[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 144 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38541-38546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18397]



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

[[Page 38542]]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]


Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On January 6, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1990-1993 
administrative reviews of brass sheet and strip from Germany. The 
reviews cover exports of this merchandise to the United States by one 
manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during the periods 
March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, March 1, 1991 through February 
29, 1992, and March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993. The reviews 
indicate the existence of dumping margins for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 
periods, and de minimis margins for the 1992-93 period.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have adjusted Wieland's margins for these final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 6, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 2076) the preliminary results of its 1990-91, 1991-92, 
and 1992-93 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on 
brass sheet and strip from Germany (52 FR 6997, March 6, 1987).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department has now completed these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to 
the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are sales or entries of brass 
sheet and strip, other than leaded and tinned brass sheet and strip, 
from Germany. The chemical composition of the products under review is 
currently defined in the Copper Development Association (C.D.A.) 200 
Series or the Unified Numbering System (U.N.S.) C20000 series. These 
reviews do not cover products the chemical compositions of which are 
defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. The merchandise is currently 
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 
7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20. The HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.
    The review periods are:

March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991 (fourth review);
March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 (fifth review);
March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993 (sixth review).

The reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We received case and rebuttal briefs from Wieland and from the 
petitioners, Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller Company, Outokumpu 
American Brass, Revere Copper Products, Inc., International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Union, Allied 
Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO), Mechanics Educational Society 
of America (Local 56), and the United Steelworkers of America. Unless 
otherwise noted, the comments below pertain to all three reviews.
Model-Matching Methodology

    Comment 1: Wieland disputes the Department's use of specific alloy 
grades in matching U.S. to home market sales. Wieland would have the 
Department use only two classes of alloys, above or below 75 percent 
copper content, instead of using exact alloy grades. The respondent 
states that the exact-alloy comparison method which we used in the 
preliminary results is a change from the method used in the prior 
review.
    The respondent further alleges that the Department used the exact-
alloy method in order to conform the model-matching criteria with other 
orders, and that in so doing the Department ignored record evidence 
demonstrating that Wieland's U.S. sales cannot be ``appropriately 
matched'' to home market sales of identical alloys. Wieland claims that 
``using alloy groups * * * provides the most practical means of 
achieving reasonable comparisons''.
    Wieland claims that our approach is contrary to Department practice 
in other cases involving brass sheet and strip, because the Department 
failed, in these reviews, to determine the appropriate matching 
criteria on the basis of the specific nature of Wieland's sales. The 
respondent alleges that by relying on specific alloy grades rather than 
using Wieland's two alloy groups, the Department ``fails to take 
account of the nature of Wieland's sales''. Wieland does not make clear 
how our approach neglects to take account of the nature of its sales, 
but implies that its sales are made more often on the basis of whether 
products are above or below 75 percent in copper content than on the 
basis of exact alloys.
    The respondent also asserts that, since certain other model-
matching criteria, namely gauge and width, are grouped by classes, 
alloys should also be grouped.
    The petitioners note in rebuttal that there is no industry standard 
to distinguish alloys for high copper content (i.e., greater than 75 
percent), that customers specify exact alloys in placing their orders, 
that in all other antidumping proceedings involving brass sheet and 
strip the Department has always made exact-alloy matches, and that 
Wieland's alloy groupings disregard the Department's conclusion in an 
earlier review that it should abandon the grouping methodology and 
instead make matches on an exact-alloy basis. The petitioners further 
assert that Wieland failed to establish that its home market sales, 
when matched to U.S. sales on the basis of exact alloys, ought not to 
be taken as representative of home market prices.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. We did not 
employ the alloy-specific approach merely to conform to approaches used 
in reviews of other brass sheet and strip orders, but in order to 
follow section 771(16)(B) of the Act, which requires us to compare U.S. 
sales to home market merchandise which is identical or, when not 
identical, is ``like that (U.S.) merchandise in component material or 
materials and in the purposes for which used,'' prior to resorting, if 
necessary, to less similar merchandise as described in 771(16)(C)(i)-
(iii).
    Wieland does not identify which U.S. sales, if any, are not 
``appropriately'' matched to home market merchandise by our method, or 
otherwise explain how its less specific standard would be more 
appropriate. Nor does Wieland explain how its grouped alloy approach 

[[Page 38543]]
would be ``the most practical means of achieving reasonable 
comparisons'', other than by arguing that it would make the number of 
home market sales used in sales comparisons ``sufficient''.
    Regarding Wieland's claim that matching by alloy groups would more 
appropriately reflect the nature of Wieland's sales, nothing in the 
record supports this claim. On the contrary, according to Wieland, its 
customers generally specify exact alloys in their orders. While its 
customers may sometimes choose the lowest-cost combination of metals 
within a narrow range, no information on the record suggests that 
Wieland's customers use the standard of 75 percent copper content in 
ordering merchandise.
    In arguing that grouping alloys would be appropriate because 
grouping is used for gauge and width ranges, Wieland glosses over the 
distinction between the gauge and width measures on the one hand, and 
alloy grades on the other. Gauge and width are both infinitely variable 
and therefore must be divided into tiers to permit any comparisons. 
Alloy grades, by contrast, are discretely defined proportions of 
metals. Matching by specific alloys provides more precision than merely 
differentiating between merchandise which contains above or below 75 
percent copper.
    The respondent's grouped-alloy approach would assign all home 
market merchandise to one of two groupings, would compare each U.S. 
sale to home market merchandise containing up to seven different 
alloys, and would not necessarily result in comparisons of U.S. sales 
to home market merchandise made of only the identical alloy, or of only 
the single most similar alloy. The respondent's suggested groupings 
could result in understated or overstated dumping margins, due to the 
mix of home market models which would form the basis of foreign market 
value (FMV). Matching by specific alloys, on the other hand, ensures 
that we use the most similar merchandise possible to establish FMV in 
our dumping calculations. Therefore, the Department has continued to 
use the alloy-specific matching method.
    Comment 2: The respondent complains that the Department's change in 
model-matching methodology reduces the dumping analysis to ``little 
more than a game of chance'' since, according to Wieland, the margin 
depends far more on the chance occurrence that a home market customer 
will place an order for an alloy identical to one sold in the United 
States than on Wieland's general pricing policies for its U.S. and home 
market sales. Where a single home market sale serves as the basis for 
comparison, Wieland argues, the results of the U.S./home market price 
comparison will depend completely on the date on which that home market 
sale was made, or, more particularly, on the metal pricing date for the 
metal component of the home market sale. Thus, Wieland argues, 
differences between U.S. and home market prices are caused by 
volatility in the market prices for copper, zinc, and tin, rather than 
by Wieland's brass sheet and strip pricing strategies. Wieland suggests 
that as an alternative the Department should use alloy groups for 
model-matching purposes. Wieland points out that differences in alloy 
costs could then be adjusted for with a sale-specific metal adjustment.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. Wieland's 
``game of chance'' complaint is not supported by the facts of the case 
or the methodology we used. This complaint hinges on Wieland's implicit 
suggestion that individual home market sales, or pairs of sales, 
somehow may not conform to its pricing policies. Wieland offers no 
evidence on the record that any home market sale prices should be 
excluded as unrepresentative. Wieland has not argued or demonstrated 
that some of its home market sales are outside the ordinary course of 
trade or are, for some other reason, inappropriate as the basis of FMV.
    While Wieland has alleged that there is a danger that price 
differences for identical merchandise comparisons might result from 
changes in commodity prices of components, it has not demonstrated that 
such price fluctuations should affect the model-match methodology.
    In the statutory definition of such or similar merchandise (section 
771(16) of the Act) there is a clear preference for matching U.S. sales 
to home market merchandise which is manufactured by the same producer, 
composed of the same materials, and approximately equal in value, 
before resorting to comparisons to less similar merchandise. Our 
approach reflects this preference; the respondent's approach would 
ignore it. We are not permitted to ignore contemporaneous sales of 
identical merchandise. Wieland's suggested approach simply does not 
conform to the requirements of the antidumping law and regulations.
    The risk of price differences caused by changes in the prices of 
commodities used as components is not unique to this proceeding but is 
inherent in price comparisons in many industries. That risk has not 
heretofore served as justification for omitting comparisons of U.S. 
sales to contemporaneous home market sales of identical or most similar 
merchandise. Yet the respondent's approach would make comparisons to 
identical or most similar merchandise impossible, by defining models so 
broadly that all comparisons would potentially include similar 
merchandise as well as identical merchandise (and would thus be subject 
to adjustments for differences in alloy values under 19 CFR 353.57(b)). 
But this grouped-alloy approach would not be warranted by the 
regulations cited above or by the facts of this review; using exact 
alloy comparisons, we were able to match a substantial portion of U.S. 
sales to home market merchandise of identical alloys, and all the 
remaining U.S. sales with home market merchandise containing one of the 
three most similar alloys.
    Comment 3: Wieland states that the Court of International Trade 
(CIT), addressing the model-matching issue in remanding the final 
results in the first administrative review, did not require the 
Department to abandon the use of two alloy groups, but merely asked the 
Department to articulate the reasons why it did not use the exact-alloy 
method. See Hussey Copper Ltd., v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 413 (CIT 
1993).
    Department's Position: As explained in our response to Comment 2 
above, the Department has concluded that the exact-alloy matching 
methodology more closely follows the statute, which requires us to make 
comparisons of identical merchandise, when this is possible, before 
making comparisons with similar merchandise.
    Comment 4: The petitioners request that the Department alter the 
hierarchy of traits used in matching U.S. sales to home market sales. 
In particular, the petitioners ask the Department to place alloy in the 
third position, instead of the fifth position. According to the 
petitioners, alloy was placed in the third position in certain other 
brass sheet and strip cases, and alloy specifications are more 
important to customers than gauge and width differences.
    Department's Position: The petitioners argue that the model-match 
methodology used in this review is a departure from the methodology 
used in reviews of brass sheet and strip from other countries. In fact, 
although there are many similarities in the methodologies used in the 
various brass sheet and strip cases, they are not identical. Because 
the facts of each case are distinct from those of other cases, 
different hierarchies are applied to the criteria to define home market 
sales of the most similar merchandise.
    In these reviews, the Department used five criteria to define 
models in order to 

[[Page 38544]]
compare sales: form, coating, gauge, width, and alloy. For those U.S. 
sales for which we did not find sales of identical home market 
merchandise, we determined that the most similar home market 
merchandise for comparison purposes was merchandise which was identical 
in form, coating, gauge, and width, and similar in alloy content. 
Therefore, we used specific programming instructions to search for 
contemporaneous home market sales of merchandise which was identical 
except for alloy. Thus, the only criterion for which we considered 
differences was alloy, no matter what the order of the criteria as 
listed in the program. Consequently, we do not agree with the 
petitioners' suggestion that we change the ordering of the criteria in 
a search for similar merchandise.
    Concerning the question of whether alloy is more important to 
customers than gauge and width specification, as the petitioners 
allege, we note that Wieland states in its February 23, 1995 Rebuttal 
Brief (p.3) that ``generally customers must have very precise gauges 
and widths to serve their particular purpose and to use with their 
particular equipment, and no gauge or width substitutes would be 
acceptable''. Notwithstanding the petitioners' allegation, there is 
nothing in the record of this review to confirm or support the 
petitioners' suggestion that customers have less flexibility in alloy 
than in gauge and width specifications, which typically have narrow 
tolerances reflecting the customers' machining or assembly 
requirements. Thus, the petitioners' assertion that alloy is more 
important than gauge and width to the respondent's customers is without 
foundation in the record of this review.
    Therefore, we have determined for these final results to use the 
model-matching methodology used for the preliminary results.

Differences in Average Order Size

    Comment 5: Defending its claim for adjustments in price to reflect 
the different average order sizes of its U.S. sales, Wieland contests 
our preliminary finding that it has not demonstrated a relationship 
between order size and price. In support of the claimed adjustment, 
Wieland cites the price lists in its questionnaire responses, the 
Department's verification report in the 1991-1992 administrative 
review, section 773(a)(4)(A) of the Act, and the regulations (19 CFR 
353.55).
    In rebuttal, the petitioners point to the Department's disallowance 
in the first review, as upheld by the CIT, concerning the same cost 
adjustment claim for different order sizes. The petitioners also note 
Wieland's failure to show that it met the regulatory requirement for 
such an adjustment, i.e., that Wieland must show that it ``granted 
quantity discounts of at least the same magnitude on 20 percent or more 
of sales of such or similar merchandise * * *'' (19 CFR 353.55(b)(1)).
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. The 
regulations do not allow for adjustments to price based merely on 
claimed differences in per-pound costs according to order size. The 
adjustments allowed are only for differences in price or discounts for 
different quantities produced. The regulations (19 CFR 353.55(b)(2)) 
provide for adjustments if ``the producer demonstrates * * * that the 
discounts reflect savings specifically attributable to the production 
of the different quantities.'' In its questionnaire response Wieland 
complied in part, by showing the savings, in the form of differences in 
per-kilogram costs for processing different order quantities. But 
Wieland did not place on the record any evidence of quantity discounts 
actually given, or information showing that prices were affected by 
different production quantities. Indeed, Wieland's questionnaire 
response states unequivocally: ``Wieland does not provide price-based 
quantity discounts''.
    The price list Wieland cites in this regard is not an adequate 
basis for this claim since it is a matter of record that the 
respondent's prices are negotiated ad hoc and do not necessarily follow 
the price list. The 1991-1992 verification report, in which we noted 
variations in prices for varying quantities in one particular contract, 
is not dispositive; our inspection of a contract in a verification does 
not signal our acceptance of a claimed adjustment to price. Wieland has 
the burden, in each review, of showing how its actual prices varied 
according to quantity, as required by 19 CFR 353.55.

Value-Added Tax

    Comment 6: While conceding that the practice is consistent with 
current Department policy on value-added tax (VAT), Wieland contests 
the Department's application of a 14-percent VAT adjustment to both 
U.S. and home market sales in this review, and requests that the 
Department instead add the actual home market VAT amount to U.S. price. 
Wieland alleges that the use of the VAT rate on sales in both markets 
introduces a multiplier effect. Wieland urges the Department to instead 
adopt its alternative solution, at least until this issue can be 
resolved more definitively by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC), once an appeal is heard in the case of Federal Mogul 
Corporation v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
    Department's Position: We disagree with Wieland. We adjusted U.S. 
Price (USP) and FMV for VAT in accordance with our practice, pursuant 
to the decision of the CIT in Federal-Mogul Corporation and the 
Torrington Company v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856 (October 7, 1993) 
(Federal-Mogul) and as outlined in Silicomanganese From Venezuela; 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 FR 
31204, June 17, 1994, where we address the multiplier effect issue in 
detail.
Commission Offset

    Comment 7: The petitioners argue that the Department should offset 
home market commissions for purchase price (PP) sales.
    Department's Position: We agree and have made an offset to FMV for 
PP sales based on U.S. indirect selling expenses, limited to the amount 
of commissions that were deducted from home market price.

Interest Rates Used in Credit Expenses

    Comment 8: In the 1990-1991 review period, neither Wieland nor its 
U.S. affiliate borrowed funds in the United States. To calculate the 
imputed credit expense on its ESP sales in that period, Wieland used a 
U.S. bank deposit interest rate. The petitioners argue that the 
Department should correct for Wieland's use of deposit interest rates, 
and replace them with home market borrowing rates. The petitioners cite 
the Department's position in Final Determination of Sales at less than 
Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Belgium 56 FR 56359 (November 
11, 1991) (Groundwood Paper), that a respondent must show that it had 
actual borrowings in the United States before the Department imputes 
credit expenses based upon U.S. rates.
    To calculate the imputed credit expense on its PP sales in the 
1990-1991 period, Wieland originally used its home market borrowing 
rates. However, in its February 13, 1995 rebuttal brief, Wieland asks 
the Department to ``correct this mistake'' and to replace the home 
market rates which it used for PP sales with the U.S. deposit rate 
which it used for ESP sales, because Department policy now requires 
that a U.S. interest rate be used to calculate imputed credit expense 
on U.S. sales.
    For the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 review periods, Wieland did have 
borrowings in the United States, and 

[[Page 38545]]
used Wieland-America's average short-term borrowing rate during the 
review period as the basis for calculating imputed credit expenses for 
both PP and ESP sales. For both of these reviews, the petitioners argue 
that Wieland-Werke's home market borrowing rate should be used as the 
basis for all U.S. credit expenses. The petitioners argue that Wieland-
Werke extended the credit and incurred the expense to finance the 
receivables. The petitioners also note that in the 1992-1993 period of 
review, Wieland discontinued invoicing its customers through Wieland-
America and instead billed its unrelated U.S. customers directly.
    The respondent argues that the Department correctly measured the 
cost of financing sales made in dollars by applying a dollar interest 
rate, citing Department policy in the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 6980, 6998 
(1995) (Comment 21) (Roses). Wieland also notes that in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Class 150 Stainless 
Steel Threaded Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (59 FR 38432 (July 28, 1994) 
(Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe)), the Department stated that it ``is 
required to use the lowest rate at which the respondent has borrowed or 
to which the respondent has access.''
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners and concur 
with the respondent that it is reasonable to use dollar-denominated 
borrowing rates in these reviews. The respondent is correct in arguing 
that the interest rate used for credit expenses should match the 
currency in which the sales are denominated, as stated in Roses.
    On the question of whether the parent's or the U.S. subsidiary's 
dollar-denominated borrowing rate should be applied, where a company 
had access, directly or through its U.S. affiliate, to two different 
dollar-denominated rates, the lower of the two rates is presumed to 
have been used. See, for example, Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe, where 
the Department calculated imputed credit for PP sales using the lower 
of two U.S. interest rates available to the respondent. See also Notice 
of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
France, 58 FR 37125 (1993) (Comment 30), in which the Department states 
that it does not concern itself with determining which of the corporate 
entities related to the respondent actually incurs the cost of 
financing.
    In this case, during the 1990-1991 POR neither the German parent 
nor the U.S. subsidiary had borrowings in U.S. dollars, and in the 
1991-1992 and 1992-1993 PORs, we are aware of only the U.S. subsidiary 
having U.S. borrowings. Therefore, for the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 
administrative reviews, we have used the U.S. subsidiary's interest 
rate for borrowings in U.S. dollars.
    Concerning Wieland's calculation of U.S. credit expenses in the 
1990-1991 review period and Wieland's request that we use deposit rates 
rather than borrowing rates, (1) as noted above in Class 150 Stainless 
Steel Pipe, we use actual borrowing rates or, if no borrowing occurred, 
borrowing rates to which the firm had access, either directly or 
through its U.S. affiliate; (2) it is our practice to use lending 
rates, as opposed to investment return or deposit rates, in calculating 
credit expenses (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Angle From 
Japan 60 FR 16608, March 31, 1995 (Comment 7)).
    As for the petitioner's reference to the Department's position in 
Groundwood Paper, our decision in Groundwood Paper has been superseded 
by more recent proceedings (see Final Determinations of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, 58 FR 37122, July 8, 1993). As stated 
later in Roses, in cases where there are no borrowings in the currency 
of the sales made, as in Wieland's 1990-1991 review period, the 
Department may use external information about the cost of borrowing in 
a particular currency. Since Wieland did not supply the U.S. borrowing 
rates to which it had access during the 1990-1991 review period, we 
have used the U.S. prime rate to calculate Wieland's imputed U.S. 
credit expenses for this period.

Use of Alloy CDA250

    Comment 9: The petitioners state that in the fifth review (1991-
1992) the Department should include home market sales with alloy grade 
CDA250 in its dumping analysis, in order to ensure that each U.S. sale 
is compared to the home market sales with the closest alloy composition 
for product matches in which an identical alloy match is not available.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have 
included these sales in our analysis for these final results.

Clerical and Programming Errors

    Comment 10: Wieland states, and the petitioners agree, that the 
Department's computer program fails to reflect all possible matches 
between U.S. and home market sales.
    Department's Position: We concur and have amended the programs by 
adding programming which ensures that all U.S. sales are correctly 
matched to home market sales.
    Comment 11: The respondent points out that adjustments for 
different alloys were not converted to pounds.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondent and have 
converted the adjustments for different alloys to pounds.
    Comment 12: The petitioners state that the Department failed to 
deduct commissions or direct and indirect selling expenses in its VAT 
tax adjustment when it calculated the net U.S. price for ESP sales.
    Department's Position: We agree in part with the petitioners. Since 
in the preliminary results we did not adjust U.S. commissions and 
indirect expenses for VAT, we have done so in these final results.

Clerical Errors Alleged in the Fourth Review Only

    Comment 13: The petitioners state that the Department failed to 
adjust FMV for the differences in metal costs whenever U.S. sales were 
matched to a home market sale of merchandise with a different alloy. 
Petitioners state that the Department should increase both the 
adjustment for different alloys and the adjustment for other 
differences in merchandise to account for the VAT.
    Department's Position: In the preliminary results, when matches 
were based on merchandise made of different alloys, we did adjust FMV 
for differences in alloys. However, we inadvertently failed to increase 
the adjustments for differences in merchandise and differences in 
alloys by the VAT rate. We have corrected this oversight for these 
final results.
    Comment 14: The petitioners state that the Department compared VAT-
inclusive U.S. prices to constructed values (CV) which had not been 
increased by the VAT rate.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners; we do not add 
VAT to CV, but in the preliminary results we inadvertently compared 
VAT-inclusive U.S. prices to CV. We have corrected the computer 
programming language by removing VAT from the U.S. prices which would 
be compared to CV. However, since CV was not used in these final 
results, this point is moot.

[[Page 38546]]

    Comment 15: The petitioners state that in its test for sales below 
cost in the home market, the Department neglected to subtract after-
sale rebates and freight charges. The petitioners further state that in 
calculating total cost, the Department neglected to include home market 
packing expenses.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners. After-sale 
rebates, home market packing expenses, and freight are included in 
reported costs, and are therefore also included in price for the 
purpose of the cost test.
    Comment 16: The petitioners state that the Department failed to add 
U.S. packing expenses to CV.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners; U.S. 
packing expenses were included in CV for the preliminary results. 
However, since CV was not used in these final results, this point is 
moot. Clerical Errors Alleged in the Fifth and Sixth Reviews
    Comment 17: The petitioners state the Department double-counted 
after-sale rebates by including them in both direct and indirect 
selling expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners, and have 
amended the final results to remove after-sale rebates from home market 
indirect selling expenses.
    Comment 18: The petitioners state that in the 1992-1993 review, the 
Department failed to include inventory carrying costs in the 
calculation of U.S. indirect selling expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree and have added inventory carrying 
costs to indirect selling expenses for ESP sales.
    Comment 19: Petitioner states that the Department should increase 
both the adjustment for different alloys and the adjustment for other 
differences in merchandise to account for the VAT.
    Department's Position: We inadvertently failed to increase the 
adjustments for differences in merchandise and differences in alloys by 
the VAT rate. We have corrected this oversight for these final results.

Final Results of Reviews

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
that the following margins exist for Wieland:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent 
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Period         margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG..........................     3/1/90-2/28/91       2.04
                                               3/1/91-2/28/92       2.36
                                               3/1/92-2/28/93       0.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the 
above percentages. The Department shall instruct the Customs Service to 
liquidate all appropriate entries.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rate for Wieland will be zero, since the rate 
published in the final results of review for the 1993-1994 period is de 
minimis;
    (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 these reviews, a prior 
review, or the original less-than-fair-value (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 or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 8.87%, the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during the review periods. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to 
sanction. These administrative reviews and this notice are in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 
19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: July 11, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-18397 Filed 7-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P