[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32820-32825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15872]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-405-071]


Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On December 10, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty finding on viscose rayon staple fiber from Finland. This review 
covers one company, Kemira Fibres Oy, and the period of March 1, 1996 
through February 28, 1997. We gave interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on our preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received, we have changed the results from those presented in 
the preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Alexander Amdur, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4740 or (202) 482-5346, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made by the 
Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all references to the regulations of the Department of 
Commerce (Commerce) are as codified at 19 CFR part 353, as they existed 
on April 1, 1997. Since the new regulations do not apply in these final 
results, we should note that whenever the new regulations are cited, 
they operate as a restatement of the Department's interpretation of the 
Act. See !62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Background

    On December 10, 1997, we published in the Federal Register (62 FR 
65063) the preliminary results of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty finding on viscose rayon staple fiber from Finland (44 
FR 17156, March 21, 1979). We received a case brief from the sole 
respondent, Kemira Fibres Oy (Kemira), on January 22, 1998, as amended 
on January 30, 1998. The petitioners, Courtauld Fibers Inc. and Lenzing 
Fibers Corporation, submitted a rebuttal brief on January 29, 1998. We 
held a public hearing on February 5, 1998. The Department extended the 
final results of this review until June 8, 1998. We are conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is viscose rayon staple fiber, 
except solution dyed, in noncontinuous form, not carded, not combed and 
not otherwise processed, wholly of filaments (except laminated 
filaments and plexiform filaments). The term includes both commodity 
and specialty fiber. This product is currently classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 5504.10.00 and 
5504.90.00. The HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of the finding remains 
dispositive.

Scope Issues

    Kemira claims that short-cut (LK) fiber and fire retardant (VISIL) 
fiber are not covered by the scope of the order, while petitioners 
claim that they are covered.
    The Department included LK and VISIL fibers within the scope of the 
order for the purposes of the preliminary results of this review (see 
62 FR 65063). We stated in our notice of preliminary results that 
because of the complexity of the issues relating to LK and VISIL 
fibers, we would commence a scope inquiry to determine whether LK and 
VISIL fibers are covered by the scope of the order.
    We asked interested parties to submit comments on these scope 
issues, which we analyzed pursuant to 19 CFR 353.29(d)(6). On matters 
concerning the scope of an antidumping finding or duty order, the 
normal bases for determining whether a product is included within the 
scope are the descriptions of the product contained in the 
determinations by the Department (or the Treasury Department) and the 
ITC, the initial investigation, the petition and, if applicable, prior 
scope rulings. See 19 CFR 353.29(i)(1). If these descriptions are not 
dispositive, the Department refers to the criteria listed under 19 CFR 
353.29(i)(2). By reference to the product descriptions provided by the 
parties, as well as the descriptions of the product contained in the 
final determinations of the Treasury Department and the ITC, and the 
petition, the Department is able to determine whether LK and VISIL 
fibers are covered by the scope of the order. Therefore, we have 
determined that it is unnecessary to refer to the additional factors of 
section 353.29(i)(2).
    Based on our analysis under 19 CFR 353.29(i)(1), the Department has 
determined that LK and VISIL fibers are within the scope of the 
antidumping order on Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber from Finland. See June 
8, 1998 Memorandum to Maria Harris Tildon from Holly Kuga Regarding 
Whether Short-Cut (LK) Fiber And Fire Retardant (VISIL) Fiber Are 
Within The Scope of the Finding (Order) on Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber 
from Finland.

Analysis of the Comments Received

    Comment 1: Kemira argues that the Department erroneously 
reclassified certain export price (EP) sales made through its selling 
agent in the United States as constructed export price (CEP) sales. 
Kemira notes that all of the sales at issue were made prior to 
importation based on the date the order was confirmed and shipped 
directly from Kemira's factory to the customer in the United States. 
Kemira argues that its selling agent in the United States, Newco Fibres 
Company (Newco), relocates (in part) routine selling functions of the 
company from Finland to the United States, and does not perform any 
more selling functions in the United States than those U.S. entities in 
various cases in which the Department concluded that the sales were EP 
sales (see, Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France, 58 FR 68865, 
68869, (December 29, 1993); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 18547, 18552, (April 26, 1996)). Kemira 
also argues that the Department's re-characterization of the sales at 
issue is

[[Page 32821]]

contrary to the statute because Kemira was the seller to the unrelated 
purchaser in all transactions, and Newco did not make any sales by or 
for the account of Kemira.
    The petitioners argue that the Department's reclassification of EP 
sales to the United States made through Newco as CEP sales was 
appropriate. The petitioners note that the Department relied on the 
statutory definition of CEP, which is ``the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise.* * *'' (See, section 772(b) 
of the Act .) The petitioners note that Kemira acknowledges that 
``sales activities in the United States market are conducted by * * * 
Newco,'' and argue that Newco plays a major role in the marketing of 
Kemira's products, including negotiating sales and obtaining customer 
orders. The petitioners further note that, although Newco passes all 
sales documentation to Kemira for confirmation, in actuality such 
confirmations appear to be routine. In fact, the petitioners note, it 
does not appear that Kemira ever rejected any order confirmations 
passed to it by Newco during the period of review (POR).
    DOC Position: We agree with the petitioners. In our preliminary 
results of review, we examined the facts of this case in light of the 
statute with respect to EP and CEP sales. Section 772(b) of the Act, as 
amended, defines CEP as ``the price at which the subject merchandise is 
first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after 
the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer 
or exporter, as adjusted'' (emphasis added). Section 772(a) of the Act 
defines EP as ``the price at which the subject merchandise is first 
sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the 
producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United 
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as 
adjusted.''
    Furthermore, based on the Department's practice, we examine several 
criteria for determining whether sales made prior to importation 
through a sales agent to an unaffiliated customer in the United States 
are EP sales, including: (1) Whether the merchandise was shipped 
directly from the manufacturer to the unaffiliated U.S. customer; (2) 
whether this was the customary commercial channel between the parties 
involved; and (3) whether the function of the U.S. selling agent was 
limited to that of a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a 
``communications link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. buyer. Where all 
three criteria are met, indicating that the activities of the U.S. 
selling agent are ancillary to the sale, the Department has regarded 
the routine selling functions of the exporter as merely having been 
relocated geographically from the country of exportation to the United 
States where the sales agent performs them, and has determined the 
sales to be EP sales. Where one or more of these conditions are not 
met, indicating that the U.S. sales agent is substantially involved in 
the U.S. sales process, the Department has classified the sales in 
question as CEP sales. (See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170 (March 18, 1998).)
    Our analysis of the facts indicates that, while Kemira's alleged EP 
sales meet the first two conditions, they fail to meet the third one. 
Kemira employs Newco in the United States to negotiate contracts with 
U.S. customers, including the negotiation of prices, for most of its 
U.S. sales. All contracts are subject to acceptance by Kemira and 
become effective upon Kemira's order confirmation. However, there have 
been no cases to our knowledge in which the terms of sale have not been 
accepted by Kemira during this POR. Therefore, the only difference that 
is apparent between the claimed EP and CEP sales is the fact that the 
claimed EP sales are shipped directly to the US customer; all other 
functions performed by Newco for such sales are identical. 
Consequently, we conclude that Newco, the agent in the United States, 
is not merely a processor of sales-related documentation or a 
communications link, but is, in fact, selling covered products in the 
United States on Kemira's behalf. Therefore, under section 772(b), we 
concluded that CEP treatment is also appropriate for sales made in the 
United States prior to importation by Newco, on behalf of the producer 
(i.e, Kemira), to an unaffiliated purchaser. We determine that EP 
treatment is appropriate for Kemira's other sales made to the United 
States before the date of importation which do not require the 
employment of the sales agent in the United States. We have no further 
information that would lead us to change our preliminary results with 
respect to this issue; therefore, we have made no changes for the final 
results of review.
    Comment 2: Kemira argues that the Department should reconsider its 
adverse facts available (FA) determination concerning Kemira's U.S. 
sales of substandard merchandise. Kemira maintains that the Department 
misinterpreted Kemira's statement in its questionnaire response that it 
made sales of second-quality merchandise in the European market to mean 
that it did not have sales in either Finland or the United States. 
Kemira explains that it did not report its United States and Finnish 
sales of second-quality merchandise because the Department did not 
specify that such sales were covered by the review and should be 
reported.
    In support of the Department's preliminary determination on this 
issue, the petitioners assert that it was appropriate for the 
Department to make an adverse inference concerning Kemira's U.S. sales 
of second-quality merchandise. The petitioners maintain that Kemira did 
not report its home market or U.S. sales of second-quality merchandise 
despite the fact that the Department twice requested Kemira to report 
all sales of merchandise within the scope of the order, and that there 
was no indication that second-quality merchandise was excluded from the 
scope of the order. The petitioners also note that it was not until the 
Department conducted verification that it discovered the existence of 
these sales.
    DOC Position: We agree with the petitioners. Section 776(a)(2) of 
the Act provides that if an interested party withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information 
in a timely manner or in the form requested, significantly impedes a 
proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides information that 
cannot be verified, the Department shall use FA in reaching the 
applicable determination. Section 782(d) states that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, it shall promptly inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or 
explain the deficiency.
    In its original questionnaire of May 20,1997, the Department 
requested Kemira to report all of its home market and U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise in accordance with the instructions in the 
questionnaire. Kemira did not report its home market and U.S. sales of 
second-

[[Page 32822]]

quality and substandard merchandise. On August 15, 1997, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire to Kemira, again requesting Kemira 
to report all sales of viscose rayon fiber that are not specifically 
excluded from the scope of the finding. In its response to the 
supplemental questionnaire, Kemira again did not report any home market 
or U.S. sales of second-quality and substandard merchandise. The fact 
that Kemira reported the existence of sales of substandard merchandise 
in third countries, but, in response to two specific requests for 
information, failed to report such sales in the United States, lead the 
Department to believe that no such sales in the United States were made 
during the POR. It was not until verification that the Department 
discovered the existence of such sales.
    In both requests for information, the Department advised Kemira 
that failing to provide the requested information may result in the 
application of FA. At verification, the Department was able to 
determine what percentage of Kemira's total U.S. sales were of second-
quality merchandise. We observed that Kemira made a small quantity of 
second-quality merchandise sales in both Finland and the United States. 
(See Memorandum to Holly Kuga from Laurel LaCivita et. al. Regarding 
Kemira Fibres Oy: Report on the Verification of Sales Information 
Submitted in the 1996-1997 Review (Verification Report) of January 12, 
1998.) Given Kemira's failure to report these sales, the existence of 
which was verified by the Department, we applied FA to sales of second-
quality merchandise for the final results of review, in accordance with 
section 776 of the Act.
    Kemira's argument that it did not report its United States and 
Finnish sales of second-quality merchandise because the Department did 
not specify that such sales were covered by the review is unfounded. 
There is nothing in the scope of the finding or the questionnaire that 
would indicate that second-quality merchandise is excluded from the 
scope of the finding. It is not required that the Department specify 
which sales are covered by a review, so long as the scope covers the 
merchandise sold. As the scope does not exclude second-quality 
merchandise (an undisputed fact), Kemira is required to report U.S. 
sales of such merchandise. Failure to do so warrants the application of 
FA.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used when a party 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) at 870. Kemira's failure to report the 
sales data requested by the Department, despite the Department's 
indication regarding the consequences of such an action, demonstrates 
that Kemira has, to date, failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability in this review. Thus, in selecting among the FA for Kemira, an 
adverse inference is warranted. Section 776(b) states that an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from: (1) The 
petition; (2) the final determination in the LTFV investigation; (3) 
any previous review under section 751 of the Act or investigation under 
section 753 of the Act; or (4) any other information placed on the 
record. See also SAA at 829-831.
    We applied as adverse FA the highest calculated rate for Kemira 
from any segment of the proceeding to the sales of second-quality 
merchandise which were not reported to the Department. This rate of 8.7 
percent is the margin calculated for Kemira in both the investigation 
and in the first period of review (44 FR 2219, January 10, 1979 and 46 
FR 19844, April 1, 1981).
    Therefore, for the purposes of the final results of review, the 
Department made no changes to the methodology applied in the 
preliminary results of review.
    Comment 3: Kemira contends that the Department's application of a 
difference-in-merchandise (difmer) adjustment to different sizes of 
VISIL is unwarranted. It argues that there is no difference in material 
cost or material preparation between different sizes of fiber. Kemira 
states that the only potential cost difference would be in spinning 
time or cutting time, and such differences are minimal. Kemira argues 
that its cost accounting system does not make any distinction by fiber 
size, and that it reported all costs for VISIL fiber in accordance with 
its cost accounting system. Kemira also argues that the information it 
provided should have been accepted by the Department because the 
information was accurate, consistent with Kemira's recorded costs, and 
fully verifiable. Therefore, Kemira claims that the Department has no 
basis for resorting to FA for the difmer adjustment.
    The petitioners contend that the Department clearly acted within 
its statutory authority in resorting to adverse FA in making a difmer 
adjustment for VISIL sales. The petitioners note that Kemira took the 
position in its questionnaire response that the variable cost of 
manufacturing (VCOM) for VISIL fibers sold in the home market and to 
the United States were the same, but at verification the Department 
``observed that the time required to spin other non-VISIL fibers varied 
with the fiber length and linear density.'' (See December 1, 1997 
Concurrence Memorandum at 15). The petitioners also note that Kemira 
failed to provide usable VCOM or total cost of manufacturing (TCOM) 
data that would allow the Department to make difmer adjustments, and, 
as a result, the Department made a difmer adjustment to normal value 
(NV) for VISIL sales based on adverse FA.
    DOC Position: We agree with the petitioners. Kemira failed to 
appropriately report the information needed to calculate a difmer 
adjustment. Kemira reported the same VCOM and TCOM for products with 
different linear density and fiber length. The Department observed at 
verification that spinning and cutting time varied with the fiber 
length and linear density of the product (see December 1, 1997 
Concurrence Memorandum at page 15). Although Kemira claims that its 
cost system does not acknowledge costs on the basis of fiber length or 
fiber width, and that any such differences are minimal, it failed to 
produce any evidence supporting that contention or to explain what 
Kemira considers to be a ``minimal'' difference. Kemira did not provide 
any worksheets in its questionnaire response on VISIL sales, which was 
submitted only a few days before the commencement of verification, 
showing how the variable cost figures were determined, or what factors 
were considered in its calculation of VCOM and TCOM, which impeded us 
from pursuing verification of this information. Furthermore, Kemira's 
claim contradicts a basic principal of cost accounting that, given 
identical labor and overhead rates on the same production line, longer 
production times on that line will result in higher production costs.
    In an attempt to educate ourselves on the potential production cost 
differences with respect to the fiber width of rayon staple fiber, we 
spoke with a textile fiber expert on March 26, 1998, concerning the 
relationship between the fiber width and spinning times. The expert 
explained that there is a direct relationship between the fiber width 
and spinning time, such that if the cross-sectional area of a fiber 
(determined by the fiber width) increases in size, the spinning time 
decreases proportionally. Similarly, if the fiber width decreases in 
size, the spinning time increases by the same ratio. (See the April 8, 
1998 Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to the File Regarding The 
Relationship Between Fiber Width and Processing Time.) Record evidence 
indicates that

[[Page 32823]]

the fiber widths of the VISIL products sold in the United States and 
the home market during the POR are at extreme ends of the fiber-width 
spectrum. Consequently, we disagree with Kemira's position that 
potential spinning times and cost differences attributable to 
differences in fiber widths are insignificant in the calculation of the 
difmer adjustment.
    Therefore, while Kemira reported per-unit costs allegedly 
calculated in accordance with its cost accounting system, such costs 
were not usable in calculating a difmer adjustment for VISIL sales 
because Kemira did not adjust its production costs to reflect 
differences in fiber width. Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that 
the Department may use facts available in situations in which the 
necessary information is not available on the record. The Department 
did not become aware that Kemira failed to provide VCOM and TCOM data 
for VISIL fiber on the basis of fiber widths until verification, and 
thus did not have appropriate information on the record to calculate 
the difmer adjustment. Accordingly, to fill the gap, the Department 
made a facts available upward adjustment to the NV equal to 20 percent 
of the TCOM of the U.S. model. This is the maximum upward difmer 
adjustment to the NV in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57 and Policy 
Bulletin 92.2.
    Accordingly, given that we have no other information on the record 
on which to base the difmer adjustment, we have made no changes to our 
preliminary results of review and have applied to NV an adjustment 
equal to 20 percent of the TCOM of the U.S. model.
    Comment 4: Kemira argues that the Department erroneously deducted 
the full amount of the commission expense paid for VISIL sales in the 
United States, when only a small portion of that expense qualifies as a 
CEP deduction. Kemira explains that the agency agreement for VISIL 
sales in the United States provided for declining ad valorem commission 
rates on such sales, with a ``guaranteed commission'' paid in the event 
that the sales did not reach a certain level or quota. Kemira notes 
that the guaranteed commission was only paid because the sales quota 
was not achieved, and that it would have been paid in the absence of 
any VISIL sales at all. Consequently, Kemira argues that the guaranteed 
commission is not a commission or a direct expense, but rather an 
indirect selling expense. Kemira notes that the guaranteed commission 
fits the definition provided in the Appendix I, p. I-6 of the 
Department's questionnaire which defines indirect expenses as ``fixed 
expenses that are incurred whether or not the sale is made. . . .'' 
Furthermore, Kemira argues that the guaranteed commission is a one-time 
expense associated with initial U.S. marketing efforts for VISIL, and 
is not an expense that is ``generally incurred'' in selling the subject 
merchandise. Therefore, Kemira maintains that it is not a deductible 
expense pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, which provides that in 
CEP transactions the U.S. price be reduced by the amount of expenses 
``generally incurred'' in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States. Consequently, Kemira argues that only the ad valorem portion of 
the commission expense would be ``generally incurred'' on VISIL sales 
and should be applied to these sales as an indirect selling expense.
    Kemira argues in the alternative that, if the Department includes 
the guaranteed commission in its calculations, it should determine the 
importer-specific assessment rate by dividing the amount of the 
guaranteed commission paid by the quantity of the merchandise entered 
during the POR. Kemira notes that based on the date of order 
confirmation, the quantity of VISIL products that entered the United 
States during the POR was at least twice as high as the quantity of 
VISIL sold during the POR. Further, Kemira argues that if the 
Department bases the assessment rate for VISIL sales on the margin 
determined for VISIL sales (and not entries), the (unit) amount of the 
guaranteed commission will be more than doubled.
    The petitioners argue that the Department appropriately deducted 
the guaranteed commission as a commission for sales during the review 
period. They note that three facts are undisputed: (i) Kemira hired an 
unrelated entity to act as Kemira's sales agent to market VISIL fiber 
in the United States, (ii) Kemira agreed to pay an ad valorem 
``commission'' to its sales agent, and (iii) Kemira agreed to guarantee 
a minimum commission payment to its sales agent, which Kemira paid. The 
petitioners argue that treating these payments as an indirect selling 
expense, and not as a commission, would directly contradict the way in 
which the parties themselves view the payment. The petitioners also 
counter Kemira's assertion that the commission would have been paid in 
the absence of any sales based on the terms of the agency agreement.
    The petitioners also disagree with Kemira that the commission 
expense should be allocated over all entries during the review period, 
rather than over all sales during the period, as this would be a 
significant departure from the Department's traditional manner of 
allocating commissions which relate to sales based on an ad valorem 
rate.
    DOC Position: We disagree with Kemira that only a small portion of 
the expenses paid under its agency agreement for VISIL sales in the 
United States should be classified as an indirect selling expense and 
deducted from CEP on this basis.
    Commissions are payments to affiliated or unaffiliated parties 
providing services that relate to the sale of merchandise, which are 
normally treated as direct selling expenses if we find that they are at 
arm's length (for commission paid to affiliated parties) and directly 
related to the sale. In order to determine whether a claim for a 
commission paid to an unaffiliated selling agent is a bona fide 
commission, we examine the nature of the agreement or contract between 
the producer and selling agent which establishes the basis for payment 
of the commission and for services rendered in return for payment. (See 
Revised Import Administration Antidumping Manual, Chapter 8 at 35-37, 
January 1998.)
    In this case, our examination of the terms of the agency agreement 
(contract) between Kemira and its U.S. selling agent shows that the 
agreement exists for the sole purpose of making VISIL sales in the 
United States during a specific time period, and stipulates that the 
agent be paid a commission based on declining ad valorem rates in 
accordance with the quantity of VISIL sold, and a guaranteed commission 
in the event U.S. VISIL sales did not reach a certain level. (See 
verification exhibit 12 and footnote 16 on page 16 of the December 1, 
1997 Concurrence Memorandum for a proprietary description of the manner 
in which the guaranteed commission is tied to the U.S. sales value of 
VISIL products.) Contrary to Kemira's claim, the guaranteed commission 
paid under this agreement constitutes a direct selling expense 
specifically attributable to VISIL sales only and is not generally 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States.
    Consequently, we agree with the petitioners that the guaranteed 
commission incurred on VISIL sales represents a commission covering 
sales during the review period. Therefore, we have made no changes 
since the preliminary results of review with respect to this issue, and 
have allocated all of the commission expense incurred during the review 
period over the value of sales made during the review period in 
accordance with our normal

[[Page 32824]]

methodology. Also, we will follow our normal assessment practice of 
allocating the amount of the uncollected dumping duty over the entered 
value of sales reported on the computer sales listing.
    Comment 5: Kemira noted its agreement with the Department's 
treatment of certain entries of LK and VISIL fiber and supports our 
preliminary determination to exclude them from its margin calculation. 
Kemira also believes that, if LK and VISIL are found to be in the scope 
of the order, these entries should nonetheless be ``liquidated without 
any assessment of antidumping duties'' since these transactions were 
not reviewed.
    DOC Position: As we stated in our preliminary results of review, we 
excluded three types of sales from our calculations. First, we excluded 
zero-priced samples from our dumping margin calculations. Second, we 
excluded sales that were shipped to the United States by a third-
country reseller if the respondent did not have any reason to know at 
the time of sale that the merchandise was destined for the United 
States (for a detailed explanation, see December 1, 1997 Concurrence 
Memorandum). Third, we excluded sales that were entered and liquidated 
prior to the reinstatement of this antidumping order and resumption of 
the suspension of liquidation on February 22, 1996 (61 FR 6814). The 
latter sales were excluded only if we were able to link them directly 
to an entry prior to the suspension of liquidation (see, e.g., Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 177, (September 11, 1996)).
    In our final results of review, we made no changes in our 
methodology for determining the weighted-average margin. However, in 
accordance with NSK Ltd., et al v. United States, 969 F. Supp. 34 (CIT 
1997), we have adjusted our assessment calculations to ensure that no 
duties are collected on the zero-priced samples that we excluded from 
our calculations. We have included the entered values of the zero-
priced samples in our calculation of the assessment rates and set the 
dumping duties due for such transactions to zero. We have done this 
because U.S. Customs will collect the ad valorem duty-assessment rate 
on all entries of subject merchandise regardless of whether the 
merchandise was a zero-priced sample.
    We have made no further adjustments for the other sales that we 
excluded from our margin calculations. Sales that entered into the 
United States prior to the reinstatement of this antidumping order have 
been liquidated and all other sales are subject to the order.
    Comment 6: Kemira claims that the Department erroneously failed to 
convert domestic brokerage expense (DBROKU) and packing expense 
(USPACK) from Finnmarks (FIM) to U.S. dollars (USD) for sales of LK 
fiber.
    DOC Position: We agree and have multiplied the domestic brokerage 
and packing expenses for LK fiber sales to the United States by the 
exchange rate on the date of the U.S. sale to convert these expenses to 
U.S. dollars for the final results of review.
    Comment 7: Kemira argues that the Department failed to follow the 
model match hierarchy described in the notice of the preliminary 
results of review. Specifically, it did not match sales to the United 
States with the identical merchandise sold in the home market in the 
same month as, or the closest month to, the month of the U.S. sales.
    DOC Position: We agree. We inadvertently failed to include the 
variable WNDORDER in the model-match hierarchy in the computer program. 
Consequently, the program did not take the appropriate order of the 
window period into account when making its model-match selections. 
Therefore, we have modified our calculations to include this variable, 
thereby implementing the model-match hierarchy described in our notice 
of the preliminary results of review.
    Comment 8: Kemira maintains that the Department incorrectly double-
counted the deduction for marine insurance in its calculations by 
including it in both the variables for movement expense expressed in 
dollars (USMOVT) and movement expense expressed in foreign currency 
(HMMOVT). Kemira argues that the Department should eliminate marine 
insurance from one of these two variables.
    DOC Position: We agree and have eliminated marine insurance 
expenses from the calculation of HMMOVT.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                        Manufacturer                          (Percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kemira Fibres Oy...........................................         2.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs 
Service. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated 
duties. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates for viscose rayon staple fiber. For both EP and CEP 
sales, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the 
difference between NV and EP (or CEP)) for each importer) by the 
entered value of the merchandise. We will direct Customs to assess the 
resulting ad valorem rates against the entered value of each entry of 
the subject merchandise by the importer during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of viscose rayon staple fiber from Finland entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed company will be that established in these final 
results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this or a previous 
review or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the most recent rate established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will be 3.9 percent, the ``new 
shipper'' rate established in the first review conducted by the 
Department, as explained below.
    On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) and Federal-
Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) decided 
that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can 
only be changed through an administrative review. The Department has 
determined that in order to implement the above-mentioned decisions, it 
is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders.
    However, in proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless we 
are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV 
investigation,

[[Page 32825]]

the Department has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the ``new 
shipper'' rate established in the first final results of administrative 
review published by the Department (or that rate as amended for 
correction of clerical errors as a result of litigation) as the ``all 
others'' rate for the purposes of establishing cash deposits in all 
current and future administrative reviews (see, e.g., Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, 
58 FR 64720, (December 9, 1993)).
    Therefore, the ``all others'' rate applied is the rate of 3.9 
percent from Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland, Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding (46 FR 19844, April 1, 
1981), the first review conducted by the Department in which a ``new 
shipper'' rate (or in this case, a rate for all shipments of the 
subject merchandise, including new shippers) was established.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 8, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15872 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P