[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31805]


[Federal Register: December 28, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-475-813]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy

    Agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
    Effective Date: December 28, 1994.
    For Further Information Contact: Kate Johnson or Irene Darzenta, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4929 or 482-6320, 
respectively.

Final Determination

    We determine that stainless steel bar (SSB) from Italy is not 
being, nor is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act). The estimated de minimis margins are shown in the 
``Discontinuance of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is SSB. For purposes 
of this investigation, the term ''stainless steel bar'' means articles 
of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-
rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their 
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other 
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or 
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or 
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have 
indentions, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the 
rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do 
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles 
shapes and sections.
    The SSB subject to this investigation is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 
7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075 and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1 to December 31, 1993.

Case History

    Since publication of the notice of preliminary determination on 
August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39736), the following events have occurred.
    On August 5, 1994, Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. (Valbruna) submitted 
its response to Section D of the Department's questionnaire. It 
supplemented this response on October 3, 1994.
    On August 9 and 10, 1994, Valbruna and petitioners, respectively, 
requested the opportunity to participate in a hearing, if held. None 
was held.
    Also, on August 10, 1994, Valbruna alleged that the Department made 
certain ministerial errors in its preliminary margin calculations. On 
August 11, 1994, petitioners submitted comments and rebuttal regarding 
these ministerial errors. With respect to these allegations, on 
September 13, 1994, we published a notice of amended preliminary 
determination correcting the ministerial errors in the preliminary 
margin calculations (59 FR 46961).
    On August 12, 1994, Foroni S.p.A. (Foroni) tentatively requested a 
hearing in this investigation. It withdrew its request on October 26, 
1994.
    Verification of Valbruna's and Foroni's responses took place in 
August and October, 1994.
    Case and rebuttal briefs were submitted on November 17, and 23, 
1994, respectively.
    At the Department's request, Valbruna and Foroni submitted revised 
computer tapes correcting certain minor clerical errors found at 
verification on November 22 and 30, 1994, respectively.

Product Comparisons

    We have determined that all products covered by this investigation 
constitute a single category of such or similar merchandise. We made 
fair value comparisons on this basis. In accordance with the 
Department's standard methodology, we first compared identical 
merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
home market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise 
comparisons on the basis of the criteria defined in Appendix V to the 
antidumping questionnaire, on file in Room B-099 of the main building 
of the Department of Commerce.
    Consistent with our preliminary determination, we altered the order 
of the SSB grades specified within the grade criteria of Appendix V to 
account for certain other SSB grades which Foroni sold during the POI, 
but which were not taken into account in Appendix V. We also reversed 
the order of the size and shape criteria in Appendix V.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSB from Italy to the United States 
were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States price 
(``USP'') to the foreign market value (``FMB''), as specified in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.58, we made comparisons at the 
same level of trade, where possible.
    We made revisions to both respondents' reported data, where 
appropriate, based on verification findings.

United States Price

Foroni

    All of Foroni's U.S. sales to the first unrelated purchaser took 
place after importation into the United States. Therefore, we based USP 
on exporter's sales prices (ESP), in accordance with section 772(c) of 
the Act. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we calculated 
ESP based on FOB warehouse and FOB port prices to unrelated customers 
in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
foreign brokerage, ocean freight (including foreign inland freight and 
loading/unloading charges), U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. import duties (including harbor maintenance fees and 
merchandise processing fees), and export processing fees. For those 
sales of subject merchandise with FOB U.S. port sales terms, we made no 
deduction for the U.S. inland freight charges reported in respondent's 
U.S. sales listing.
    We also deducted credit expenses, warranty expenses, product 
liability premiums, and commissions paid to an employee, in accordance 
with section 772(e)(2) of the Act. We recalculated credit expenses to 
account for updated shipment and payment information which we reviewed 
at verification. For sales with missing shipment and payment dates, we 
calculated credit using the average credit days outstanding for all 
other sales in the U.S. databases. We also deducted U.S. indirect 
selling expenses, including pre-sale warehousing costs incurred in the 
United States, advertising, and inventory carrying costs. We 
recalculated certain indirect selling expenses, including advertising 
and pre-sale warehousing expenses, in accordance with verification 
findings.
    In addition, we made no adjustment for U.S. packing expenses 
because Foroni claimed, and we verified, that the subject merchandise 
is not packed for shipment to the customer.
    We also made an adjustment to USP for the value-added tax (VAT) 
paid on the comparison sales in Italy in accordance with our practice, 
pursuant to the Court of International Trade's (CIT) decision in 
Federal-Mogul Corp. and The Torrington Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 
93-194 (CIT October 7, 1993). (See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Calcium Aluminate Cement, Cement Clinker and Flux from 
France. 59 FR 14136, March 25, 1994).

Valbruna

    For Valbruna, we based USP on both ESP and purchase price (PP), in 
accordance with section 772 of the Act, because Valbruna made sales 
both before and after importation into the United States. We calculated 
both PP and ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act, for both PP and ESP 
sales we made deductions, where appropriate, for ocean freight 
(including foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, marine 
insurance and foreign brokerage and handling), U.S. import duties, U.S. 
merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and containerization expenses 
(including drayage, stripping, and storage expenses). We added freight 
income (i.e., freight charges paid by the customer but not included in 
the gross price) to both ESP and PP sales.
    For ESP sales only, we further deducted credit expenses, in 
accordance with section 772(e)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we deleted 
the affected invoice from the database. We also deducted indirect 
selling expenses incurred in Italy on sales to the United States, as 
well as indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States, and 
inventory carrying costs. We recalculated indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the United States to reflect verification findings. With 
regard to the reported warranty expenses applicable to one U.S. sales 
invoice, we made no adjustment because we determined that these 
expenses were not characteristic of ``warranty'' expenses; rather, they 
reflected a return to merchandise.
    Finally, we made an adjustment to USP for the VAT paid on the 
comparison sales in Italy in accordance with our practice, as described 
above for Foroni.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of SSB in 
the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, we 
compared the volume of home market sales of SSB to the volume of third 
country sales of SSB in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that both respondents had 
viable home markets with respect to sales of SSB during the POI.

Foroni

    We calculated FMV based on ex-factory prices charged to unrelated 
customers in the home market. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a)(2), we 
deducted credit expenses. We also deducted home market indirect selling 
expenses capped by the sum of U.S. commissions and indirect selling 
expenses (including inventory carrying costs), in accordance with 19 
C.F.R. 353.56(b).
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in the 
physical characteristics of the merchandise (difmer), in accordance 
with section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act. We recalculated difmers to take 
into account quality control expenses, which we verified were related 
to production.
    We adjusted for VAT in accordance with out practice for those home 
market sales for which we verified that VAT applied. (See the ``United 
States Price'' section of this notice.)
    In addition, we made no adjustment for U.S. packing expenses 
because Foroni claimed, and we verified, that the subject merchandise 
is not packed for shipment to the customer.

Valbruna

    We calculated FMV based on packed prices charged to related and 
unrelated customers in the home market. We included arm's-length sales 
to related customers, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.45. We excluded from 
our analysis sales of secondary merchandise, which we verified were not 
made in the ordinary course of trade.
    We deducted cash discounts. We added freight income (i.e., freight 
charges paid by the customer but not included in the gross price) to 
both ESP and PP sales.
    In light of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (CAFC) 
decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland 
Cement V. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Department 
no longer can deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to 
its inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Instead, 
we will adjust for those expenses under the circumstances-of-sale 
provision of 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a) and the ESP offset provision of 19 
C.F.R. 353.56(b)(2), as appropriate. Accordingly, in the present case, 
we deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the 
circumstances-of-sale provision of 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a). This adjustment 
included home market inland freight (including inland insurance) from 
respondent's factory or service centers to its home market customers. 
We adjusted for pre-sale movement charges in the ESP offset.
    For comparison to ESP sales, we also deducted credit expenses and 
home market commissions from FMV. We considered pre-sale warehousing 
expenses incurred by Valbruna's service centers and inventory carrying 
costs related to pre-sale warehousing at these service centers to be 
direct selling expenses (see Comment 10 in the ``Interested Party 
Comments'' section of this notice). Accordingly, we deducted these 
expenses. We then deducted home market indirect selling expenses 
(including pre-sale movement charges) capped by the sum of U.S. 
indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs.
    For comparison to PP sales, we made a circumstance-of-sale 
adjustment for differences in credit expenses, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 
353.56(a)(2). We also deducted home market commissions from FMV and 
added to FMV the U.S. indirect selling expenses capped by the amount of 
home market commissions.
    Furthermore, we made no adjustment for the claimed imputed VAT 
expenses (see Comment 4 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of 
this notice).
    For both ESP and PP sales, we deducted home market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of 
the Act.
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for difmers, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act.
    We adjusted the VAT in accordance with our practice for those home 
market sales for which we verified that VAT applied. (See the ``United 
States Price'' section of this notice, above.)

Cost of Production

    Petitioners alleged that Valbruna made home market sales during the 
POI at prices below the cost of production (COP). Based on petitioners' 
allegation, and in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we 
concluded that we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales were made below COP. Thus, we initiated an investigation to 
determine whether Valbruna made home market sales of subject 
merchandise at prices below its COP.
    In order to determine whether home market prices were below COP 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, we performed a 
product-specific cost test, in which we examined whether each home 
market product sold during the POI was priced below the COP of that 
product. We calculated COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of 
materials, fabrication, general expenses and packing costs, in 
accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.51(c). (See, e.g., Final Determination of 
Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from Korea (59 FR 58826; 
November 15, 1994)) (Saccharin from Korea). We compared the COP for 
each product to the home market price, net of movement expenses and 
discounts.
    We relied on submitted COP data except in the following instances. 
We recalculated cost of manufacturing (COM) to exclude the change in 
inventory adjustment claimed by respondent (see Comment 14 in the 
``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice). We also 
recalculated general and administrative and interest expenses based on 
the adjusted COM.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we also examined 
whether Valbruna's home market sales were made below COP in substantial 
quantities over an extended period of time, and whether such sales were 
made at prices that would permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
    To satisfy the requirement of section 773(b)(1) of the Act that 
below cost sales be disregarded only if made in substantial quantities, 
the following methodology was used: For each product where less than 
ten percent, by quantity, of the home market sales made during the POI 
were made at prices below the COP, we included all sales of that model 
in the computation of FMV. For each product where ten percent or more, 
but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales made during the POI 
were priced below COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those 
home market sales which were priced below COP, provided that the below 
cost sales of that product were made over an extended period of time. 
Where we found that more than 90 percent of the respondent's sales of a 
particular product were at prices below the COP and were made over an 
extended period of time, we disregarded all sales of that product and 
calculated FMV based on constructed value (CV), in accordance with 
section 773(b) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether below-cost sales had been made over an extended 
period of time, we compared the number of months in which below-cost 
sales occurred for each product to the number of months in the POI in 
which that product was sold. If a product was sold in three or more 
months of the POI, we did not exclude below-cost sales unless there 
were below-cost sales in at least three months during the POI. When we 
found that sales of a product only occurred in one or two months, the 
number of months in which the sales occurred constituted the extended 
period of time; i.e., where sales of a product were made in only two 
months, the extended period of time was two months, where sales of a 
product were made in only one month, the extended period of time was 
one month. (See Saccharin from Korea and Preliminary Results and 
Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan (58 FR 69336, 69338, December 10, 
1993)).
    Valbruna provided no indication that the disregarded sales were at 
prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time and in the normal course of trade. (See 19 U.S.C. 
1677b(b)(2)).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 C.F.R. 353.60.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the information provided by Foroni and Valbruna by using standard 
verification procedures, including the examination of relevant sales, 
cost and financial records, and selection of original source 
documentation.

Interested Party Comments

Foroni

    Comment 1:
    Foroni argues that its failure to report a relatively small portion 
of U.S. sales was unintentional and does not warrant the application of 
adverse BIA. It contends that given the Department's thorough review of 
these sales at verification, this error does not cast any doubt on the 
reliability of Foroni's overall response. Foroni states that the 
Department verified that the gross prices indicated on these invoices 
were comparable to those observed for reported sales of the same 
products. Furthermore, Foroni asserts that its underreporting of these 
sales resulted in the overestimation of U.S. selling expenses and, 
hence, an exaggerated dumping margin.
    Foroni believes that if the Department must substitute information 
for these sales, it should base such information on the overall 
weighted-average margin calculated for Foroni. At worst, Foroni 
believes the Department should use the highest margin found for any 
U.S. sale. Foroni argues that if other information or BIA is applied in 
these circumstances it should be based on either of the above-mentioned 
approaches, particularly where the petition contained no information or 
allegations regarding Foroni.
    Petitioners assert that in calculating final dumping margins, the 
Department should make certain adverse inferences based on Foroni's 
failure to report all sales. Petitioners argue that, with regard to the 
statement in the verification report concerning the gross prices of 
these omitted sales, gross prices are not used in the dumping analysis. 
Petitioners state that only after deductions to U.S. price are made and 
the identical or most similar home market comparison sale is selected 
can a dumping margin be calculated. Furthermore, according to 
petitioners, because of the number of adjustments to USP and FMV, 
transaction margins can and do vary widely. Petitioner sales believe 
that the omission of a portion of U.S. sales could have a dramatic 
effect on Foroni's dumping margin. Petitioners argue that the 
Department should assign the highest calculated non-aberrational margin 
to these unreported sales.

DOC Position

    During our sales reconciliation at verification, company officials 
explained that all sales records generated prior to the point of 
invoicing are manually maintained, and that in order to compile a 
listing of U.S. sales made during the POI based on the reported date of 
sale methodology (i.e., purchase order date), company officials were 
required to search their invoice files for all invoices generated 
during and after the POI pursuant to purchase orders issued within the 
POI.
    To ensure that Foroni had accurately reported all sales to the 
Department including those that may have been invoiced after the POI 
pursuant to purchase orders within the POI, we conducted a manual 
search of the company's 1994 invoiced file. During this exercise, the 
Department discovered certain invoices related to subject merchandise 
ordered within the POI which had not been reported in the U.S. sales 
listing. We established the total unreported quantity and value. Upon 
close examination, the verifiers concluded that the gross prices 
indicated on these invoices were comparable to those for reported sales 
of the same products.
    When questioned, company officials stated that they were previously 
unaware of this apparent omission. The officials speculated that they 
had misplaced certain purchase orders in the warehouse (at the time 
respondent prepared its response these orders had not been filled). The 
officials further explained that, for example, with regard to one 
misplaced purchase order, which accounted for the majority of the 
unreported sales quantity, it had taken between five and eight months 
to fill the order. Once the purchase order was filled, however, the 
relevant invoices issued were filed in the company's 1994 invoice book, 
in accordance with the company's normal business practice. 
Consequently, our audit of the company's 1994 invoice book revealed 
these unreported sales.
    Given the unique circumstances noted above, we determine that 
application of an adverse BIA rate to the subject sales is unwarranted. 
Although the Department was under no obligation to accept or review 
these sales during verification, in this case the verifiers reviewed 
the invoices for these sales and concluded that the prices for these 
sales were similar to those for reported sales of the same products. In 
light of the circumstances surrounding the omission, the limited number 
of transactions involved, and the overall accuracy of Foroni's 
response, the Department determines that it is reasonable to fill this 
gap with a neutral surrogate. See Replacement Parts for Self-Propelled 
Bituminous Paying Equipment from Canada; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 58 FR 15481, 15482 (March 
23, 1993). Accordingly, we have assigned Foroni's overall weighted-
average calculated margin to these unreported sales.
    Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the Department should reject 
Foroni's assignment of unique grade codes and control numbers to sales 
of 316LUG and 316LN (because they are most similar to 316L, which is 
the product sold in the United States), and should account for any 
differences in the products through a difmer adjustment as opposed to a 
change in control number. According to petitioners, although Foroni 
argues that the chemical composition of these grades is different than 
for 316L, chemical composition is not one of the six principal matching 
criteria in Appendix V of the Department's questionnaire. Accordingly, 
petitioners assert that Foroni should not be permitted to change the 
Department's matching hierarchy at such a late point in the proceeding.
    Foroni requests that, for the final determination, the Department 
assign a unique grade code to the three unique products previously 
misidentified by Foroni. Foroni contends that its failure to assign 
unique grade codes to home market sales of grades 25.22.2, 316LUG, and 
316LN was an inadvertent error.
    Foroni argues that, contrary to petitioners' contention, the 
chemical composition of each grade of SSB is precisely what 
differentiates it from any other grade. Foroni further argues that it 
is not in any way attempting to alter the Department's matching 
criteria, but rather to comply with them. Respondent states that 
petitioners' claim that grades 315LUG and 316LN should not have unique 
grade codes because these sales are most similar to sales of 316L is 
irrelevant because U.S. sales of 316L can be compared to sales of 
identical merchandise in Italy. Foroni states that it did not sell 
grades 316LUG or 316LN in the U.S. market during the POI. Finally, 
Foroni claims that the Department reviewed these product identification 
errors and verified the information provided by Foroni.
    DOC Position: We agree with respondent and have corrected the 
misidentified grade codes in the revised home market sales listing 
provided by respondent on November 30, 1994. We reviewed the 
information provided by Foroni regarding the different chemical 
compositions and material costs of each product prior to, as well as 
during, verification and determined that grades 316LUG and 316LN are in 
fact chemically different from grade 316L. Based on our review of the 
chemical compositions and material costs as stated above, we determined 
that these products are not the most similar to grade 316L sold in the 
United States.
    Furthermore, we disagree with petitioners' contention that Foroni 
is attempting to alter the matching hierarchy. Grade, which takes into 
account chemical composition, is in fact one of the matching criteria 
in Appendix V of the questionnaire.
    Comment 3: Petitioners argue that the Department should not accept 
the updated shipment, payment and quantity information collected at 
verification, which represents information for nine percent of the 
total U.S. transactions, because this information was submitted 
subsequent to the Department's deadline for submission of factual 
information. Petitioners believe that in filling in these missing 
dates, the Department should make certain adverse assumptions. For 
example, petitioners argue that the Department should assume that the 
payment date is the date of the final determination for purposes of 
calculating credit.
    Foroni argues that certain minor clerical errors, as well as 
verified updated information, should be substituted in Foroni's sales 
data prior to the final determination. Foroni states that, in any 
event, the Department has requested that Foroni submit a revised sales 
listing on computer disk to include this data.
    DOC Position: We agree with respondent and have allowed it to 
revise its U.S. sales listing to reflect the actual shipment/payment 
dates and quantity data for the subject U.S. transactions where the 
information had previously been missing or estimated. Respondent 
presented the updated information at issue in the context of minor 
clerical errors found in preparation for verification and the accuracy 
of this information was verified.

Valbruna

    Comment 1: Petitioners believe the home market sales for which 
Valbruna reported limited data (``File 2'' sales) should be included in 
the Department's final analysis. Valbruna requested that these sales be 
excluded from the analysis based on its representations that the sales 
would not be ``similar'' because the difmer exceeds 20 percent. 
Petitioners note that the Department required Valbruna to provide 
worksheets showing a difmer in excess of 20 percent for all these sales 
and that respondent did not provide the worksheets.
    Petitioners also compare the first four product characteristics for 
File 2 sales to the home market sales that Valbruna did report as 
comparable merchandise to SSB sold in the United States (``File 1'' 
sales). According to petitioners, this comparison shows that several 
products are identical (based on the first four matching criteria) to 
subject merchandise reported by Valbruna. Accordingly, petitioners 
contend that File 2 sales should be included in the Department's 
analysis because certain products in this file are in fact identical to 
sales reported in File 1.
    Respondent counters with the following arguments. First, at 
verification Valbruna demonstrated that there were no sales in File 2 
within the first five identical or most similar matches for Valbruna's 
reported U.S. sales. Second, since the File 2 sales would never match 
to a U.S. sale based on product characteristics, there was no need to 
provide worksheets showing that the size of the difmer exceeds 20 
percent. Third, petitioners' analysis of the File 1 and File 2 is 
flawed because the analysis takes into account only four of the six 
matching criteria that Valbruna reported and which the Department used 
in its preliminary determination.
    DOC Position: We verified the fact that these sales would not be 
used for matching purposes. Therefore, consistent with our preliminary 
determination, we have continued to disregard the sales in File 2 for 
purposes of our margin calculation.
    With regard to petitioners' argument that Valbruna failed to 
provide worksheets showing difmers in excess of 20 percent for sales in 
File 2, our letter of April 1, 1994, to Valbruna stated that we would 
require worksheets for any sales not reported solely because of the 
size of the difmer (as opposed to those that did not match to a U.S. 
sale based on product characteristics). As respondent states, and as we 
verified, because the sales in File 2 would never match to U.S. sales 
based on the six product characteristics specified in Appendix V of the 
questionnaire issued in this case, there was no need for respondent to 
provide worksheets. Finally, concerning petitioners' argument that a 
comparison of File 2 sales to U.S. sales shows several products with 
identical matches, we agree with respondent that this argument is 
incorrect because petitioners based their analysis on only the first 
four product characteristics as opposed to the six point 
characteristics that the Department required for matching purposes in 
Appendix V of the questionnaire. As explained above, when all of the 
matching characteristics are considered, the sales in question would 
not be used for matching purposes.
    Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the Department should revise its 
dumping calculations to account for home market sales that are exempt 
from VAT. Petitioners state that VAT was not collected on a portion of 
the sales reported in Valbruna's sales listing. Petitioners note, 
however, that the Department increased the price on all U.S. sales to 
account for the VAT paid on comparison sales in Italy. Furthermore, 
petitioners contend that Valbruna is inconsistent in its reporting of 
customers that were exempt from VAT. Petitioners request that the 
Department:
     Adjust the U.S. price for the VAT only if the VAT was paid 
on the comparison sales in Italy;
     Adjust the U.S. price only to the extent that the VAT is 
included in weighted-average FMV; or
     Treat all home market sales to ``export-oriented'' 
companies as tax-exclusive sales and do not adjust the price for any 
U.S. sales compared to such home market sales.
    Respondent maintains that petitioners' argument is based on the 
incorrect inference that VAT-exempt sales were incorrectly reported. 
Respondent further maintains that it was not inconsistent in its 
reporting of customers that were exempt from VAT because the exemption 
is only allowed up to a specified ceiling. According to Valbruna, 
customers can elect to use or not use their exemption on specific 
sales; therefore, it is not unusual for a customer to pay VAT on some 
sales and not on others. Accordingly, respondent believes that 
petitioners' requests should be denied.
    DOC Position: Prior to verification, respondent revised its home 
market sales listing to account for VAT-exempt sales based on its 
discovery of this information while preparing for verification. During 
verfication we examined sales to which VAT applied as well as VAT-
exempt sales and determined that respondent correctly reported this 
information. Accordingly, we have adjusted for VAT on home market sales 
to which it applies and have made an adjustment to the USP only if the 
VAT was paid on comparison home market sales.
    Comment 3: Petitioners state that the Department should deduct cash 
discounts on home market sales before calculating adjustments for home 
market commissions, credit, direct selling expenses, inventory carrying 
charges and imputed VAT. Petitioners claim that the Department noted in 
its home market verification report that cash discounts were not 
considered in these calculations.
    Respondent states that, pursuant to the Department's request, it 
submitted a revised computer tape on November 22, 1994, in which it 
appropriately accounted for cash discounts in calculating the 
adjustments listed above.
    DOC Position: We agree with both parties. We used respondent's 
revised sales listing, which properly accounts for cash discounts in 
calculating the above-referenced adjustments, for purposes of the final 
margin calculations.
    Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department should adjust FMV 
for the imputed cost or income associated with the timing difference 
between respondent's payment of the VAT and receipt of the VAT payment 
from the customer. Respondent argues taht the imputed VAT cost or 
income is a bona fide adjustment in accordance with the circumstance of 
sale provisions of the antidumping statute. Respondent states that 
there is no discernible difference between the applicability of these 
provisions to credit expense incurred on payment of sales and the 
applicability of these provisions to credit expense incurred on VAT 
payments.
    Additionally, respondent states that the Department verified the 
income or expense incurred by Valbruna for financing its customers' VAT 
payments. Therefore, according to Valbruna, petitioners' claim that the 
opportunity cost was not verified is incorrect unless petitioners do 
not consider these amounts to be opportunity costs. According to 
respondent, petitioners' argument that imputed VAT cost or income 
should be based on the net VAT paid is irrelevant because Valbruna is 
virtually exempt from paying VAT taxes on raw materials and services 
purchased in connection with the production of merchandise.
    Petitioners contend that the Department did not verify whether 
there is an opportunity cost associated with Valbruna's VAT payments to 
the government. Petitioners also state that VAT law allows an offset to 
the VAT payment due the government for VAT paid for raw materials and 
services purchased in connection with production of merchandise. 
Therefore, according to petitioners, the imputed VAT cost or income 
claimed by Valbruna should be based on the net VAT paid and not the 
total VAT on the sale. In addition, petitioners believe that Valbruna 
should report a theoretical VAT opportunity cost for sales to the 
United States if Valbruna claims imputed VAT costs for its Italian 
sales.
    Petitioners argue that, unless the Department calculates 
opportunity costs for all associated charges, an adjustment for VAT 
opportunity costs alone would be incomplete. Additionally, petitioners 
maintain that allowing adjustments for some of these opportunity costs 
but not for others would provide respondents with an opportunity to 
manipulate dumping calculations by claiming only those opportunity 
costs that would benefit a respondent.
    DOC Position: We agree with petitioners and have not allowed this 
adjustment, in accordance with the Department's policy outlined in the 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfur Dyes, 
Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 3253 (January 
8, 1993). In that case, the Department noted that ``virtually every 
charge or expense associated with price-to-price comparisons is either 
prepaid or paid for at some point after the cost is incurred. 
Accordingly, for each pre- or post-service payment,there is also an 
opportunity cost (or gain).
    Thus, to allow the type of adjustment suggested by respondent would 
imply that in the future the Department would be faced with the 
impossible task of trying to determine the opportunity cost (or gain) 
of every freight charge, rebate and selling expense for each sale 
reported in a respondent's database.'' (See also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Calcium Aluminate Cement, Clinker and 
Flux from France, 59 FR 14136, 14146, March 25, 1994).
    The wording of the Department's regulation providing for 
circumstance of sale adjustments supports this interpretation. Section 
353.56(a)(2) identifies the type of expenses or differences in 
circumstances of sale which the Department normally adjusts for. These 
include credit terms and similar expenses which a producer chooses to 
incur or which become necessary due to the producer's business 
activities. The regulations contain no indication that the Department 
should consider granting an adjustment to account for a government 
imposed tax such as the VAT, or for any other type of so-called 
``opportunity cost.'' Similarly, the CIT has affirmed the Department's 
rejection of the claim that a circumstance of sale adjustment is 
warranted to offset the effect of accounts payable and imputed expenses 
incurred between the seller and its suppliers. Independent Radiomic 
Workers of America v. United States, Slip Op. 94-144 at 11 (CIT 
September 16, 1994); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 839 F. Supp. 
881, 885-86 (CIT 1993). Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, the 
CIT relied upon the Court of Appeals' decision in Daewoo Electric Co. 
v. United States, 6 F. 2d 1511, 1518-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993), to hold that 
the Department is simply ``not required to reach the level of precision 
in quantifying circumstance of sale adjustments which [the party] 
believe[d] is required.'' Federal-Mogul, 839 F. Supp. at 886. The same 
conclusion applies to the present investigation.
    Comment 5: Petitioners maintain that Valbruna did not report all 
ocean freight costs. Petitioners cite the Department's verification 
report which states that ``one of Valbruna's two shipping companies 
separately reports, as a different line item on the same invoice, 
freight charges and document processing fees.'' Petitioners believe 
that the document processing fees which have been separately reported 
have not been accounted for in Valbruna's ocean freight costs and, 
therefore, these fees should be deducted from USP for the affected 
sales.
    Valbruna officials claim that all ocean freight costs borne by 
Valbruna have been accounted for. Respondent also states that the 
Department explicitly verified ocean freight expenses and found no 
discrepancies.
    DOC Position: We agree with respondent. We have no reason to 
believe that document processing fees were not properly accounted for 
simply because they were sometimes separately reported. We verified 
ocean freight expenses (including document processing fees) and found 
no discrepancies. Therefore, we have deducted ocean freight charges as 
reported.
    Comment 6: Petitioners point out that the Department's home market 
verification report states, ``We noted that bank expenses were not 
included in the calculation of the U.S. interest rate. Moreover, the 
methodology used to calculate the home market rate was different (from) 
that used to calculate the U.S. rate.'' Petitioners add that Valbruna's 
home market interest rate calculation includes ``non-interest'' loan 
expenses while Valbruna did not include such expenses in its U.S. 
interest rate calculation. Petitioners contend the Department should 
revise Valbruna's home market interest rate calculation (and all 
fields, such as credit, that employ the interest rate) by using the 
actual rates charged by banks, exclusive of any ``bank expense'' 
deductions, and should ensure that the home market interest rate 
calculation otherwise is consistent with the interest rate used for 
U.S. sales.
    Respondent maintains that it included bank expenses in its U.S. 
interest rate calculation. Accordingly, respondent claims that its 
methodology for calculating its home market interest rate did not 
differ from the methodology used to calculate its U.S. interest rate.
    DOC Position: We incorrectly noted in our verification report that 
bank charges were not included in the calculation of the U.S. interest 
rate. Therefore, petitioners' comments are moot. We used the home 
market and U.S. interest rates as reported and verified in our 
calculations.
    Comment 7: Petitioners assert that Valbruna improperly reported 
part of its credit expenses on PP sales by reporting as inventory 
carrying costs the financing expenses for the period from the date of 
shipment from Vicenza to the date of entry at the U.S. port. 
Petitioners argue that the credit period for PP sales should begin on 
the date the SSB was shipped from the plant in Italy and should include 
time in transit to the U.S. port. Petitioners state that Valbruna's 
failure to properly report credit expenses for its PP sales resulted in 
an understatement of the circumstance of sale adjustment to FMV for 
differences in credit expenses.
    Respondent contends that it properly reported U.S. credit expenses 
for PP sales. Valbruna explains that it finances PP sales for the time 
the merchandise is on the water while Avesta Sheffield, Inc. (ASI), 
which markets Valbruna's SSB products in the United States, finances 
these sales from the date the merchandise is shipped from the U.S. port 
to the date of receipt of payment. Valbruna explains that separate 
interest rates were used to calculate the credit costs during each of 
these shipping phases; therefore, credit expenses is reported under two 
variables in the U.S. database.
    DOC Position: We have considered both the reported credit expenses, 
and the costs reported by respondent as inventory carrying costs for PP 
sales, as credit expenses in accordance with our normal practice of 
calculating the credit period from the time the merchandise leaves the 
factory until it reaches the customer.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Valbruna's use of separate interest 
rates for each segment of this expense, we used the two U.S. rates as 
reported because we verified that a portion of the credit period is 
financed by Valbruna and the remainder is financed by ASI.
    Comment 8: Petitioners argue that the Department should adjust 
respondent's credit calculation to correct for inconsistencies in the 
method respondent used to determine the U.S. and home market credit 
periods. Petitioners note that the bank deposit date marks the end of 
the credit period for U.S. sales while the date the funds were actually 
credited to Valbruna's account marks the end of the credit period for 
home market sales. Since finds in the home market are usually credited 
to the account three days after the deposit date, petitioners believe 
the Department should either add three days to the credit period for 
all U.S. sales or deduct three days from the credit period for all home 
market sales.
    Respondent maintains the Department's verification reports show 
that the U.S. and home market credit periods were determined using 
consistent methods. Respondent notes that the Department's home market 
verification report explicitly states that Valbruna reported the date 
of receipt of payment as the date that funds were actually credited by 
the bank into its account. Respondent further notes that in the U.S. 
sales verification report the Department traced the reported date of 
receipt of payment to the date funds were actually credited by the 
bank. Thus, respondent believes the Department should reject 
petitioners' argument.
    DOC Position: We agree with respondent that the credit periods were 
consistently reported. During the ESP as well as home market 
verifications we examined payment documentation for numerous sales and 
confirmed that in both markets respondent reported date of payment as 
the date funds were actually credited to its account by the bank. 
Therefore, we have used the reported and verified payment dates in both 
the U.S. and home market credit calculations.
    Comment 9: During our review of individual sales transactions 
during the U.S. verification, we noted a reduction in sales price for 
one transaction. Petitioners contend that if ASI allowed this price 
reduction then it is likely that they allowed other price reductions. 
Petitioners argue that the Department should reduce the price of other 
sales, where appropriate, by the amount of the price reduction 
discovered at verification. Furthermore, petitioners contend that there 
may be similar price reductions because the above-mentioned price 
reduction was discovered from a review of only a few sales. (For 
further amplification of petitioners' position see proprietary 
Concurrence Memorandum dated December 16, 1994).
    Valbruna maintains that ASI does not offer any such reductions in 
price to its U.S. customers. Respondent explains that ASI reviewed its 
sales records for such reductions in price and, to the best of its 
knowledge, it allowed no other price reductions during the POI. 
Respondent also maintains that the Department examined numerous sales 
transactions and found no trace of any other price reductions. 
Respondent notes that it has revised its U.S. sales listing to properly 
account for this price reduction. (for further amplification of 
respondent's position see proprietary Concurrence Memorandum dated 
December 16, 1994).
    DOC Position: Based on our review of numerous sales at 
verification, we have no reason to believe that Valbruna offered such 
price reductions to other customers. At verification we reviewed 
respondent's cash posting list and noted that other such price 
reductions were for nonsubject merchandise. Accordingly, we believe 
that the situation as described above, and in the proprietary record, 
is unique and does not reflect a general policy of granting price 
reductions on U.S. sales. Moreover, this price reduction has been 
accounted for in Valbruna's sales listing.
    Comment 10: Respondent maintains that home market pre-sale 
warehousing and inventory carrying costs are directly related to sales 
of the subject merchandise. Respondent notes that the Department 
treated all pre-sale expenses associated with Valbruna's home market 
service centers as indirect selling expenses in the preliminary 
determination because Valbruma did not adequately demonstrate that such 
expenses are directly attributable to particular sales of the subject 
merchandise. Respondent argues that the Department's findings at 
verification now provide it with sufficient justification to determine 
that Valbruna's presale expenses associated with home market service 
centers are directly related to home market sales. In addition, 
respondent cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6207 (January 27, 1993) (Lead and Bismuth) as 
well as the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan, 56 FR 
16300 (April 22, 1991) (PET Film) to support its argument.
    Petitioners argue that the cases cited by respondent do not support 
Valbruna's claim. Petitioners maintain that Valbruna calculated its 
pre-sale warehousing expenses in the same manner as a respondent in the 
PET Film case whose claim for direct warehousing expenses was rejected 
by the Department. In addition, petitioners note that in PET Film and 
Lead and Bismuth the Department stated that a requirement for allowing 
pre-sale warehousing expense as a direct expense was that the stock in 
question was only available for sales to those specific customers, 
which is not the case for Valbruna.
    Finally, petitioners request that the Department treat pre-sale 
expenses incurred for Valbruna's U.S. sales as direct selling expenses 
if the Department determines that Valbrunna's home market pre-sale 
expenses are direct selling expenses. Petitioners argue for parallel 
treatment because Valbruna manufacturers SSB for its ESP sales to the 
customers' exact specifications and, like the regional warehouses in 
the home market, the SSB that is inventoried by ASI is merchandise that 
is restricted to servicing only those customers located in an assigned 
geographic region.
    DOC Position: For purposes of the final determination, we have 
treated Valbrun's pre-sale warehousing/service center warehousing costs 
as direct expenses. We believe that the facts in this case most closely 
resemble those in Lead and Bismuth which stated that the respondent:

    accepts requests from some home market customers to maintain in 
inventory a certain amount of product manufactured to that 
customer's specifications. Then, when the customer needs the steel, 
it issues a specific purchase order for delivery out of this 
customer-specific stock. Customers can thereby obtain immediate 
delivery, rather than wait for the normal monthly rolling cycle.

    In PET Film, also the Department accepted the respondent's 
contention that its pre-sale warehousing expenses were directly related 
to its home market sales since the Department verified that the 
expenses were incurred and reported on the basis of specific products 
sold to specific customers during the POI.
    At vertification we reviewed customer purchase orders and Valbruna 
order confirmations which stipulated that Valbruna was required to keep 
on hand a specified amount of subject merchandise with certain 
specifications for particular customers at particular service centers. 
The record contains no indication that Valbruna sold this merchandise 
to customers other than the ones for which the particular merchandise 
was held in inventory. In fact, company officials stated that the 
merchandise is usually so specialized that Valbruna would be unable to 
sell it to other customers. We also observed during the plant tour 
merchandise with ``open order'' tags reflecting open orders against a 
customer's supply forecast for which Valbruna was required to maintain 
specific inventory levels at its service centers. Furthermore, we 
observed that Valbruna's accounting system tracks additional stock 
going to a warehouse; it lists the quantity, but not the price, and 
states the merchandise is destined for a specific customer.
    This approach is consistent with the Department's determination in 
other cases, such as Brass Sheet and Strip from West German; Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 56 FR 60087, 60090 
(1991), which the CIT recently upheld in Hussey Copper, Ltd. v. United 
States, 834 F. Supp. 413, 421 (CIT 1993). There, the Department 
declined to treat expenses associated with pre-sale inventory (``buffer 
stock'') as direct expenses. Based upon those facts, the court agreed, 
noting in addition that information on the record indicated that 
respondent withdrew ``the material for shipment to customers other than 
the ones who generally purchase material out of those warehouses.'' 
Hussey Copper, 834 F. Supp. at 421. See also LMI-La Metalli 
Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 455, 457 (Fed. Cir. 
1990).
    With respect to petitioners' latter argument, ASI's warehousing 
practices do not resemble Valbruna's service center warehousing 
practices. ASI's customers' purchase orders do not stipulate that ASI 
must keep a certain amount of merchandise available for particular 
customers. Although SSB that is shipped by Valbruna and inventoried by 
ASI may be restricted to servicing only those customers located in an 
assigned geographic region, it is not customer-specific, as is the 
merchandise stocked at Valbruna's service centers in Italy. In 
addition, ASI not only warehouse Valbruna-related products, but also 
sells non-subject merchandise, including Avesta Sheffield's standard 
and special stainless steel products such as steel plates, sheets, 
strips, wire and welded pipe and tubing. Therefore, ASI's warehousing 
expenses and corresponding inventory carrying costs cannot be directly 
tied to specific sales of the subject merchandise.
    Comment 11: Valbruna argues that in the event its final dumping 
margin is affirmative, that margin would be due solely to the use of 
quarterly exchange rates. Valbruna argues that the Department is 
required to use daily exchange rates whenever a dumping margin would be 
created by the Department's use of quarterly exchange rates. Therefore, 
Valbruna argues that the Department must use daily exchange rates in 
this case. Valbruna cites Luciano Pisoni Fabbrica Accessori v. United 
States, (Luciano Pisoni) 640 F. Supp. 255 (CIT 1986), in an apparent 
attempt to argue that no demonstration need be made that the exchange 
rates fluctuated during the POI in order to invoke this rule.
    Petitioners argue that exchange rate fluctuations must be 
``temporary'' to warrant the use of daily exchange rates (See Final 
Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper 
from Finland, 56 FR 56363 (November 4, 1991), and Valbruna has not 
offered any evidence that there were temporary exchange rate 
fluctuations during the POI.
    DOC Position: We disagree with Valbruna and have continued to use 
quarterly exchange rates, in accordance with the Department's 
regulations and as warranted by the facts of this case. Pursuant to 
section 363.60 of the Department's regulations, we rely upon the 
quarterly exchange rates as published by the Federal Reserve Board. 
Section 353.60(b) does provide for a special rule under which during an 
investigation, the Department may rely upon daily rates if the price of 
the merchandise is affected by ``temporary exchange fluctuations.'' The 
Department has defined temporary exchange rate fluctuations as 
occurring when the daily rate varies from the quarterly average rate by 
more than five percent. However, we do not interpret the special rule 
outlined in 19 C.F.R. 353.60(b) as envisioning the treatment of an 
entire POI as a temporary fluctuation. See, e.g., Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Portable Electric Typewriters 
from Singapore, 58 FR 43334 43338 (1993); Groundwood Paper.
    In this case, Valbruna has not provided any evidence on the record 
to demonstrate that the exchange rates fluctuated in the manner 
contemplated by the Department's regulations. Accordingly, it is 
appropriate to reject Valbruna's claim on this basis. Indeed, Valbruna 
did not raise the issue until submitting its case brief. Moreover, we 
do not agree with Valbruna's interpretation of the CIT's decision in 
Luciano Pisoni. In this decision, the CIT highlighted the fact that the 
respondent in that investigation had made only ten relevant home market 
sales during the POI. Luciano Pisoni, 640 F. Supp, at 260. The court 
stressed that based upon the facts in that case, it would have been 
unfair to use quarterly exchange rates. As such, because Luciano Pisoni 
can be distinguished from the present investigation on this basis, we 
have not addressed any other aspect of the CIT's reasoning in Luciano 
Pisoni.
    Comment 12: Respondent requests that, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 
353.20(c), if the final determination is above de minimis, the 
Department should transmit the output from its margin program to the 
U.S. International Trade Commission to alert the Commission (ITC) to 
the facts that (1) the amount of sales reflecting transaction margins 
is minuscule, and (2) the transaction margins, where they exist, 
reflect minimal amounts.
    DOC Position: Because Valbruna's final dumping margin is de 
minimis, this issue is moot.
    Comment 13: Petitioners argue that Valbruna incorrectly reported 
the weighted-average COP based on costs incurred during the POI. 
Rather, petitioners contend that the Department should adjust 
Valbruna's reported data to reflect the actual costs incurred for sales 
made during the POI. Petitioners assert that the Section D 
questionnaire ``covers cost of production information for the 
merchandise sold in the home market/third country.'' Petitioners assert 
that the appropriate reporting period for cost would be the 
corresponding production months before the POI. Petitioners state that 
raw material prices were higher in the period prior to the POI.
    Respondent argues that it properly reported costs to reflect the 
actual cost for sales during the POI. Valbruna reported that, for its 
home market sales, production takes place a number of months before the 
product is sold. Respondent asserts that petitioners' analysis is 
erroneous, because it relies solely on dollar denominated costs of 
stainless steel scrap.
    DOC Position: The Department agrees with respondent. Section D of 
the questionnaire clearly requests weighted-average production data 
based on costs incurred during the POI. The Department has departed 
from this general policy only when unique circumstances arise, such as 
when there was no production during the POI. Furthermore, companies, 
frequently hold inventory for a period of time between production and 
shipment and raw materials are held for a period of time between 
purchase and production. An average inventory holding period or length 
of time between order and production are only estimates. Sales are 
sometimes made from existing stock or may be produced to order, or even 
a combination of both.
    Petitioners raised the issue for the first time in the pre-
verification comments--too late in the investigation for the Department 
to perform the appropriate analysis to determine whether a change in 
the cost data reporting period is warranted. Furthermore, if the 
Department was to accept petitioners' argument, the CV data would be 
based on a different accounting period than the COP data, effectively 
doubling the burden on all parties. Accordingly, absent strong evidence 
to the contrary, the Department assumes that the cost structure 
prevailing during the POI is representative and can be sued to 
calculate COP.
    Comment 14: Petitioners argue that the Department should reject 
Valbruna's adjustment for the change in inventory value. Petitioners 
assert that the inventory adjustment claim is not consistent with the 
inventory policy stated in Valbruna's financial statements. 
Furthermore, the calculations obtained by the Department during 
verification show that the claim has no bearing on the actual COP for 
the SSB sold during the POI. The analysis does not represent an 
adjustment to the COP; it merely represents a comparison of the cost of 
materials at the beginning of the POI and the end of the POI. The cost 
verification report states that Valbruna's management cost accounting 
system calculates material costs on a current basis and excludes the 
effect of beginning and ending inventory.
    Respondent argues that it properly accounted for changes in 
inventory. Respondent states that the cost system accumulates material 
costs on a current cost basis, and that the financial accounting system 
calculates material costs on a historical cost basis. The financial 
accounting system takes into account changes in inventory, unlike the 
cost accounting system. According to Valbruna, although petitioners 
complain that Valbruna inaccurately valued the change in inventory 
adjustment, if Valbruna would have used average quantities in the POI, 
rather than quantities at the end of the POI, the resulting adjustment 
would have been more favorable to Valbruna, as demonstrated at 
verification.
    DOC Position: The Department agrees with petitioners. Although the 
cost methodology used by Valbruna calculates the current production 
costs and fails to include the difference in price between the 
beginning and ending inventories and the average POI price, the 
adjustment is incorrect for two reasons. First, because the beginning 
and ending finished goods inventory was included in the calculation, 
the adjustment theoretically converts the cost of manufacturing, which 
is what should be reported, into cost of goods sold. Secondly, Valbruan 
uses the last-in-first-out inventory method for financial statement 
purposes which results in something similar to current costing. 
Therefore, because the methodology followed by Valbruna, absent the 
inventory adjustment, closely reflects the methodologies used for 
financial statement purposes, we disallowed the adjustment.

Discontinuance of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(2)(A) of the Act, because the 
margins are de minis, we are directing the Customs Service to 
discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of SSB from 
Italy, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after August 4, 1994. Accordingly, all bonds should be released 
and estimated antidumping duties deposited should be refunded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l.....................................      0.14
Foroni S.p.A..................................................      0.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) in this investigation of their 
responsibility covering the return or destruction of proprietary 
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.34(d). 
Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(d)) and 19 C.F.R. 353.20(a)(4).

    Dated: December 19, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-31805 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M