2792 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

Committee will be held February 20,

1996, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C.

Hoover Building, Room 1617M(2), 14th

Street between Constitution &

Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. The Committee

advises the Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Export Administration

with respect to technical questions that

affect the level of export controls

applicable to transportation and related

equipment or technology.

Public Session

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.

2. Presentation of public papers or

comments.

3. Review of status of New Forum

negotiations.

4. Report on status of Export

Administration Regulations (EAR)

reform and changes that impact

aerospace industry.

5. Update on status of interagency

satellite and gas turbine engine

jurisdiction discussions.

6. Report on licensing issues that

impact support of U.S. origin systems.

7. Update on status of Missile

Technology Control Regime.

8. Review of Executive Order for the

Administration of Export Controls.

Closed Session

9. Discussion of matters properly

classified under Executive Order 12958,

dealing with the U.S. export control

program and strategic criteria related

thereto.

The General Session of the meeting

will be open to the public and a limited

number of seats will be available. To the

extent time permits, members of the

public may present oral statements to

the Committee. Written statements may

be submitted at any time before or after

the meeting. However, to facilitate

distribution of public presentation

materials to Committee members, the

Committee suggests that you forward

your public presentation materials two

weeks prior to the meeting to the

following address: Ms. Lee Ann

Carpenter, TAC Unit/OAS/EA, Room

3886C, Bureau of Export

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

The Assistant Secretary for

Administration, with the concurrence of

the delegate of the General Counsel,

formally determined on December 22,

1994, pursuant to section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended, that the series of meetings or

portions of meetings of the Committee

and of any Subcommittee thereof,

dealing with the classified materials

listed in 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(1) shall be

exempt from the provisions relating to

public meetings found in section

10(a)(1) and (a)(3), of the federal

Advisory Committee Act. The remaining

series of meetings or portions thereof

will be open to the public.

A copy of the Notice of Determination

to close meetings or portions of

meetings of the Committee is available

for public inspection and copying in the

Central Reference and Records

Inspection Facility, Room 6020, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. For further information or copies of

the minutes call (202) 482–2583.

Dated: January 23, 1996.

Lee Ann Carpenter,

Director, Technical Advisory Committee Unit.

[FR Doc. 96–1449 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

International Trade Administration

[A–405–802]

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Finland: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On July 18, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Finland. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of review (POR), February 4,

1993, through July 31, 1994. 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: January 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker or Robin Gray, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 18, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 36776) the preliminary results of the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain cutto-length carbon steel plate from

Finland (58 FR 44165, August 19, 1993).

The Department has now completed this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of This Review

The products covered by this

administrative review constitute one

‘‘class or kind’’ of merchandise: certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These

products include hot-rolled carbon steel

universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled

products rolled on four faces or in a

closed box pass, of a width exceeding

150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250

millimeters and of a thickness of not

less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and

without patterns in relief), of

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated

nor coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances;

and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flatrolled products in straight lengths, of

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither

clad, plated, nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances, 4.75

millimeters or more in thickness and of

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters

and measures at least twice the

thickness, as currently classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

under item numbers 7208.31.0000,

7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000,

7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000,

7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,

7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000,

7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000,

7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and

7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled

products of nonrectangular cross-section

where such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate.

These HTS item numbers are provided

for convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

The POR is February 4, 1993, through

July 31, 1994. This review covers entries
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2793

of certain cut-to-length carbon steel

plate by Rautaruukki Oy (Rautaruukki).

Consumption Tax Methodology

In light of the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Federal Mogul v. United

States, CAFC No. 94–1097, the

Department has changed its treatment of

home market consumption taxes. Where

merchandise exported to the United

States is exempt from the consumption

tax, the Department will add to the U.S.

price the absolute amount of such taxes

charged on the comparison sales in the

home market. This is the same

methodology that the Department

adopted following the decision of the

Federal Circuit in Zenith v. United

States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and

which was suggested by that court in

footnote 4 of its decision. The Court of

International Trade (CIT) overturned

this methodology in Federal Mogul v.

United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993),

and the Department acquiesced in the

CIT’s decision. The Department then

followed the CIT’s preferred

methodology, which was to calculate

the tax to be added to U.S. price by

multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by

the foreign market tax rate; the

Department made adjustments to this

amount so that the tax adjustment

would not alter a ‘‘zero’’ pre-tax

dumping assessment.

The foreign exporters in the Federal

Mogul case, however, appealed that

decision to the Federal Circuit, which

reversed the CIT and held that the

statute did not preclude Commerce from

using the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology to calculate tax-neutral

dumping assessments (i.e., assessments

that are unaffected by the existence or

amount of home market consumption

taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit

recognized that certain international

agreements of the United States, in

particular the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code, required the

calculation of tax-neutral dumping

assessments. The Federal Circuit

remanded the case to the CIT with

instructions to direct Commerce to

determine which tax methodology it

will employ.

The Department has determined that

the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’ methodology

should be used. First, as the Department

has explained in numerous

administrative determinations and court

filings over the past decade, and as the

Federal Circuit has now recognized,

Article VI of the GATT and Article 2 of

the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code

required that dumping assessments be

tax-neutral. This requirement continues

under the new Agreement on

Implementation of Article VI of the

General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade. Second, the URAA explicitly

amended the antidumping law to

remove consumption taxes from the

home market price and to eliminate the

addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that

no consumption tax is included in the

price in either market. The Statement of

Administrative Action (p. 159)

explicitly states that this change was

intended to result in tax neutrality.

While the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology is slightly different from

the URAA methodology, in that section

772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA law

required that the tax be added to United

States price rather than subtracted from

home market price, it does result in taxneutral duty assessments. In sum, the

Department has elected to treat

consumption taxes in a manner

consistent with its longstanding policy

of tax-neutrality and with the GATT.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received case

and rebuttal briefs from Rautaruukki

(the respondent) and petitioners.

Petitioners requested a public hearing

but subsequently withdrew their request

for a hearing. Therefore, no hearing was

held.

Comment 1: Petitioners argue that

best information available (BIA) must be

used for Finnsteel’s costs. According to

petitioners, Rautaruukki admitted that

Finnsteel, its U.S. selling subsidiary,

was involved in the U.S. sales of subject

merchandise. Petitioners claim that

nonetheless Rautaruukki failed to report

any of Finnsteel’s costs on sales of

subject merchandise. Although

Rautaruukki subsequently claimed that

Finnsteel is not actively involved in the

sales to the U.S. of the subject

merchandise, petitioners note

Rautaruukki could not substantiate its

claim at verification. Petitioners argue

that the Department failed to include

Finnsteel’s costs in calculating the

preliminary results. Petitioners contend

that expenses were incurred by

Finnsteel as a direct result of specific

sales. Finnsteel would not perform such

activities absent specific sales of subject

merchandise. Petitioners argue that the

expenses could have been tied to

specific sales—if Rautaruukki and

Finnsteel had kept adequate records.

Rautaruukki should have separated and

reported Finnsteel’s direct expenses for

these services. Since it failed to do so,

the Department cannot determine which

of Finnsteel’s costs are direct. Since at

least some of Finnsteel’s costs were

direct selling expenses, the Department

must assign BIA to those unreported

expenses. The Department should

follow its standard practice and assume

all of Finnsteel’s expenses were direct

expenses. Since Finnsteel’s selling

expenses were either not reported or not

reported separately, the Department

should use the reported indirect selling

expense as BIA for direct selling

expenses.

Respondent counters that there is no

evidence on the record that Finnsteel is

actively involved in the sales of the

subject merchandise in this

administrative review. Rautaruukki

explained in its response that its U.S.

sales during the POR were made

directly from Rautaruukki’s Raahe Steel

Works to the unrelated customer.

Respondent notes the verification report

states that Rautaruukki reported that it

handled all of the transactions and all

activity related to the sale of subject

merchandise from Finland. Respondent

also notes that the Department also

found that all documentation examined

at verification only listed Rautaruukki

and the U.S. customer. Also, the

unrelated U.S. customer submitted a

sworn affidavit confirming that it

purchased the subject merchandise

directly from Rautaruukki during the

POR. Respondent notes that although

Finnsteel acted as a ‘‘communications

link’’ for sales of subject merchandise

during the POR, Finnsteel’s role did not

rise to the level of active participation

in the sales process to warrant treating

the U.S. sales as exporter’s sales price

(ESP) transactions. Respondent argues

that the record in this administrative

review clearly demonstrates that

Finnsteel acted only as a

communications link with the unrelated

customer. Therefore, the U.S. sales in

this administrative review were

purchase price, and no further

adjustment is warranted.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent. Respondent reported that

normally transactions are handled

through Finnsteel; however, sales of

subject merchandise made to the U.S.

during the POR were exclusively

handled by Rautaruukki. At verification,

we found no evidence of Finnsteel’s

involvement in the sales of subject

merchandise during the POR. All

documents examined supported the

conclusion that Finnsteel did not

participate in these transactions. Sales

were made directly from Rautaruukki to

the U.S. customer. Because of the lack

of evidence of Finnsteel’s involvement,

we cannot assume Finnsteel incurred

costs on the sales of subject

merchandise to the United States during

the POR. Therefore, the Department is
2794 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

not making a sales adjustment for

Finnsteel’s costs in these final results.

Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the

Department must correct two errors in

the margin calculation program. Due to

one of the errors, the Department’s sales

below cost test for the preliminary

results used a cost of manufacture

(COM) that was only a fraction of the

true COM. One line read ‘‘TOTCOM2 =

FOREX = TOTCOM1’’, while it should

have read ‘‘TOTCOM2 = FOREX +

TOTCOM1’’. The second error occurred

in the calculation of home market

selling expenses for use in cost

(SELLCOP). Petitioners contend the

Department failed to include certain

expenses, which were reported in the

other expense field, in the calculation of

SELLCOP.

Respondent argues that the

Department’s margin calculation

program is correct. The Department gave

interested parties a chance to comment

on the proposed programming language

in October 1994. Petitioners submitted

comments in that same month. The

petitioners’ attempt to present new

comments regarding the Department’s

computer programming language is

untimely and should be rejected on that

basis. Moreover, the Department’s

margin calculation program is correct

and needs no adjustments.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners. The programming

language that was released for

comments in October 1994 was

preliminary and was not company

specific. Both of the errors that the

petitioners have claimed are related to

company specific programming. In these

final results, we have changed the

program to read ‘‘TOTCOM2 = FOREX

+ TOTCOM1’’. This error resulted in

incorrect cost test results. However, the

Department’s May 18, 1995, analysis

memo and the Federal Register notice

of the preliminary results in this

administrative review did not reflect the

incorrect cost results. After correcting

the errors, the Department did in fact

find sales below cost for Rautaruukki in

this administrative review. Therefore,

the discussion of sales below cost found

in the preliminary notice and the May

18, 1995 analysis memo is consistent

with the corrected, final cost test results.

Finally, while we have not allowed a

direct sales adjustment for the other

expense field as discussed in the

preliminary results, we have included

this other expense field in the

calculation of SELLCOP for these final

results because these are costs incurred.

Comment 3: Petitioners argue that

Rautaruukki incorrectly reported its

general and administrative expenses

(G&A). The Department has a longstanding practice of requiring G&A

expenses to be reported as a percentage

of cost of sales. Also, the G&A factor is

normally calculated using G&A

recorded in the company’s audited

financial statements for the year that

most closely corresponds to the POR

(see Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand, 60

FR 22557, 22560–61 (May 8, 1995)).

Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki did

not use the regular methodology

accepted by the Department. It based

G&A on 1993 data and data from eight

months of 1994, and it calculated a per

ton G&A amount. Petitioners maintain

this is erroneous in two respects. First,

it did not use data from the audited

financial statements (the 1994 data was

from an interim financial statement

which was not audited). The 1994 data

constitutes the type of part-year data the

Department does not use because G&A

expenses are incurred sporadically

throughout the fiscal year or are based

on estimates that are adjusted to actual

at year-end. Second, the calculation is a

per ton G&A amount, rather than a

factor that is a percentage of cost, as

required by the questionnaire and

Department practice. The Department

should recalculate the G&A expense

using Rautaruukki’s 1993 audited

financial statements and other verified

1993 information.

Respondent argues that it correctly

reported G&A expenses and that the cost

verification report states that the

Department verified all appropriate

expenses for Raahe were included in

G&A and that the appropriate

methodologies were applied.

Furthermore, respondent claims the

Department found no discrepancies

between the Group profit and loss report

and the reported consolidated financial

statements. Respondent notes in support

of its argument for using an annual G&A

factor, petitioners reference cases which

are antidumping investigations and not

administrative reviews. Respondent

contends that petitioners reliance on

these investigations is misplaced when

applied to this administrative review. In

an investigation where sales span a sixmonth period, the Department generally

looks to a full-year period in computing

G&A, because such a period

encompasses operating results over a

longer time span than the period of

investigation and typically reports the

results of at least one business cycle. In

this administrative review, the POR

covers an eighteen month period, and

Rautaruukki provided annual and

interim financial reports which are

prepared in the ordinary course of

business. Respondent claims these

reports cover the entirety of the POR;

therefore, they represent the most

complete and accurate information

available, and they exceed the standard

of Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners. It is our standard practice to

base G&A on an amount derived from

annual audited financial statements and

to calculate it as a percentage of cost

rather than a per ton amount. See Final

Determination of LTFV: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada, 58 FR 37099 (July 9,

1993)(Comment #43). The fact that this

is an administrative review, rather than

an investigation, has no relevance. The

1994 data used by Rautaruukki is still

partial year data based on unaudited

financial statements. We do not use

partial year data because G&A expenses

are often incurred sporadically

throughout the year and are often

accrued based on estimates until they

are adjusted to actual at year-end. It is

also our standard practice to calculate

G&A based on a percentage of cost,

rather than a per ton amount because

G&A expenses are more closely

associated with costs than with weight.

Id. Therefore, we have recalculated G&A

for Rautaruukki as a percentage of cost

using only 1993 data from Rautaruukki’s

audited financial statements. Regarding

Rautaruukki’s argument that the

Department verified their G&A expense,

the Department’s verification confirmed

that all appropriate expenses were

included in the reported G&A. The

verification report statements that the

allocation methodology was verified

only indicated that the figures and

methodology reported by Rautaruukki

accurately traced to their books and

records. This allocation methodology is

not that traditionally utilized by the

Department in allocating G&A.

Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the

interest expense factor was calculated

using the same methodology used for

the G&A factor, and thus suffers from

the same flaws as the G&A factor.

Additionally the unaudited 1994

amount used in the interest expense

calculation suffers from an additional

flaw—it is incorrect because

Rautaruukki erroneously deducted

short-term interest that it paid. Instead,

petitioners argue the Department should

take Rautaruukki’s 1993 consolidated

interest expense less dividend income,

divided by total cost of goods sold less

selling expenses. Petitioners claim this

is a conservative interest expense factor

highly favorable to Rautaruukki because

it assumes all interest income is short-
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2795

term, which the Department did not

verify, and only Rautaruukki’s G&A

(rather than consolidated G&A, which is

not on the record) is deducted, which

results in a larger denominator and thus

a lower factor.

Respondent argues that it correctly

reported its interest expenses. For the

reasons stated in Comment three above,

Rautaruukki correctly reported its

interest expenses by providing the

Department with the most complete and

accurate information available.

Additionally, petitioners’ interest

expense factor calculation is flawed.

The net financial expense figure is

grossly overstated because petitioners’

figure includes currency exchange

differences as interest expenses.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners in part. As with G&A

expenses, it is our standard practice to

base interest expense on an amount

derived from audited consolidated

annual financial statements and to

calculate interest expense as a

percentage of cost See e.g. Preliminary

Determination of Sales at LTFV: GrainOriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 59

FR 5991 (1994). Furthermore, the choice

of allocation methodologies is left to the

Department’s discretion. See PPG

Industries v. United States 746 F. Supp.

119 (CIT 1990). The 1994 data used by

Rautaruukki is partial year data based

on unaudited financial statements.

Therefore, we have recalculated interest

expense for Rautaruukki using only

1993 data.

We also agree with respondent in part

that the petitioners’ figure is overstated

because it contains currency exchange

differences as interest expense. To

calculate interest expense for the final

results, we have used the interest

expense examined at verification, which

is based on the consolidated financial

statements, divided by consolidated cost

of sales taken directly from the

consolidated financial statements in the

annual report.

Comment 5: Respondent argues that

the Department erred in collapsing

home market control numbers

(CONNUMHs) IO6X and TA6X and

thereby made incorrect product

matches. The questionnaire established

a hierarchy of product characteristics

that the Department would use in

identifying individual plate products.

Each unique combination of these

characteristics is treated as a distinct

product. The Department discovered

instances where multiple control

numbers were being assigned to the

same set of product characteristics. The

Department collapsed CONNUMHs

IO6X and TA6X, which it understood

had identical product characteristics.

These were matched to the U.S. sales of

CONNUMU IO6X. In doing so, the

Department mistakenly matched sales of

beveled plate to sales of plate which had

not undergone the further

manufacturing process required to

produce beveled plate. In terms of

quality, the two product control

numbers are identical. CONNUMs

starting with IO through LL represent

basic cut-to-length plates which are not

painted, and CONNUMs starting with

RA through UX represent plates with a

beveled edge. Beveled plate is produced

only after an additional manufacturing

process, which is performed on a

separate production line. It incurs

additional costs which must be taken

into consideration in Rautaruukki’s

pricing decisions. These additional

costs are reflected in Rautaruukki’s

home market database. In collapsing

these control numbers, respondent

argues the Department incorrectly

collapsed two products with different

product characteristics. In so doing,

respondent claims the Department

incorrectly compared sales of beveled

plate in the home market with sales of

normal plate in the U.S. market.

Petitioners counter that the

Department correctly collapsed

CONNUMHs IO6X and TA6X. Nowhere

in its brief does Rautaruukki identify the

product characteristics which it believes

are different for the two CONNUMHs.

This is because there are no product

characteristics that are different.

According to petitioners a review of the

products in IO6X and TA6X shows that

they are identical for the eight physical

characteristics identified by the

questionnaire. By separating the

products in CONNUMHs IO6X and

TA6X, Rautaruukki introduced into a

primary place in the hierarchy a product

characteristic—beveling—that was not

selected by the Department. Petitioners

argue such unilateral modification of

the Department’s hierarchy should not

be permitted. When the Department

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the model match hierarchy

in August 1994, Rautaruukki submitted

comments. Those comments did not

contain a single reference to beveling. In

fact, no interested parties identified

beveling as a physical characteristic that

ought to be included in the plate

hierarchy. Petitioners contend

Rautaruukki had ample opportunity to

suggest any modifications it believed to

be necessary and suggest Rautaruukki

simply ignored the Department’s

hierarchy and created its own. In doing

so, petitioners argue Rautaruukki

attempted to usurp the Department’s

statutory duty to determine what

constitutes identical merchandise.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners. On August 12, 1994, the

Department solicited comments on the

proposed model matching criteria. On

August 26, 1994, Rautaruukki filed

comments. However, Rautaruukki’s

comments did not propose beveling as

a relevant characteristic to use in

product matching. Furthermore, in its

questionnaire response and

supplemental response Rautaruukki

failed to establish the relevance of

beveling as a product matching criteria.

Therefore, the Department has no basis

upon which to differentiate beveled

plate from non-beveled plate for

matching and price comparison

purposes. The Department has broad

discretion to devise the methodology for

determining the model match

methodology as confirmed by the Courts

in Torrington Co. v. United States, 881

F. Supp. 622, 635 (CIT 1995) and SmithCorona Group v. United States, 713 F.2d

1568 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465

U.S. 1022 (1984). Furthermore, beveled

plate does not possess physical

characteristics which make it unique

from non-beveled plate with regard to

applications and uses. We have

therefore continued to collapse IO6X

and TA6X.

Comment 6: Respondent argues the

Department should compare U.S. sales

to a trading company to home market

sales to end-users. In its preliminary

results, the Department reclassified the

levels of trade in the home market

database by collapsing sales to and sales

through wholesalers into a single lot. It

matched this collapsed level of trade

with the level of trade reported in the

U.S. market (sales to a trading

company). Respondent claims the

Department should have compared U.S.

sales to home market sales to end-users

for the following reasons: Rautaruukki

has a closer relationship with the

wholesalers/distributors in the home

market; the home market wholesalers/

distributors have a common inventory

system whereas for U.S. sales,

Rautaruukki does not know the ultimate

customer in the United States, and

therefore no common inventory system

can exist; the home market wholesalers/

distributors hold and fill orders from

inventory unlike either the U.S.

customer or the home market end-user;

home market wholesalers/distributors

are eligible for certain rebates, for which

the U.S. customer and home market

end-users are not; respondent argues the

sales verification report states that since

there is no inventory for purchase price

sales to the U.S., the customer level of

trade for the two markets should be
2796 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

different; since respondent claims it

does not know the ultimate customer, it

considers its U.S. customer as an enduser; and plate with identical

CONNUMs were sold both to the U.S.

customer and to end-users in the home

market.

The respondent further argues that in

an antidumping investigation, the

Department normally calculates foreign

market value (FMV) and U.S. price

(USP) based on the same commercial

level of trade. The Department normally

asks if the levels of trade reported by the

respondent are in fact distinct and

discernable, based on the respondent’s

explanation of their functions.

Respondent notes that while the

Department often matches according to

customer type (see Stainless Steel

Hollow Products from Sweden, 58 FR

69,332), this is not always the case (see

Antifriction Bearings from France, 58

FR 39,768). In the instant case, the

respondent argues that the U.S.

customer is the functional equivalent to

an end-user in the home market

because: (1) Rautaruukki does not know

the ultimate customer in the U.S.

market; (2) the same product is sold to

home market end-users and to the U.S.

customer; (3) neither the home market

end-users nor the U.S. customer qualify

for the rebate; and (4) the home market

end-users and the U.S. customer do not

hold inventory or share a common

inventory system. In Stainless Steel Bar

from Spain (59 FR 66931), the

Department accepted level of trade

classifications based upon when the

customer wanted delivery. These were

distinguished by which party bore the

costs and risks of maintaining a finished

goods inventory. In the instant

administrative review, respondent

argues that sales to the United States

should be compared with sales to home

market end-users because, unlike

wholesales/distributors in the home

market, neither bears the cost of

maintaining inventory.

Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki’s

complaints are without merit. The

criteria for determining level of trade

comparability are the extent to which

the customers: (1) perform equivalent

functions in their respective markets,

and/or (2) are positioned in equivalent

positions in the chain of distribution

from the manufacturer to the ultimate

customer (see Disposable Pocket

Lighters from Thailand, 60 FR 14263,

14264 (March 16, 1995)). By these

criteria, petitioners maintain there is

clearly a close correspondence between

the U.S. trading company and the home

market wholesalers/distributors—both

are Rautaruukki’s first unrelated

customer in a particular market, and

both sell directly to the ultimate

customer. In both cases, petitioners note

that Rautaruukki invoices the

distributor, which then in turn

separately invoices its own customer

(the end-user). The nearly congruent

function and position of the U.S. trading

company and the home market

wholesalers/distributors are illustrated

in Rautaruukki’s own distribution

channel flow charts for the two markets.

They are virtually carbon copies of each

other, and at one point, the U.S. trading

company is referred to as a distributor.

Given the verified facts, petitioners

maintain the Department was correct in

its decision, which was in accordance

with its long-standing practice and

regulations that require the FMV/USP

comparisons to be made at the same or

most comparable level of trade.

Petitioners further argue that it is the

respondent’s burden to show there are

discernable functions that would make

its proposed matching level a better

choice than the Department’s choice. Of

the four points raised by the respondent

in making their argument, the first three

do not relate in any way to the functions

performed by the buyer and, therefore

are irrelevant to the determination of

level of trade. The fact that Rautaruukki

does not know its distributor’s end-user

customers in the United States says

nothing about the distributor’s

functions, or those of home market endusers. Even if the point were relevant,

Rautaruukki also does not know the

end-user purchaser on many of its sales

to home market distributors. There is no

precedent for the payment of rebates

being relevant to the functions of a

customer or its position in the chain of

distribution. The fact that plate with the

same CONNUMs was sold to both the

U.S. customer and to end-users in the

home market is in no way indicative of

the functions performed by any

customer. Moreover, sales of identical

merchandise were also made to

distributors in the home market.

Petitioners continue that this reduces

Rautaruukki’s argument to the claim

that home market end-users and the

U.S. customer do not hold inventory or

share a common inventory system. Even

if true, this claim alone would not be a

basis to reverse the Department’s

decision. In any event, the facts on the

record do not support Rautaruukki’s

assertion that the U.S. buyer does not

hold inventory. There is no reason for

the Department to reverse its decision.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners. The Department’s

practice in finding similar levels of

trade in each market requires a

comparison of customers in each of the

markets to determine whether they

perform equivalent functions in their

respective markets, and/or are in

equivalent positions in the chain of

distribution from the manufacturer to

the ultimate customer. See Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From

France, et al.; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Review, and Revocation

in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders, 60

FR 10900, 10940–41 (February 28, 1995)

(Issue 9, Comment 3). For Rautaruukki,

the U.S. trading company and the home

market wholesalers/distributors

function at similar levels of trade. They

are the first unrelated customer and

both sell directly to the ultimate

customer. For both markets,

Rautaruukki’s distributor invoices the

end-user, while Rautaruukki invoices

the distributor. The respondent did not

demonstrate any functions, which

differentiate the level of trade for

wholesalers/distributors in the home

market and the trading company in the

U.S., to illustrate an alternate level of

trade is necessary. The first three factors

cited by the respondent are not elements

normally considered by the Department

in determining level of trade. Nor does

the respondent provide any compelling

reason why the Department should

consider those factors in this instance.

The respondent’s first issue, that

Rautaruukki does not know the U.S.

trading company’s end-user customers,

does not illustrate the functions of the

U.S. trading company or the home

market end-users. In fact, Rautaruukki

also claims it does not know the enduser purchasers on many of its sales to

home market distributors yet

Rautaruukki argues that these sales

would be at a different level of trade.

With regard to the third point, the

Department does not consider either

rebates or the fact that the same

products are sold to home market endusers and to the U.S. customer as

relevant to the functions of a customer

or its position in the chain of

distribution. As for the fourth point,

while the U.S. customer may not have

a common inventory system, there is

nothing on the record to indicate that

the U.S. customer does not hold any

inventory. Therefore, we are continuing

to match U.S. sales to the trading

company with home market sales to/

through wholesalers/distributors.

Comment 7: The respondent argues

that it correctly reported rebates which

were successfully verified by the

Department. However, in the

preliminary results, the Department

denied Rautaruukki’s reported rebate to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2797

certain home market wholesalers/

distributors because Rautaruukki’s

computer tape reported these rebates to

a different number of home market

wholesalers/distributors than were

identified in the narrative response.

Respondent argues that part of this

discrepancy is explained by the fact that

certain companies merged. Respondent

also argues that although certain home

market wholesalers/distributors were

not specifically identified in the

narrative response, Rautaruukki did

submit the relevant information in the

home market sales database.

Accordingly respondent argues the

Department should allow the

adjustment.

The petitioners argue that the denial

of these rebates was correct. Petitioners

note that the Department verified the

number of companies that received this

rebate as reported in the narrative

response, not as reported in the home

market sales tape. Accordingly,

petitioners maintain Rautaruukki’s

argument adds nothing new to this

issue—their brief cites to no evidence

on the record that one of the companies

received the rebate, and Rautaruukki

admits that it never specifically

identified another company in its

narrative response. Therefore,

petitioners argue the Department should

continue to exclude the rebate amounts

on sales to certain companies in the

final results.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent that the Department should

allow all rebates. Although Rautaruukki

did not specifically address all rebates

in its narrative, they did report all the

rebates in their database. After further

examination of the verification exhibits,

we have determined that all rebates

were accurately reported and verified by

the Department and that all these parties

did receive the rebates as reported.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have

determined that no margin exists for

Rautaruukki Oy for the period February

4, 1993, through July 31, 1994.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and foreign market

value may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of plate from

Finland entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

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

deposit rates for the reviewed company

will be the rate for that firm as stated

above; (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

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 (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review, the cash rate will

be 32.25 percent. This is the ‘‘all others’’

rate from the LTFV investigation. See

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, 58 FR

37122 (July 9, 1993). These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under section 353.26 of the

Department’s regulations 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 section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and this

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1456 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–401]

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Thailand; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review on Certain Yarn Products

covered under the Suspended

Investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand.

SUMMARY: On August 2, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review of Certain Yarn

Products covered under the agreement

suspending the countervailing duty

investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand for the period

May 18, 1992 through December 31,

1993 (suspension agreement). We have

completed this review and have

determined that the signatories were not

in violation of the suspension

agreement. However, we note that the

Department will require that four

signatories repay the Royal Thai

Government (RTG), in an annual

adjustment, the amount by which all tax

certificates received exceeded the

import duties on physically

incorporated inputs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Yarbrough or Jim Doyle, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone (202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 23, 1990, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (55 FR 48885) a notice

terminating in part the suspension

agreement on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand (50 FR 9837,

March 12, 1985). On May 9, 1992, the

Court of International Trade (CIT) held

that the Department’s termination was

not in accordance with the law because

the Department failed to strictly follow

19 CFR 355.25(d)(4). The Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

affirmed the decision of the CIT on

October 12, 1993, and instructed the

Department to reinstate the suspension

agreement. Subsequently, on October

22, 1993, the Department reinstated the

suspension agreement, effective May 18,