappropriately

allocated.

Colakoglu maintains that certain

fields in its cost database were altered

due to changes that were requested by

the Department. Furthermore, Colakoglu

states that certain fields were omitted

because the Department did not use

those fields for the preliminary

determination, and, in fact, never

requested that such data be reported.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. We

analyzed respondents’ revised databases

and found that all revisions were the

direct result of changes requested by the

Department. Moreover, regarding the

omitted fields, we agree with Colakoglu

that these fields were unnecessary and

were not used in our analysis.

Therefore, we have accepted

respondents’ revised databases for

purposes of the final determination.

Company-Specific Issues

B. Colakoglu

Comment 7: Interest Rate Used to

Calculate Home Market Credit Expenses

Colakoglu argues that the Department

should not use loans issued by the

Turkish Eximbank in calculating its

home market imputed credit expenses.

Colakoglu asserts that its Eximbank

loans were related to export-oriented

activities and, as such, were not used to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9745

finance home market sales. As

precedent for its position, Colakoglu

cites Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware

From Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 43327 (Aug. 16, 1993)

(Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware),

where the Department excluded shortterm export loans from the information

used to calculate the home market

interest rate.

Petitioners disagree, stating that the

Department should use Colakoglu’s

Eximbank loans in calculating credit

because Colakoglu had no other source

of borrowings denominated in Turkish

lira during the POI. Petitioners maintain

that Colakoglu’s actual borrowings are

more indicative of the company’s shortterm borrowing experience than are the

rates published by the IMF. Moreover,

petitioners claim that the facts in this

case are distinguishable from those in

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware

because the respondent in Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware had other short-term

loans denominated in the home market

currency.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. In general,

the Department’s practice with regard to

the interest rate used to calculate home

market imputed credit expenses is to

base the rate on a company’s actual

borrowings in the home market

currency. The Department makes

exceptions to this practice either when

there are no loans in the home market

currency or when a company is able to

prove that its loans in that currency do

not form an appropriate basis for the

home market interest rate (e.g., when

they are tied to specific export

transactions).

In Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware, it

was demonstrated to the Department’s

satisfaction that the loans at issue were

tied directly to exports of subject

merchandise. In this case, however, not

only is there no evidence on the record

showing that these loans are tied to U.S.

sales of rebar, but there is also no

evidence that they are tied to exports at

all. Moreover, these loans are based on

Turkish lira-denominated borrowings

and bear interest rates into which

inflation has been factored.

Consequently, we find that the interest

rates paid on these loans are more

indicative of Colakoglu’s actual

borrowing experience than are the

interest rates published by the IMF.

Accordingly, we have used them in our

calculation of home market credit for

purposes of the final determination.

Comment 8: SG&A Expenses Incurred

by Affiliated Parties at the Port

Colakoglu argues that the Department

should not include in its U.S. movement

expenses those SG&A expenses incurred

by Denak, an affiliated party, in

connection with export-related activities

at the port. According to Colakoglu, the

administrative services performed by

Denak consist of securing vessels and

communicating with vessel owners, not

running the port or moving goods. As

such, Colakoglu asserts that these

circumstances are analogous to the

circumstances in which a respondent

itself secures the services of an

unaffiliated ocean freight company.

Colakoglu notes that, in such an

instance, the Department does not add

a respondent’s overhead expenses to the

amount reported for ocean freight.

Colakoglu also contends that in the

event that the Department decides that

it must make an adjustment for Denak’s

SG&A expenses, the Department should

exclude those expenses which were

unrelated to services provided on behalf

of Colakoglu.

Petitioners assert that the Department

should make an adjustment for Denak’s

SG&A expenses in order to ensure that

all U.S. movement expenses are

captured in the margin calculation.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners and have

made no adjustment for Denak’s SG&A

expenses for the reasons explained

below.

Regarding services provided by

affiliated parties, the Department’s

practice is to value the services at an

arm’s-length price. In order to determine

whether the price between the parties is

at arm’s length, the Department

generally looks at prices charged by the

affiliate to unaffiliated parties or at

prices paid by the respondent to an

unaffiliated party. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper

from Finland, 56 FR 56363 (Nov. 4,

1991). When there is no transaction

with an unaffiliated party, the

Department must find another way to

value the services in question.

In this case, we examined Denak’s

role in the export process at verification.

We noted that Denak performed several

services for Colakoglu related to the

shipment of the subject merchandise to

the United States. However, we were

unable to determine the arm’s-length

value of these services because we

found that Denak did not charge

Colakoglu for such services, nor did

Colakoglu secure the same services from

an outside party. As an alternative, we

examined Denak’s total SG&A expenses

at verification. However, we are unable

to use these expenses in our margin

calculations because they relate to

Denak’s operations as a whole, and not

just to the shipment of rebar to the

United States.

Under these circumstances, the

Department would normally base the

per-unit amount of the expense on facts

available. Given the particular facts of

this case, however, we find that this is

not appropriate for Colakoglu.

Specifically, we find that there is no net

cost associated with Denak’s activities

because: (1) Denak received revenue

from unaffiliated parties which was

directly related to Colakoglu’s export of

subject merchandise to the United

States; and (2) Denak’s revenues

exceeded its aggregate costs during the

POI. As such, we determine that no

adjustment for Denak’s SG&A expenses

(or the directly-related revenues) is

warranted in this case.

We note that two of the other

respondents, Ekinciler and Habas, had

similar arrangements with affiliated

parties during the POI and similar

problems in determining the amount of

per-ton SG&A expenses. Consistent with

our treatment of Colakoglu’s situation,

we have made no adjustments for either

the expenses or revenues associated

with these transactions.

Comment 9: Use of Data Contained in

Revised Sales Database

At verification, the Department found

that in certain instances Colakoglu had

reported average home market price and

interest revenue data. Colakoglu argues

that the Department should accept its

revised database correcting these data

for purposes of the final determination.

Colakoglu maintains that the averaging

affected only a limited portion of the

home market database. Moreover,

Colakoglu notes that the corrected

information was verified by the

Department.

Petitioners contend that the

Department should not use the data in

question. According to petitioners, this

information is untimely because it was

submitted after the deadline for

submission of factual information (i.e.,

seven days prior to the start of

verification). Petitioners cite Elemental

Sulfur from Canada: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (Jan.

7, 1997) (Elemental Sulfur), which

outlines the conditions under which the

Department will accept new information
9746 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

3These conditions are: (1) the need for the

information was not evident previously, (2) the

information makes minor corrections to information

already on the record, or (3) the information

corroborates, supports, or clarifies information

already on the record.

4 The date on which a petition is filed will

determine whether the month of filing will be

included in the base or comparison period.

at verification.3 Petitioners claim that

the conditions set forth in Elemental

Sulfur do not apply here.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. The

information in question was not new

information within the meaning of 19

CFR § 353.31 because it consisted of

minor corrections to data which were

already on the record and affected only

a limited portion of Colakoglu’s home

market database. Accordingly,

consistent with our practice outlined in

Elemental Sulfur, we used Colakoglu’s

revised home market database for

purposes of the final determination.

Comment 10: Critical Circumstances

Colakoglu maintains that the

Department should determine that

critical circumstances do not exist with

respect to its shipments based on the

fact that the increase in its imports has

not been massive prior to the

preliminary determination. According

to Colakoglu, it is the Department’s

practice to use in its analysis the longest

period for which information is

available from the month of the filing of

the petition until the effective date of

the preliminary determination. In this

case, the appropriate period would be

seven months.

Petitioners contend, however, that the

Department should define the period

used in its analysis as the five-month

period between the filing of the petition

and the date of the preliminary

determination as originally scheduled

(i.e., August 1996). Petitioners argue

that, had it not been for the

Department’s decision to conduct a

below-cost investigation, the

Department would have issued the

preliminary determination in August

and Colakoglu would have been

effectively precluded from making its

argument on critical circumstances.

Moreover, petitioners assert that a

finding in Colakoglu’s favor would have

a chilling effect on petitioners’ use of

either the below-cost provisions or the

critical circumstances provisions of the

antidumping law, by forcing petitioners

to choose between alleging the existence

of sales below cost or critical

circumstances.

DOC Position

We agree with Colakoglu. In

determining whether imports have been

massive within the meaning of

§ 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act, it is the

Department’s practice to base its

analysis on the longest period for which

information is available, normally

beginning with the month of filing of

the petition 4 and ending with the date

of the preliminary determination. See

Notice of Final Determinations of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums

and Brake Rotors from the People’s

Republic of China (issued on Feb. 24,

1997), where the Department used a

seven-month period; Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR

56567, 56574 (Nov. 9, 1995), where the

Department used periods ranging from

three to six months, based on ‘‘the

Department’s practice of using the

longest period for which information is

available from the month that the

petition was submitted through the

effective date of the preliminary

determination,’’ affirmed in Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the

People’s Republic of China, 61 FR

19026, 19031 (April 30, 1996)); and

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Critical Circumstances: Disposable

Pocket Lighters from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 436, 437 (Jan.

4, 1995), where the Department used a

period of seven months, affirmed in

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Disposable

Pocket Lighters from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 22359, 22363

(May 5, 1995).

Consequently, we have based our

analysis on the seven-month period

between the filing of the petition and

the date of the preliminary

determination. Using these data, we find

that imports by Colakoglu have not been

massive over a relatively short period of

time. Accordingly, we find that critical

circumstances do not exist for

Colakoglu.

Comment 11: Affiliated Party Freight

Services

Colakoglu argues that the transfer

prices that it pays to its affiliate Denak

for transporting imported scrap are not

equivalent to market prices and,

therefore, should not be used in the

Department’s final determination.

Respondent notes that, in the past, the

Department has included transfer prices

only when it was demonstrated that

they were equivalent to market prices.

See Final Determination at Less Than

Fair Value: High Information Content

Flat Panel Displays and Display Glass

from Japan, 56 FR 32376, 32376 (July

16, 1991). Respondent reasons that, in

order for the Department to conclude

that the transfer price between

Colakoglu and its affiliate is at arm’s

length, the Department must conclude

that prices charged by the affiliate are

comparable to those charged by an

unaffiliated freight supplier.

Respondent argues that the discrepancy

between Denak’s price and the

unaffiliated price demonstrates that the

amount charged by Denak is not an

arm’s-length price and should be

disregarded. Respondent notes that the

statute does not specify that only

transfer prices that are lower than

market prices may be disregarded.

Rather, respondent points out that in the

past the Department has also

disregarded transfer prices which are

higher than arm’s-length prices. See

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Color Picture

Tubes from Japan, 55 FR 37915, 37922

(Sept. 14, 1990).

Petitioners argue that the Department

should continue to use the price

Colakoglu paid to Denak for freight

services because it is an arm’s-length

price. Petitioners note that the

Department has recently found that ‘‘in

the case of a transaction between

affiliated persons involving a major

input, we will use the highest of the

transfer price between the affiliated

parties, the market price between

unaffiliated parties, and the affiliated

supplier’s cost of producing the major

input.’’ See Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review:

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Singapore, and the United

Kingdom, 62 FR 2081, 2115 (Jan. 15,

1997) (AFB’s).

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. In

determining whether a transaction

occurred at an arm’s-length price for a

major input, as stated in AFB’s, the

Department will use the highest of the

transfer price between the affiliated

parties, the market price between

unaffiliated parties, and the affiliated

supplier’s cost of producing a major

input.

In the normal course of business

Colakoglu records the transfer price in

its books to account for freight costs

from its affiliate. However, Colakoglu

submitted its affiliate’s cost of providing

freight service, the transfer price paid by

Colakoglu, and prices from unaffiliated

freight companies. In accordance with

the practice outlined in AFB’s, we
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9747

compared these data and found that the

price paid to Denak was an arm’s-length

price for freight services pursuant to

§ 773(f) (2) or (3) of the Act.

Accordingly, we have used the affiliated

company’s transfer price to value freight

services.

C. Ekinciler

Comment 12: Non-Subject Merchandise

Ekinciler argues that the inclusion of de

minimis quantities of non-subject

merchandise in its home market

database is not material to the

calculation of dumping and that the

Department should not adjust its

reported home market sales database

with regard to non-subject merchandise.

Ekinciler states that the number of sales

of fabricated rebar inadvertently

included in its home market sales

database is so small as to be

insignificant. Ekinciler maintains that a

comparison of the relative prices of the

non-subject rebar to the subject rebar

demonstrates that the inclusion of the

non-subject merchandise is of no

consequence and may work to its

disadvantage. Thus, Ekinciler asserts

that the Department should continue to

use Ekinciler’s submitted home market

database without making adjustments

for fabricated rebar for purposes of the

final determination.

Petitioners contend that, if the

Department does not base Ekinciler’s

margin on total facts available (see

Comment 1), it should use the most

adverse facts available for this aspect of

Ekinciler’s margin.

DOC Position

We disagree with respondent, in part.

We agree with respondent that the

Department should continue to use its

home market sales listing because the

quantity of non-subject merchandise

included is small. However, according

to § 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the price

on which normal value is based is ‘‘the

price at which the foreign like product

is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale,

offered for sale) for consumption in the

exporting country * * *’’ Therefore, we

are required by the statute to exclude

non-subject merchandise from our

calculation of normal value.

Petitioners point to the inclusion of

non-subject merchandise as evidence

that Ekinciler’s entire response is

unreliable and propose the use of the

most adverse facts available for this

aspect of Ekinciler’s response. We find,

however, that adverse facts available is

not warranted in this instance because

we were able to verify Ekinciler’s home

market sales of subject merchandise.

Accordingly, we have excluded all sales

of non-subject merchandise discovered

at verification.

Comment 13: Dunnage Revenue

Petitioners argue that the Department

should omit dunnage revenue from the

calculation of U.S. price for Ekinciler

because dunnage revenue could not be

verified. Specifically, petitioners cite to

the verification report which stated that

Ekinciler was ‘‘unable to provide bills of

lading for third country sales that would

have confirmed which shipment was

more appropriately associated with the

dunnage sales.’’

Ekinciler contends that, although it

was not possible to directly tie the

reported dunnage revenue to a specific

U.S. sale, its methodology is reasonable,

and the Department should make an

adjustment for the reported revenue.

Ekinciler maintains that, as stated in the

verification report, no more than one

vessel may dock at the port for loading

at any one time. Therefore, since

Ekinciler matched dunnage sales to

shipments that left the port on

approximately the same date as the date

of the dunnage sale, it claims that it is

reasonable to assume that the reported

dunnage revenues were earned in

connection with the identified U.S.

shipments.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. At

verification, we noted that Ekinciler did

not receive revenue from the sale of

dunnage materials on every export

shipment. Consequently, we were

unable to verify that the reported

dunnage revenue actually corresponded

to shipments of U.S.-bound rebar and

not to shipments to other export

markets. Therefore we did not include

dunnage revenue in our final margin

calculation for Ekinciler.

Comment 14: Home Market Credit

Expense

Ekinciler asserts that the Department

should make no adjustment for imputed

home market credit expense for the final

determination because this adjustment

is de minimis. Ekinciler claims that the

imputed credit expense resulting from

the use of its verified average number

days outstanding is insignificant, and

that the Department should disregard

this insignificant adjustment to NV in

accordance with § 777A(a)(2) of the Act

and 19 CFR 353.59(a). Alternatively,

Ekinciler contends that the Department

should correct its calculation of credit to

reflect that the interest rate reported is

an annual rate.

DOC Position

We agree with respondent, in part.

According to § 773A(a)(2) of the Act, the

Secretary may disregard adjustments

that are insignificant. However, there is

no requirement that adjustments which

may be insignificant must be

disregarded. We have made the

adjustment to NV for imputed credit

expenses because this adjustment can be

easily made and the information on

which it is based has been verified and

is reliable. However, we agree with

respondent that this expense was

calculated incorrectly for the

preliminary determination.

Accordingly, we have corrected our

calculation for the final determination

to reflect that the interest rate was

reported on an annual basis.

Comment 15: Packing Expenses

Ekinciler argues that the Department

should accept its packing expenses as

reported. Ekinciler maintains that,

although the Department’s verification

report indicates that there was a

variation in the reported packing

expenses for one of its mills as well as

a difference in home market and U.S.

packing, it was unaware that there was

any significant discrepancy between the

reported packing costs and those found

at verification. Ekinciler states that, if

the Department should find that the

packing expenses with respect to the

mill in question need to be corrected,

the Department may use any of the

reported monthly packing expenses

from its other mills. According to

Ekinciler, these sources provide

accurate, verified data reasonable for

use as facts available, particularly since

Ekinciler can be assumed to have

sourced all of its packing materials for

all of its mills from the same sources at

the same prices.

Petitioners argue that, if the

Department does not base Ekinciler’s

margin on total facts available (see

Comment 1), it should use the most

adverse facts available for this aspect of

Ekinciler’s margin calculation.

DOC Position

We disagree with Ekinciler that the

Department should accept its submitted

packing expenses. At verification,

Ekinciler was unable to demonstrate

that the packing expenses associated

with one of its mills were reported

correctly. Consequently, we have based

the packing expenses for the mill in

question on facts available. As facts

available, we used the highest verified

monthly packing expense reported by

Ekinciler for any of its other mills.
9748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

Comment 16: Depreciation

Petitioners claim that Ekinciler failed

to allocate the year-end inflation

adjustment for depreciation expense to

each month of the year. Thus,

petitioners maintain that Ekinciler’s

monthly depreciation costs are

understated.

According to Ekinciler, its cost

submissions clearly show that the yearend inflation adjustment to depreciation

expense was included in the monthly

costs used to derive COP and CV. Also,

Ekinciler asserts that, if the Department

inflates its monthly production costs as

it did in the preliminary determination,

it will overstate its depreciation expense

because this expense was already

adjusted to account for inflation.

Ekinciler notes that the Department

verified its reported depreciation

expense included a monthly

adjustment. This adjustment was

calculated at year-end using the

revaluation index published by the

Turkish Ministry of Finance and

applied to each month’s costs.

Therefore, Ekinciler contends that in the

final determination the Department

should either: (1) Not inflate reported

monthly depreciation expenses; or (2)

deflate the reported monthly

depreciation expenses to remove the

effects of the revaluation before

depreciation expenses are inflated.

DOC Position

We agree with Ekinciler. Ekinciler

expressed the year-end inflation

adjustment to depreciation expense as a

percentage of cost of sales and applied

this percentage to reported monthly

manufacturing costs to derive the

monthly depreciation expense reported

for COP and CV. Thus, contrary to

petitioners’’ claim, the adjustment to

inflate depreciation expense was

applied to each month of the POI.

Additionally, the Department found at

verification that the reported

depreciation expense was calculated

using asset costs that had been revalued

with the revaluation index published by

the Turkish Ministry of Finance.

Moreover, Ekinciler provided a

translation of the Ministry of Finance’s

regulations concerning asset revaluation

which indicated that the revaluation

index is based on an inflation index.

Thus, revaluation using this index

means that the depreciation expense

was already adjusted for inflation.

Accordingly, for the final determination

we have subtracted depreciation

expense from total manufacturing costs

before inflating those costs to year-end

values. We added inflated

manufacturing costs to the reported

depreciation expense to derive the total

cost of manufacturing.

Comment 17: Other Revenue and

Expenses

Petitioners maintain that Ekinciler

should include non-operating and other

expenses in general and administrative

(G&A) expenses because these expenses

are related to the production of subject

merchandise. However, petitioners

argue that non-operating and other

revenue should not be used to offset

G&A expenses because this revenue is

either from activities unrelated to the

sale or manufacture of rebar or from

accounting adjustments.

Ekinciler maintains that both nonoperating and other expenses and

revenue should be included as reported

because these are components of G&A

expenses. Unless G&A expenses are

reported on a divisional or product-line

basis, Ekinciler contends that it is

irrelevant that an element of G&A does

not relate to the subject merchandise.

DOC Position

We agree with Ekinciler that both

non-operating and other revenue and

expenses should be included in G&A. At

verification, we identified each item

included in non-operating and other

revenue and expenses. After examining

these items we determined that, except

for one revenue item, Ekinciler’s nonoperating and other revenue and

expenses relate to the subject

merchandise. We reached this

conclusion because these items are

generated from resources associated

with the production of subject

merchandise. The Department’s practice

is to adjust G&A expenses for

miscellaneous revenue and expenses

related to the production of subject

merchandise (see Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil

Country Tubular Goods From Argentina,

60 FR 33539, 33550, (June 28, 1995)).

Therefore, we have increased G&A by

non-operating and other expenses and

reduced G&A expenses by nonoperating and other revenue except for

the one revenue item unrelated to the

production of subject merchandise.

Comment 18: G&A Rate

Petitioners note that Ekinciler

included certain non-manufacturing

costs (i.e., costs associated with

operating Ekinciler’s port and cafeteria)

in the denominator of its G&A ratio, but

did not report these costs elsewhere in

its response. Petitioners argue that,

because these non-manufacturing costs

were not included in COP and CV, the

Department should base both Ekinciler’s

G&A rate and COP on adverse facts

available. Petitioners claim that

Ekinciler’s failure to report the costs in

question demonstrates that the

company’s response contains other

inaccuracies. At a minimum, however,

petitioners argue that, if the Department

does not apply adverse facts available,

it should treat the non-manufacturing

costs consistently (i.e., either exclude or

include such costs from both the G&A

rate and the reported costs).

Ekinciler maintains that the

Department should accept its G&A rate

as reported (i.e., by including the nonmanufacturing costs in question as part

of the denominator of the calculation of

the G&A rate). Ekinciler notes that the

Department defined G&A expenses in its

cost questionnaire as ‘‘those period

expenses which relate to the activities of

the company as a whole rather than to

the production process alone.’’

DOC Position

We agree with Ekinciler. Because the

G&A expenses used to derive the G&A

rate relate to the activities of the

company as a whole, including nonmanufacturing activities, we have

determined that the methodology

Ekinciler used to compute the G&A rate

is appropriate. Furthermore, the nonmanufacturing costs are related to a

separate line of business and, thus, they

are unrelated to the manufacture of the

subject merchandise. Therefore, these

costs were properly excluded from the

COP and CV.

Comment 19: Billet Transportation

Costs

At verification, the Department found

that Ekinciler failed to include the cost

of transporting billets within the factory

in its reported billet cost. Ekinciler

urges the Department to accept the

reported billet costs because the

omission found at verification is

insignificant.

Petitioners claim Ekinciler’s failure to

include intra-factory transportation

costs in reported billet costs indicates

Ekinciler’s responses are unreliable and

therefore, the Department should base

Ekinciler’s billet cost on adverse facts

available.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. For the

reasons stated in Comment 1, we do not

find that Ekinciler’s omission of intrafactory transportation costs satisfies the

statutory requirements for using facts

available or making adverse inferences

in reaching a determination. Therefore,

consistent with the Department’s

practice of correcting minor errors

where the use of adverse facts available

is unwarranted, we adjusted the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9749

reported billet cost to include intrafactory transportation costs (see Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Beryllium Metal and

High Beryllium Alloys From the

Republic of Kazakstan, 62 FR 2648,

2650 (Jan. 17, 1997)).

D. Habas

Comment 20: Packing Expenses

Habas acknowledges that the

Department was unable to verify the

monthly production quantities of

exported billet, which together with

monthly rebar production quantities

serve as the denominator for monthly

per-unit strap expense. However, Habas

maintains that the Department was able

to successfully verify all other

components of its packing calculation.

Habas, therefore, argues that the

Department should continue to use

Habas’s reported packing costs in the

margin calculation.

Petitioners argue that, because the

Department found Habas’s packing

expense to be erroneous at verification,

the Department should either base

Habas’s packing expense on adverse

facts available or recalculate Habas’s

packing expense taking into account the

information discovered at verification.

Petitioners maintain that using adverse

facts available with respect to

calculating Habas’s packing expense is

appropriate because: 1) the respondent

has an obligation to provide accurate

data; 2) the Department has a practice of

not accepting new information

submitted at verification; and 3) the

Department’s resorting to the use of

facts available constitutes a significant

incentive for the submission of accurate

data.

DOC Position

To calculate the per unit strap

expense in its overall packing

calculation, Habas used billets produced

for export along with total rebar

production as part of the calculation’s

denominator. At verification, Habas was

unable to provide supporting

documentation for billets produced for

export. We agree with respondent that,

other than this one element, the

Department was able to successfully

verify all other packing material and

labor expenses. Therefore, we disagree

with petitioners that adverse facts

available is warranted in this instance.

We do, however, agree with petitioners

that the Department should recalculate

Habas’s packing expense taking into

account the information discovered at

verification. Therefore, rather than

billets produced for export, we used the

total verified 1995 exports of billets and

total rebar production as the

denominator for the per-unit strap

calculation.

Comment 21: Home Market Credit

Habas states that, as reported to the

Department, its books do not accurately

reflect the date of receipt of payment for

home market sales. However, Habas

contends that its methodology for

reporting payment dates and amounts of

payment is consistent with the records

kept by Habas in the ordinary course of

business. Therefore, Habas argues that

the Department should continue to use

its reported home market credit

expenses in the final determination.

DOC Position

Because we did not use Habas’s

selling expense data for purposes of the

final determination, this issue is moot.

Comment 22: G&A Expenses

Petitioners assert that, as facts

available, the Department should base

Habas’s G&A expenses on Habas’s

annual corporate-wide G&A expenses

for 1995, adjusted for inflation, rather

than the G&A expenses for the iron and

steel division. As support for this

position, petitioners cite the

Department’s practice in the following

determinations: Final Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Canada, 58 FR 37099, 37114 (July 9,

1993).

Habas maintains that the Department

verified all of its SG&A expenses. Habas

states that, although the Department

frequently uses a corporate-wide G&A

rate, the Department’s practice is to use

selling expenses which are based on the

expenses of the relevant division within

a company. Therefore, Habas maintains

that the correct ratio to use for the sales

portion of the SG&A is the indirect

selling expenses of the iron and steel

division divided by the iron and steel

division’s cost of sales.

DOC Position

Insofar as we did not use Habas’s G&A

expenses in the calculations for the final

determination, this issue is moot.

E. Metas

Comment 23: Material Costs

Petitioners argue that Metas’s

submitted cost of materials is not based

on the actual quantities of scrap used in

the production of rebar. Petitioners note

that Metas calculated its submitted cost

of scrap inputs based on the company’s

policy regarding the preferred mixture

of different scrap types. Petitioners

maintain that the Department was

unable to verify that Metas’s policy of

preferred scrap usage is indicative of the

actual scrap used to produce rebar

during the POI. Petitioners believe that

Metas’s schedule of scrap purchases

during the POI is the best evidence on

the record of actual scrap used and

argue that the Department should adjust

Metas’s material costs so that the

average usage of scrap reflects the ratio

of scrap purchased during 1995.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. In order to

provide the Department with productspecific material costs, Metas calculated

the cost of materials using the average

scrap quantities it believes are typical of

the mixtures required to make rebar.

During verification, we found that Metas

does not specifically track the quantity

of the types of scrap used in the

production of rebar. As a result, Metas

was unable to provide us with

documentation to substantiate the ratio

of scrap types used in its calculations.

Therefore, we recalculated Metas’s

material costs using the actual mix of

scrap purchased during 1995.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with § 735(c) of the Act,

we are directing the Customs Service to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of rebar from all companies

except Colakoglu that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after July 12, 1996,

which is 90 days prior to the date of

publication of the notice of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. Regarding Colakoglu,

we are directing the Customs Service to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of rebar from Colakoglu that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after October 10,

1996, the date of publication of our

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. We will instruct the

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which NV exceeds export price, as

indicated in the chart below. This

suspension of liquidation will remain in

effect until further notice.

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

Critical circumstances

Colakoglu ............ 9.84 No.

Ekinciler ............... 18.68 Yes.

Habas .................. 19.15 Yes.
9750 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

Critical circumstances

IDC ...................... 41.80 Yes.

Metas .................. 30.16 Yes.

All Others ............ 16.25 Yes.

ITC Notification

In accordance with § 735(d) of the

Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, within 45 days, whether

these imports are causing material

injury, or threat of material injury, to an

industry in the United States. If the ITC

determines that material injury, or

threat of material injury, does not exist,

the proceeding will be terminated and

all securities posted will be refunded or

canceled. If the ITC determines that

such injury does exist, the Department

will issue an antidumping duty order

directing Customs officials to assess

antidumping duties on all imports of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the effective

date of the suspension of liquidation.

This determination is published

pursuant to § 735(d) of the Act.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–5228 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review;

Notice of Application to Amend

Certificate

SUMMARY: The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’),

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce, has received

an application to amend an Export

Trade Certificate of Review. This notice

summarizes the proposed amendment

and requests comments relevant to

whether the amended Certificate should

be issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Dawn Busby, Director, Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. A

Certificate of Review protects the holder

and the members identified in the

Certificate from state and federal

government antitrust actions and from

private, treble damage antitrust actions

for the export conduct specified in the

Certificate and carried out in

compliance with its terms and

conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Act

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the

Secretary to publish a notice in the

Federal Register identifying the

applicant and summarizing its proposed

export conduct.

Request for Public Comments

Interested parties may submit written

comments relevant to the determination

whether an amended Certificate should

be issued. If the comments include any

priviledged or confidential business

information, it must be clearly marked

and a nonconfidential version of the

comments (identified as such) should be

included. Any comments not marked

privileged or confidential business

information will be deemed to be

nonconfidential. An original and five

copies, plus two copies of the

nonconfidential version, should be

submitted no later than 20 days after the

date of this notice to: Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, Department of

Commerce, Room 1800H, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Information submitted by

any person is exempt from disclosure

under the Freedom of Information Act

(5 U.S.C. 552). However,

nonconfidential versions of the

comments will be made available to the

applicant if necessary for determining

whether or not to issue the Certificate.

Comments should refer to this

application as ‘‘Export Trade Certificate

of Review, application number 95–

A0006.’’

The Water and Wastewater

Equipment Manufacturers Association

(‘‘WWEMA’’) original Certificate was

issued on June 21, 1996 (61 FR 36708,

July 12, 1996). A summary of the

application for an amendment follows.

Summary of the Application

Applicant: Water and Wastewater

Equipment Manufacturers Association

(‘‘WWEMA’’), 101 E. Holly Avenue,

Suite 14, Sterling, Virginia 22170.

Contact: Randolph J. Stayin, Partner.

Telephone: (202) 289–1313.

Application No.: 95–A0006.

Date Deemed Submitted: February 19,

1997.

Proposed Amendment: WWEMA

seeks to amend its Certificate to:

1. Add the following companies as

new ‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate

within the meaning of Section 325.2(1)

of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)):

Ashbrook Corporation, Houston, Texas

and The F.B. Leopold Company Inc.,

Zelienople, Pennsylvania (Parent:

Thames Water Products & Services);

Jeffrey Chain Corporation, Morristown,

Tennessee; and Waterlink, Inc., Canton,

Ohio, and its subsidiaries which include

Aero-Mod, Incorporated, Manhattan,

Kansas; Great Lakes Environmental,

Inc., Addison, Illinois; Mass Transfer

Systems, Inc., Fall River, Massachusetts;

SanTech, Inc. dba Sanborn

Technologies, Medway, Massachusetts;

Water Equipment Technologies, Inc.,

West Palm Beach, Florida; and

Waterlink Operational Services, Inc. dba

Blue Water Services, Manhattan,

Kansas.

Dated: February 26, 1997.

W. Dawn Busby,

Director, Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–5252 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 011597A]

Pacific Salmon Fisheries off the

Coasts of California, Oregon,

Washington, Alaska and in the

Columbia River Basin

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent; scoping

meeting; extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of

January 27, 1997, NMFS announced its

intent to hold scoping meetings, prepare

Environmental Assessments (EAs) and

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) on ocean and in-river fisheries that

may result in the incidental take of

Pacific salmonids currently listed or

proposed for listing under the

Endangered Species Act. NMFS will

hold an additional scoping meeting in

Alaska and is also extending the

comment period on the EIS and EAs.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted through March 21, 1997. The

scoping meeting will be held on March

6, 1997, 1:30–3:30 p.m., Sitka, AK.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to be included on a mailing list

of persons interested in the EIS should

be sent to Joseph R. Blum, Office of

Protected Resources, Endangered

Species Division (PR3), National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.