37516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–421–805]

Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly ParaPhenylene Terephthalamide From the

Netherlands; Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly

Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from

the Netherlands.

SUMMARY: On March 9, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on aramid

fiber formed of poly para-phenylene

terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid) from

the Netherlands. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter and the period

June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have revised the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan at (202) 482–1324 or

Eugenia Chu at (202) 482–3964, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all references to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353 (1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register the antidumping duty

order on PPD–T aramid from the

Netherlands on June 24, 1994 (59 FR

32678). On June 11, 1997, we published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 31786) a

notice of opportunity to request an

administrative review of the order

covering the period June 1, 1996,

through May 31, 1997.

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1), Aramid Products V.o.F.

and Akzo Nobel Aramid Products, Inc.

(collectively ‘‘Akzo’’ or respondent),

and petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours

and Company (petitioner), requested

that we conduct an administrative

review for the aforementioned period of

review (POR). We published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on August 1, 1997

(62 FR 41339). The Department is

conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

On March 9, 1998, the Department

published the preliminary results of the

review. (See 63 FR 11408). The

Department has now completed the

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are all forms of PPD-T aramid from the

Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T

aramid in the form of filament yarn

(including single and corded), staple

fiber, pulp (wet or dry), spun-laced and

spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber

and floc. Tire cord is excluded from the

class or kind of merchandise under

review. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040,

5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000,

5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and

5603.00.9000. The HTS item numbers

are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The Department’s

written description of the scope remains

dispositive.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from respondent

and petitioner.

Comment 1: Petitioner contends that

the Department should revise Akzo’s

reported U.S. indirect selling expenses

(ISE), arguing that the calculation was

improperly based on the consolidated

financial statements of Akzo Nobel Inc.,

and should have instead been based

upon the financial statements of Akzo

Nobel Aramid Product Inc.’s (ANAPI—

the exclusive sales agent of Aramid

Products V.o.F. in the United States

(Aramid)). Petitioner also asserts that

the Department should reject Akzo’s use

of consolidated financial data in

calculating the net interest expenses

included in Aramid’s cost of production

so as to reflect Aramid’s actual

financing expenses. Petitioner

acknowledges that the Department

generally uses consolidated financial

expense data to calculate financing

expenses. However, petitioner asserts

that this is not an automatic

requirement. Further, petitioner

contends that the Department must not

use consolidated data where using the

consolidated data would distort actual

financing expenses. Petitioner asserts

that such would be the case in the

instant circumstance because Akzo’s

reported financial interest expense

factor is unrelated to the financing

requirements of Akzo’s PPD-T aramid

fiber business in the United States.

Moreover, petitioner argues that Akzo

justifies its use of consolidated figures

on the grounds that the U.S. parent

borrows on behalf of its related

companies, and then charges the units

a share of this cost, without explaining

how it allocates the financing expenses.

Petitioner argues that Akzo calculated

the reported financing expenses based

on outstanding loans between the U.S.

parent and ANAPI and speculates as to

the reasons why ANAPI borrowed

money from its parent company to

finance its U.S. operations.

Petitioner further argues that the

Department and the Court of

International Trade (CIT) misapplied

binding precedent when affirming the

Department’s use of Akzo’s consolidated

data in E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

v. United States, No. 96–11–02509, Slip

Op. 98–7, 1998 WL 42598 (CIT Jan. 29,

1998) (E.I. DuPont). Moreover,

petitioner contends that the Department

and the CIT failed to follow the express

mandate of the 1994 amendments to the

antidumping statute, which directs the

Department to capture all actual costs

incurred in producing the subject

merchandise and to ensure that reported

costs constitute a representative

measure of the respondent’s true costs.

Petitioner argues that the CIT

incorrectly interpreted the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA),

accompanying H.R. 5110, 103rd Cong.,

at 834–835 (1994), which according to

petitioner, requires a change in the

Department’s practice with respect to

the calculation of financing costs.

Akzo argues that the CIT decision in

E.I. DuPont properly affirmed the

Department’s use of Akzo’s consolidated

financial expense in the first

administrative review. Akzo urges the

Department to follow the same

methodology in the final results of the

third administrative review. Further,

Akzo emphasizes that petitioner did not

point to any evidence justifying a

deviation from the Department’s

standard practice of using the parent’s

consolidated interest expense in cases

where the parent’s majority ownership
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37517

is prima facie evidence of corporate

control.

Additionally, Akzo argues that

petitioner’s claims that the amendments

to the antidumping statute set a new

standard for calculating interest expense

is in error. Contrary to petitioner’s

argument, Akzo contends that neither

the SAA nor the amended section 773(f)

of the antidumping statute directs the

Department to change its existing

practice. Akzo further contends that the

cited portion of the SAA suggests only

two distinct changes in the law that do

not affect Commerce’s past practice at

issue here, as the CIT explained in E.I.

DuPont at 7–9.

Akzo further buttresses its argument

by pointing to evidence in the

administrative record demonstrating

that the interest expense of the

consolidated company reflects the

actual interest expense incurred. Akzo

claims that the only loans and

corresponding interest expense on the

books of ANAPI and Aramid are

intercompany loans from the parent

companies, Akzo Nobel Inc. and Akzo

Nobel N.V. In addition, Akzo argues that

the Department verified that the

financial statements of the subsidiary

companies are consolidated with those

of the parent companies. Akzo explains

that the only actual interest expense is

recorded on the books of the parent

companies because it is only these

entities that actually borrow money and

incur the related interest expense. Akzo

asserts that it is only the parent that

determines the sources of money,

borrows the money, and incurs the

actual interest expense and that

therefore, petitioner’s speculations on

how and why companies borrow money

and how a parent determines the

amount of loans and interest are

irrelevant because these are internal

decisions that take into account a

variety of factors.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Akzo. In the prior first and second

administrative reviews, petitioner

similarly urged the Department to rely

on Aramid’s own financial records to

determine its net interest expense,

instead of following the Department’s

normal practice of using the parent

company’s financing expenses incurred

on behalf of the consolidated group of

companies. The Department disagreed

with petitioner’s position, explaining in

detail that any departure from the

Department’s normal practice in this

case was not warranted in light of Akzo

Nobel N.V.’s majority ownership

interest in Aramid, which constituted

prima facie evidence of the parent’s

corporate control. For a detailed

explanation of this issue, see Aramid

Fiber Formed of Poly-Phenylene

Terephthalamide from the Netherlands:

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 61 FR 51406

(1996); Aramid Fiber Formed of PolyPhenylene Terephthalamide from the

Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR 38058 (1997).

On January 29, 1998, the CIT affirmed

the Department’s determination, ruling

that neither the SAA nor the amended

statute mandate a change of practice

with respect to using a parent

company’s consolidated statements

when calculating the respondent’s

interest expense ratio, and that this

practice is consistent with the principle

of allocating costs in a manner that

reasonably reflects the actual costs. E.I.

DuPont at 8–9. (Emphasis added.) Citing

Gulf States Tube Div. of Quanex Corp.

v. United States, Slip Op. 97–124,

Consol. Court No. 95–09–01125, at 38–

39 (CIT Aug. 29, 1997), the Court noted

that the focus of the analysis is on

whether the consolidated group’s

controlling entity has the power to

determine the capital structure of each

member of the group. The Court

concluded that the administrative

record in this case supported the

Department’s finding that Akzo Nobel

N.V. was a controlling entity, and that

DuPont did not cite evidence which

would overcome the presumption of

corporate control.

In the instant administrative review,

petitioner merely reiterates its position

argued in the previous two reviews and

does not point to any new evidence in

the administrative record, which would

demonstrate that the parent, Akzo Nobel

N.V., does not exercise corporate control

over the respondent company. Thus,

consistent with the Department’s prior

determinations and the CIT’s decision

in E.I. DuPont, we will continue using

Akzo Nobel N.V.’s consolidated

financial interest expense in computing

the respondent’s net interest ratio.

Similarly, petitioner’s contention that

we should revise Akzo’s reported U.S.

indirect selling expense (ISE) lacks

merit. As the Department stated in the

prior administrative reviews, the

Department bases its calculations on the

consolidated financial statements of the

parent, not the subsidiary. This method

is grounded in a well-established

practice. See Aramid Fiber Formed of

Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide from

the Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 61

FR at 51407; Aramid Fiber Formed of

Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide from

the Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR at 38060. As stated above, the focal

point of the analysis is upon the parent

company’s control over the subsidiary.

The record contains sufficient evidence

of Akzo Nobel Inc.’s corporate control

over ANAPI. More importantly, the

petitioner has failed to produce any

evidence to rebut the prima facie

evidence of Akzo’s control over ANAPI.

For the reasons stated above, we will

continue to adhere to the Department’s

current practice in this final

determination.

Comment 2: Petitioner alleges that

ANAPI is being reimbursed for

antidumping duty deposits by one of its

parent companies and argues that the

Department should deduct the deposits

from Akzo’s U.S. price, or at least

include the associated imputed

financing expenses in Akzo’s U.S. ISE.

Petitioner claims that although there are

no reimbursement agreements, the

summary trial balances of ANAPI and

the Annual Reports of Akzo Nobel Inc.

support this allegation. Moreover,

petitioner cites Hoogovens Staal BV v.

AK Steel Corp., 1998 WL 118090 (CIT

March 13, 1998) (Hoogovens), as a case

affirming the Department’s authority to

subtract reimbursed antidumping duty

deposits, reasoning that the

antidumping duties were intended to

cause importers to raise prices to take

into account such duties. Petitioner

argues that the fact that Akzo has not

raised its prices by anywhere close to 66

percent since the antidumping duty

order was published further supports its

claim that ANAPI is relieved of the

responsibility for the antidumping

duties and speculates that certain

amounts may be reimbursed by either

Akzo Nobel Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V.

Akzo contends that ANAPI is not

being reimbursed for antidumping

duties and the petitioner’s speculation

to the contrary should be disregarded.

Akzo cites the Department’s regulations,

19 CFR 353.26(a), requiring the

Department to deduct from U.S. price

the amount of any antidumping duty

which the producer or reseller paid

directly on behalf of the importer or

reimbursed to the importer. Akzo notes

that this regulation also requires the

importer to file a certificate, prior to

liquidation, with the U.S. Customs

Service, attesting to the absence of any

agreement for the payment or

reimbursement of any part of the

antidumping duties by the

manufacturer, producer, seller or

exporter. The regulation provides that

the Department may presume from an

importer’s failure to file this certificate

that the producer or reseller paid or

reimbursed the antidumping duties.

Akzo argues that it is in full compliance

with the Department’s regulations. It
37518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

states ANAPI has filed, prior to

liquidation, certifications with Customs

attesting to the absence of any

agreement with the manufacturer,

producer, seller or exporter for the

payment or reimbursement of

antidumping duties that, as required by

section 353.26(c). Further, the

respondent claims that ANAPI has not

entered into such an agreement with

Akzo Nobel Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V. In

support of its arguments, Akzo cites the

CIT ruling in The Torrington Corp. v.

United States, 881 F. Supp. 622, 632

(1995) (Torrington) that ‘‘once an

importer * * * has indicated on this

certificate that it has not been

reimbursed for antidumping duties, it is

unnecessary for the Department to

conduct an additional inquiry absent a

sufficient allegation of customs fraud.’’

Akzo claims that, because it has filed

the requisite certification, and because

petitioner has failed to show any

customs fraud, the record establishes

that neither Akzo Nobel Inc. nor Akzo

Nobel N.V. has reimbursed ANAPI for

antidumping duty payments.

Akzo further contends that the CIT

has affirmed the Department’s

longstanding precedent that, absent

evidence of reimbursement, the

Department has no authority to make

the adjustment to U.S. price requested

by the petitioner. See Torrington at 632.

Akzo states that, according to the CIT,

in Torrington, the party who requests

the reimbursement investigation must

produce some link between the transfer

of funds and reimbursement of

antidumping duties. Akzo argues that

the petitioner has failed to meet this

burden by failing to establish any

agreement for reimbursement of

antidumping duties between either

Akzo Nobel Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V. and

ANAPI .

Furthermore, Akzo argues that

petitioner’s reliance on Hoogovens is

misplaced. Akzo states that the Court

remanded this decision to the

Department to provide a clearer basis for

its determination that reimbursement

occurred. However, Akzo argues, even if

the CIT ultimately agrees that

Hoogovens reimbursed its importer of

record, the facts of that case are

distinguishable from the facts in Akzo’s

case. In Hoogovens, the Department

found that the importer and exporter

had entered into a written agreement to

reimburse antidumping duties, which

triggered the application of section

353.26 of the Department’s regulations.

See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel

Plat Products from the Netherlands, 61

FR 48465 (1996) (First Cold-Rolled

Review) (the review that led to the

Hoogovens’ CIT appeal). Akzo insists

that there is no such agreement between

Akzo Nobel N.V. and its U.S.

subsidiaries, or between Aramid and

ANAPI and, therefore, the decision in

First Cold-Rolled Review has no bearing

on this case. Thus, the requirements of

section 353.26(a) do not apply and the

Department should deny the requested

adjustment to Akzo’s U.S. price.

Akzo further argues that no

adjustments to the reported U.S. ISE is

warranted as there were no improper

exclusions. Akzo claims that petitioner

argues without any citations that the

Department should artificially inflate

Akzo’s U.S. ISE to account for the

financing expenses incurred in

connection with the antidumping duty

deposits it has made. Akzo argues that

the Department’s practice and precedent

actually support a downward

adjustment of ISE to account for these

expenses. See Antifriction Bearings and

Parts Thereof from France (AFBs III), 58

FR 39729 (1993) opinion after remand,

Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States,

Slip Op. 96–193 at 2, 8 (CIT Dec. 12,

1996) (Federal Mogul II). Akzo states

that the Department has justified the

adjustment as analogous to the payment

of legal fees in antidumping

proceedings, which are incurred solely

because of the antidumping duty order

and thus are not selling expenses. Akzo

further argues that, in Tapered Roller

Bearings from Japan, 62 FR 11825,

11829 (1997), the Department cautioned

that failure to allow a downward

adjustment would risk calculating

overstated margins due to failure to take

into account the fact that no such

expense would have been incurred

absent the order. Therefore, Akzo argues

that the Department should not make an

upward adjustment to Akzo’s U.S. ISE

because it is not an expense incurred in

selling the subject merchandise.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Akzo. The Department’s regulations

require the Department to deduct from

U.S. price the amount of any

antidumping duty which the producer

or reseller (i) paid directly on behalf of

the importer or (ii) reimbursed to the

importer. See 19 CFR 353.26 (a)(1996).

Absent evidence of reimbursement, the

Department has no authority to make

the adjustment to U.S. price. Torrington

at 632, citing Brass Sheet and Strip

From Sweden, 57 FR 2706, 2708 (1992)

and Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Republic of Korea, 54 FR 33257, 33258

(1989). See also, Color Television

Receivers from the Republic of Korea;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 4408,

4411 (1996). In the absence of actual

reimbursement payments, the

Department requires evidence of a

concrete link between the financial

transaction and the antidumping duty

before it may find reimbursement and

impose additional duties. Torrington at

632, aff’d 127 F.3d 1077, 1080–81 (Fed.

Cir. 1997) (further, the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit upheld the

Department’s interpretation and

application of section 353.26. Id.)

Finally, section 353.26 (b) of the

Department’s regulations also requires

that the importer file a certificate with

the U.S. Customs Service, attesting to

the absence of any ‘‘agreement or

understanding for the payment or for

the refunding’’ of the antidumping

duties. See 19 CFR 353.26(b).

In the previous second administrative

review, the Department concluded that

there was no evidence of reimbursement

of ANAPI by Akzo for antidumping

duties and, therefore, there was no

justification for adjusting U.S. ISE for

the potentially reimbursed antidumping

duty deposits. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly

Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From

the Netherlands, 62 FR at 38061. During

the course of conducting the instant

review, the Department provided

petitioner with the opportunity to

comment upon all the information and

data presented by the respondent.

However, petitioner did not allege any

specific instance or evidence of

reimbursement of antidumping duties in

either its October 17, 1997, or December

12, 1997, comments. Petitioner’s first

allegation of reimbursement was

presented in its administrative case

brief, dated April 8, 1998, after the

Department completed verification and

issued its preliminary results of the

administrative review. In its case brief,

the petitioner failed to provide any new,

specific evidence supporting its

reimbursement allegations. Petitioner’s

comments on this issue are speculative

and do not point to concrete evidence

of reimbursement. Mere allegations of

reimbursement are insufficient to

warrant further action by the

Department. Neither section 353.26 nor

past precedent provide authority for the

Department to undertake further action

or make additional adjustments based

upon petitioner’s thinly supported

assertions of reimbursement. Moreover,

we carefully reviewed the record and

found no evidence on the record

suggesting reimbursement of

antidumping duties, nor did we find

specific evidence of inappropriate

financial intermingling between ANAPI

and Akzo Nobel Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V.

In reviewing the financial statements

and payment records of the U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37519

subsidiary, we verified that ANAPI is

responsible for all cash deposits and

duties assessed. See Verification Report,

dated February 24, 1998.

Further, petitioner’s reliance on

Hoogovens is inapposite. In that case,

the CIT held that, although the record

evidence in Hoogovens ‘‘suggested’’

reimbursement of antidumping duties,

the Department did not identify which

evidence supported its findings of

reimbursement. Thus, the CIT remanded

this case to the Department for a

reasoned articulation of its decision. In

the present case, however, we lack any

evidence of reimbursement.

Finally, there is evidence on the

record that ANAPI filed the required

certifications with U.S. Customs Service

attesting to the absence of any

agreement with the manufacturer,

producer, seller, or exporter for the

payment or reimbursement of

antidumping duties. Based on these

facts, the Department presumes the

continued existence of the

circumstances that gave rise to our

findings in the second administrative

review and that 19 CFR 353.26 is

inapplicable in this case. Therefore,

consistent with our findings in the

second administrative review, we have

not deducted any amount for

reimbursed duties from Akzo’s U.S.

price or included them in Akzo’s U.S.

ISE.

Comment 3: Petitioner argues that the

Department inconsistently filled in

missing values for imputed credit

expense for home market and U.S. sales.

Specifically, for home market sales, the

Department filled in the missing

payment dates with the date of the

preliminary determination, March 2,

1998, and then calculated the missing

credit expense value, while for the U.S.

sales, the Department calculated the

average credit expense for U.S. sales and

then applied that average expense to

missing credit values. Petitioner claims

that this inconsistent application

maximized the credit expense

deduction for home market sales,

thereby reducing normal value, and

artificially reduced the credit expense

deduction for U.S. sales, thereby

increasing the U.S. price. Because Akzo

failed to submit a complete

questionnaire response, petitioner

further argues that the Department

should apply adverse inferences and fill

in the missing data with the largest

value on the record for the U.S. price

deduction and with zero for the

corresponding home market price

deduction, or at least fill in the missing

data with values that do not allow Akzo

to benefit from its omissions.

Akzo argues that the Department

should reject petitioner’s request as

contrary to current Department practice,

which is to use the last day of

verification as the payment date for

unpaid sales (February 2, 1998).

Respondent cites Static Random Access

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan,

63 FR 8909, 8928 (1998), as precedent.

Department’s Position: In accordance

with the Department’s current practice,

the last day of verification will be used

as the date of payment for unpaid sales.

See Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

12752, 12757 (1998) (citing Static

Random Access Memory

Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final

Results of Less than Fair Value

Investigation, 63 FR 8909, 8928 (1998)

and Brass Sheet and Strip from Sweden;

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 60 FR 3617,

3621 (1995)). We disagree with

petitioner’s assertion that the

Department should use an adverse

inference in calculating the imputed

credit expense. In the instant review,

respondent has not impeded the review

by providing inaccurate or unverifiable

data, instead it has provided data which

was successfully verified. Therefore, we

have used the last day of verification,

February 2, 1998, as the date of payment

for the transactions in question.

The Department agrees with

petitioner that we inconsistently

calculated missing credit expenses in

the home sales market and U.S. market

during the preliminary determination.

In the final results of the review, the

Department has substituted the missing

payment dates with the last day of

verification and calculated the missing

credit expense value for both home

market sales and U.S. sales. See

Calculation Memorandum, dated July 7,

1998, for a complete discussion of the

mathematical calculation.

Comment 4: Petitioner contends that

the Department’s treatment of Akzo’s

goodwill expenses in the first and

second administrative reviews is not

supported by substantial evidence on

the record and is contrary to law.

Petitioner argues that the Department

should amortize these costs over a

period that covers the POR to avoid

improperly understating the actual cost

of producing PPD–T aramid fiber during

the POR.

Akzo argues that petitioner’s position

is unsubstantiated and contrary to law.

Akzo notes that the proper treatment of

the goodwill was the focus of the first

administrative review, and of the

recently issued CIT decision.

Respondent further notes that the

Department spent a significant amount

of time gathering and analyzing all

aspects of the purchase. See Aramid

Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene

Terephthalamide from the Netherlands,

61 FR 51406. Akso cites the CIT’s ruling

to affirm the Department’s treatment of

goodwill as further support for its

contentions. Respondent cites

specifically to the CIT’s approval of the

Department’s analysis, affirming that it

was more appropriate to isolate those

components of goodwill that pertained

to assets used in the production of

subject merchandise. Akzo states that in

preparing the questionnaire response for

this review, it complied with the

Department’s determination in the first

two administrative reviews. Finally,

Respondent contends that no

circumstances exist warranting any

deviation from the Department’s prior

approach, as affirmed by the CIT.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with Akzo. As

explained at length in the final results

of the first and second administrative

reviews, and affirmed by the CIT in E.I.

DuPont, the Department determined to

accept Akzo’s accounting method for

the amortization of goodwill expense as

reasonable. See Aramid Fiber Formed of

Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide from

the Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 61

FR at 51406; Aramid Fiber Formed of

Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide from

the Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR at 38063.

The Department spent a significant

amount of time gathering and analyzing

all aspects of the facts surrounding the

goodwill issue during the first

administrative review. Upon completion

of its analysis, the Department

determined that, for cost calculation

purposes, it was appropriate to isolate

those components of goodwill that

pertained to assets used in the

production of subject merchandise. See

Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly ParaPhenylene Terephthalamide from the

Netherlands, 61 FR at 51406. The

Department verified that Akzo complied

with the Department’s decision in the

first administrative review, and

calculated the reported depreciation

expenses exclusive of goodwill

expenses in preparing its response for

the instant review. The methodology

used in the instant case is consistent

with the final results of the first and

second administrative reviews.

Moreover, in E.I. DuPont, the CIT

rejected petitioner’s arguments with

respect to goodwill, affirming the

Department’s treatment of inventory

write-downs and residual goodwill
37520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

expenses. See E.I. DuPont at 15–24.

Therefore, for purposes of the instant

review, the Department will continue to

use Akzo’s reported cost of production

and constructed value data in

calculating the antidumping duty

margin.

Comment 5: Akzo claims that the

computer program used in calculating

the preliminary results contained three

errors that must be corrected. First,

Akzo argues that the difference in

merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment was

miscalculated by failing to convert the

submitted variable cost of

manufacturing of the U.S. product

(VCOMU) from kilograms to pounds.

Akzo explains that because the U.S.

sales are reported on a per pound basis

and the analysis is conducted on the

same basis, it is necessary to convert the

DIFMER adjustment to a per pound

amount. Second, Akzo claims that in

calculating the net constructed export

price (CEP), the Department correctly

added U.S. packing costs to normal

value but incorrectly included U.S.

packing costs as an adjustment to the

gross price, thereby understating the net

CEP and overstating the margin. Third,

Akzo argues that the Department

incorrectly deducted the ISE incurred in

the home market on U.S. sales from CEP

after correctly determining in the

preliminary results and LOT analysis

memo that these expenses were not

related to the economic activity in the

U.S. Akzo provided suggested changes

to correct the alleged errors.

Petitioner did not rebut any of Akzo’s

aforementioned suggested corrections.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with Akzo and has

revised the final margin program to

reflect these changes. First, the

Department has converted VCOMU from

kilograms to pounds to ensure that the

final margin analysis is performed on a

comparable basis. Second, the

Department has corrected the margin

program to ensure that both the CEP and

NV are calculated inclusive of packing

costs. Finally, the Department’s

preliminary margin calculation program

inadvertently included ISE that were

not incurred in connection with

economic activity as deductions to the

U.S. selling price. The Department’s

analysis in the Level of Trade Memo,

dated March 2, 1998, is correct in

stating that only those expenses

incurred connection with economic

activity in the U.S. will be deducted

from CEP in conducting the margin

analysis. For purposes of these final

results of review, the Department has

revised the margin calculation to reflect

the conclusion of the Level of Trade

Analysis memo. For further explanation,

see Calculation Memorandum, dated

July 7, 1998.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter

Period of review Margin

(percent)

Akzo ........ 6/1/96–5/31/97 6.31

All Other .. 6/1/96–5/31/97 66.92

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions on each

exporter directly to the Customs

Service. For assessment purposes, we

have calculated importer specific duty

assessment rates for the merchandise

based on the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales during the POR to the

total entered value of sales examined

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 PPD–T

aramid fiber from the Netherlands

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

the rate listed above; (2) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, a

prior review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (3) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 66.92 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(59 FR 32678, June 24, 1994). These

deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

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 353.305 and 19 CFR

353.306. 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 351.221.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18596 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–831]

Fresh Garlic from the People’s

Republic of China; Notice of Recission

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Recission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On December 23, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register (62 FR 67044) a

notice announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic

from the People’s Republic of China.

This review covered the period from

November 1, 1996 through October 31,

1997. The Department of Commerce has

now rescinded this review as a result of

the absence of reviewable entries and

sales into the United States of subject

merchandise during the period of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Krawczun or Thomas Schauer,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4733.