[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14049-14057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7615]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-602-803]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Australia; 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 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 16, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant 
carbon steel flat products from Australia. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994. We gave 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary 
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have 
changed the results from those presented in the preliminary results of 
review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Bolling or Jean Kemp, Office of 
Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 16, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 42507) the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant 
carbon steel flat products from Australia (58 FR 44161, August 19, 
1993). The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of this Review

    The products covered by this administrative review constitute one 
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products. These products include flat-rolled carbon steel 
products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with 
corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, 
nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, 
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in 
addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in 
successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or 
greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 
millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures 
at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 
millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and 
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the 
HTS under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 
7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 
7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 
7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 
7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 
7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included are flat-rolled 
products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is 
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have 
been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded are flat-rolled steel 
products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium 
oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium and 
chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted, varnished 
or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to 
the metallic coating. Also excluded are clad products in straight 
lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width 
which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the 
thickness. Also excluded are certain clad stainless flat-rolled 
products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness 
that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

[[Page 14050]]
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 
These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The period of 
review (POR) is February 4, 1993 through July 31, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received comments and rebuttal comments from 
both parties, The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd. (BHP) and 
petitioners. At the request of BHP and petitioners a hearing was held 
on October 5, 1995.
    Comment 1: Respondent states that the Department erred in 
preliminarily denying BHP its ``constructive'' quantity discount. 
Respondent argues that, because the Department verified that BHP 
granted quantity discounts on more than 20 percent of its home market 
sales, under section 353.55(b)(1) of the Department's regulations it 
follows inescapably that ``the discounts granted were of at least the 
same magnitude.''
    Respondent illustrated how this result must follow. Assuming 
respondent granted discounts of 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent and 
25 percent on 4 out of 10 sales, then discounts were granted on 40% of 
the total sales, and respondent asserts that the discounts granted were 
of at least the same magnitude as the minimum discount because each 
discount was of at least 10 percent. Respondent argues further that 
even though it only provided the average quantity discount, as opposed 
to the actual quantity discount given on each sale at issue, this so-
called ``constructive'' quantity discount was arrived at by using 
actual figures, i.e., by dividing the total value of discounts by the 
number of tonnage that received an actual discount. For any sale which 
received less than the average discount, or no discount, a value up to 
the ``constructive'' discount was reported. Moreover, the respondent 
contends that because the Department verified each of the 
``constructive'' quantity discounts associated with the pre-selected 
and surprise sales at verification by using the actual public and 
internal price lists and checking actual quantity discounts granted, 
this is sufficient to justify the reliability of the average discount 
constructed by BHP.
    Respondent states that granting the ``constructive'' quantity 
discount need not establish a wholesale-type precedent since BHP's 
factual information is unique. Therefore, based upon the facts of 
record, it is entitled to its ``constructive'' quantity discount 
adjustment pursuant to section 353.55(b)(1) of the Department's 
regulations.
    Petitioners argue that BHP has not demonstrated a basis for 
granting the quantity discount under the Department's regulations. 
Petitioners take issue with BHP's assertion that discounts are of at 
least the same magnitude as the smallest discount amount granted on any 
sale because the smallest discount amount is not the amount reported as 
the constructive quantity discount. Petitioners state that the actual 
discounts given, or extras charged by, respondent were not of the same 
magnitude as the reported ``constructive'' quantity discount. Moreover, 
petitioners point out that at verification BHP made no attempt to 
demonstrate that its actual quantity discounts were of the same 
magnitude as the reported ``constructive'' quantity discount. In 
addition, petitioners state that a respondent must also establish that 
it granted discounts to home market customers on a uniform basis, and 
that the evidence confirms that quantity discounts were not charged on 
a uniform basis, rather they varied based on quantity purchased, 
product type, and whether the product was painted.
    Department's Position: We disagree with respondent. To be eligible 
for a quantity-based discount, a respondent must demonstrate a clear 
and direct correlation between price differences and quantities sold. 
(See e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 53 FR 23,431, 33 
(1988). Pursuant to 353.55(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, in 
order to receive this adjustment a respondent must establish that it 
gave quantity discounts of at least the same magnitude on 20 percent or 
more of its home market sales of such or similar merchandise. That is 
to say that the discount amounts submitted must be at least as large as 
the discounts granted on 20 percent or more of all home market sales of 
such or similar merchandise. If this test is met the Department applies 
a discount adjustment equal to the minimum discount given.
    Regardless of the fact that the Department verified that BHP had 
granted quantity discounts on more than 20 percent of its home market 
sales, because BHP only provided the Department with an average 
discount amount, which it applied across the board to all home market 
sales it claimed received a quantity-based discount, the Department has 
no way of determining which of the actual discounts granted were at 
least as large as the average discount claimed by BHP.
    The hypothetical example proffered by BHP illustrates its 
misreading of 353.55(b)(1). BHP points to the smallest discount of 10 
percent in the hypothetical example and concludes that because the 
other discounts in the example were all higher, it must follow that its 
average ``constructed'' discount amount will always be of at least the 
same magnitude as the minimum discount. However, it is not the minimum 
discount that we are concerned with. In BHP's example the average 
discount, which is 17.5 percent, while at least as large as 10 and 15 
percent, is not of the same magnitude as 20 and 25 percent. By 
definition, the average discount can never be at least as large as 
those discounts which are higher than the average.
    While the Department can agree with BHP's argument that quantity 
discounts granted on more than 20 percent of its home market sales must 
be of at least the same magnitude as the minimum discount granted, we 
cannot determine what that minimum discount was from the 
``constructed'' average submitted by BHP. Therefore, we cannot 
establish the proper amount of the claimed adjustment. Lastly, as 
petitioners correctly point out, the Department also requires that a 
respondent establish that it gave discounts on a uniform basis which 
were available to substantially all home market customers, which BHP 
failed to demonstrate. Therefore, the Department will disallow the 
adjustment for the purposes of the final results.
    Comment 2: Respondent argues that for its preliminary results, the 
Department omitted certain home market sales of its prime merchandise. 
Respondent explains that it reported all of its prime sales (by 
PRIMEH='1' and by PRIMEH='3'), as well as its non-prime sales, which 
included seconds and downgraded merchandise (by PRIMEH='2').
    However, the respondent notes that the Department included in the 
home market database only prime 1 sales (``WHERE PRIMEH='1'') and 
omitted prime 3 sales (``WHERE PRIMEH='3''). Respondent claims that the 
reason it reported some of its prime as PRIMEH='3' was in response to a 
Department request that overruns be separately reported, but respondent 
asserts that in its normal course of business it does not distinguish 
between its prime product and prime overruns. Respondent claims that 
prime overruns are sold in the home market as prime surplus stock, and 
that standard customer agreements grant an option to buy both prime and 
prime surplus. Consequently, respondent argues that

[[Page 14051]]
the record establishes that products designated as PRIMEH='1' and 
PRIMEH='3' are prime products, and that the Department should correct 
the program to include sales of the latter even though they are 
overruns.
    Petitioners argue that the Department correctly excluded overrun 
sales from the foreign market value calculation. Petitioners assert 
that it is Department practice to exclude overrun sales that are 
outside the ordinary course of trade. Petitioners contend that looking 
at the factors that the Department uses to determine whether overruns 
are sold in the ordinary course of business, sales of BHP's overruns 
are outside the ordinary course of trade. Petitioners argue that record 
evidence of differences in prices, profit margins, sales quantities, 
and sales practices between prime and overruns, all support their claim 
that these sales are outside the ordinary course of trade.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. It is the 
Department's established practice to include home market sales of such 
or similar merchandise unless it can be established that such sales 
were not made in the ordinary course of trade. (See e.g., Final 
Determination of Stainless Steel Angle From Japan, 60 FR 16608, 16614-
15 (1995)). Section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act and section 353.46(a) of 
the Department's regulations provide that foreign market value shall be 
based on the price at which or similar merchandise is sold in the 
exporting country in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption. 
Section 771(15) of the Act defines ordinary course of trade as 
conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the 
exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade 
with respect to merchandise of the same class or kind. (See, also 
section 353.46(b))
    In looking at overruns in making this determination the Department 
typically examines several factors taken together, with no one factor 
dispositive. (See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and 
Tubes From India, 56 FR 64753, 64755 (1991)). In this case, we 
examined: (a) whether the home market sales in question did, if fact, 
consist of production overruns; (b) whether differences in physical 
characteristics or different product uses existed between overruns and 
ordinary production; (c) whether the number of buyers of overruns in 
the home market and the sales volume and quantity (tonnage) of overruns 
were similar or dissimilar as compared to prime merchandise; and (d) 
whether the price and profit differentials between sales of overruns 
and ordinary production were dissimilar. In considering these factors 
as a whole, we found that sales of overrun corrosion-resistant steel 
were made in the ordinary course of trade.
    Evidence indicates that home market sales of Prime3 were sales of 
overruns. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that there 
were any differences in product characteristics between prime 
merchandise and overruns. BHP's standard customer agreements provided 
an option to purchase either prime merchandise or overruns, which BHP 
label's as prime surplus, as they arise on their surplus stock list. 
(See Verification Exhibit BHP-9(b)) There is nothing in the record to 
indicate that overruns have different physical characteristics than 
prime merchandise or are used for different purposes. Record evidence 
establishes that the cost of producing prime and the cost of producing 
overruns is the same, and standard customer agreements do not 
distinguish between physical characteristics or product uses.
    Also, the record reflects that there was a high number of buyers of 
overruns in relation to the number of buyers of prime merchandise sales 
and, in most instances, they were the same purchasers. In addition, in 
relation to the total quantity and volume of home market sales of prime 
merchandise, overruns accounted for a not insignificant percentage. 
With regard to pricing differences between prime merchandise and 
overruns, the record demonstrates that there were a variety of pricing 
differences. Several sales of overruns were at prices many times higher 
than prices for prime merchandise, several were sold at a substantial 
percentage of the price of prime merchandise, and some were sold at a 
small percentage of the price of prime. Record evidence indicates that 
the average profit margin on overruns was not insignificant, although 
the average profit margin on prime merchandise was much greater. All 
these factors when looked at in totality lead us to conclude that sales 
of `PRIMEH=3' were sold in the ordinary course of trade, and we will 
for the final results include home market sales of overruns.
    Comment 3: Respondent asserts that notwithstanding the paucity of 
sales found to be below cost, it provided the Department with 
information that demonstrates that it will recover costs on these few 
below cost sales within a reasonable period of time.
    Respondent asserts that under the law and the Department's practice 
it is entitled to a finding of cost recovery. Respondent notes that the 
Court of International Trade (CIT) has stated that ``[t]he issue * * * 
is not whether the record supports the conclusion that [the respondent] 
would be able to recover its costs at the prices charged during the 
investigatory period within a reasonable period of time in the normal 
course of trade, but whether there is substantial evidence on the 
record supporting Commerce's determination that [the respondent] could 
not recover its costs at these prices in such time period.'' NSK Ltd. 
v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 115 (CIT 1992) (quoting Toho Titanium 
Co. v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 1019, 1022 (CIT 1987)). Respondent 
further asserts that the CIT has stated that the Department must 
support its cost recovery conclusion with supporting calculations or 
analytical explanations, ``using either the data already collected or, 
if necessary, by collecting further data'' that cost recovery will not 
occur within a reasonable period time. See Toho, 670 F. Supp. at 1022.
    Respondent states that it is aware that, in past cases, parties 
alleging cost recovery have not provided the Department with adequate 
data, but respondent argues that it provided detailed evidence of 
declining production costs and efficiency gains when it submitted 
information about APEX, a cost reduction program it undertook with the 
assistance of McKinsey Consultants and charts demonstrating cost 
reductions achieved over successive six month periods during the POR. 
This, coupled with the fact that so few sales were found by the 
Department to be below cost, respondent asserts is sufficient to shift 
the burden on the Department to demonstrate with substantial evidence 
that cost recovery did not occur.
    Petitioners argue that respondent has the burden of proof to 
demonstrate that it will recover the costs of below cost sales within a 
reasonable period of time, a burden respondent has failed to meet. 
Petitioners argue that respondent failed to demonstrate that it could 
recover its costs at the model-specific below cost prices. Petitioners 
assert that respondent is required to demonstrate how any reduction in 
the future cost of production for the products sold below cost would 
translate into recovery of costs on those products for prior periods. 
(NSK Ltd. v. United States Slip-OP. 95-138 (CIT 1995)) Petitioners 
assert that while the determination of what constitutes a reasonable 
period of time is the Department's, respondent was also unable to 
identify and justify the period of time within which costs could be 
recovered and demonstrate that this was a reasonable period of time for 
cost recovery.

[[Page 14052]]

    Department's Position: Section 773(b) of the Act provides that the 
Department will determine whether sales are made at less than the cost 
of producing the subject merchandise. If sales made below cost are not 
at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time in the normal course of trade, such sales shall be disregarded 
in determining FMV. What must be demonstrated is that the prices which 
are below cost during the POR are at a level such that those prices 
would permit not only sufficient revenue to cover future costs, but 
also exceed future costs to a degree which permits recovery of past 
losses. (See, e.g., Granular Polyethelrafluoroethylene Resin From 
Japan, 58 FR 50343, 50346 (1993); Timken Co. V. United States, 673 F. 
Supp. 495, 516-17 (CIT 1987)) (Court holding that the term ``prices'' 
in section 773(b) refers only to prices of below cost sales and not to 
prices of above cost sales).
    One situation recognized by Congress which might permit recovery of 
losses on below cost sales within a reasonable period of time is an 
industry, such as the airline industry, which incurs large research and 
development costs that cannot be immediately recovered by sales. (See 
S. Rep. No. 1298, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 173 (1974), reprinted in 1974 
U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 7188, 7310; Toho Tinanium Co. v. United 
States, 670 F. Supp. 1091, 1021 (CIT 1987). The Department's practice 
also recognizes that extremely high production costs associated with an 
extraordinary event not required for the continuous production of the 
merchandise may be recoverable by future sales at the same prices 
within a reasonable period of time. (See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking 
Ware From Mexico, 58 FR 32095, 32102 (1993)). The evidence placed on 
the record by respondent does not support any such finding.
    BHP did submit evidence of the results of certain cost-cutting 
measures undertaken by the company during the POR which demonstrates 
that total operating costs did decline in that period. BHP points to 
this cost reduction as proof that it would be able to offset losses 
from below cost sales made during the POR using revenues from 
profitable, lower-cost sales made within a reasonable period of time 
thereafter. That is, if the company's cost of production declines in 
the future below the prices of below cost sales made during the POR, 
then those same sales prices may, in the future, allow recoupment of 
all costs and past losses.
    Much of the information we relied on in analyzing respondent's 
claims is proprietary. (See Memo to the File, Cost Recovery 
(proprietary version) (February 28, 1996)). Although we found a general 
reduction in BHP's total operating costs, as well as a general increase 
in productivity and production volume, during the POR, the cost 
reductions and productivity/ production increases were not sustained 
and, in several instances, actually began to reverse direction during 
the POR. This, together with our finding that the prices of the below-
cost sales during the POR were below average POR costs, leads us to 
conclude that the information provided by respondent regarding its cost 
reduction programs during the POR does not support it contention that 
the company's below-cost sales were at prices that would allow recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, from a 
review of the record evidence, we conclude that BHP's below cost sales 
must be disregarded in calculating FMV.
    Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department should use BHP's 
reported interest rate to calculate inventory carrying costs and credit 
expenses. Respondent asserts that the intra-corporate interest rate it 
provided at verification is the Australian equivalent of the U.S. prime 
rate, and that the Federal Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin 
(Bulletin) provided at verification reflects the short-term commercial 
interest rates (Large Business), which correspond to respondent's 
internal interest rates. Respondent notes that the Department in its 
analysis memorandum found ``[t]hese rates were not substantially 
different from the related-party rates reported by BHP, however, it is 
not clear whether these rates represent short- or long-term rates.'' 
Respondent asserts that the rates listed under the Large Business 
column of the Bulletin are a set of rates ``offered by four major 
Australian banks,'' and that rate is the Australian equivalent of the 
U.S. prime rate, which is a short-term rate by definition. Therefore, 
respondent contends that the Department should use the intra-corporate 
rate reported by BHP because this interest rate was not substantially 
different from the Large Business rate and these rates are short-term 
and market-driven.
    Petitioners assert that there is no evidence on the record that the 
``Large Business'' rate is the Australian equivalent of the U.S. prime 
rate, and that from this evidence the Department could not tell whether 
or not these rates represent long- or short-term rates. Furthermore, 
petitioners argue that it is Department practice not to accept an 
intra-corporate rate, since such a lending rate need not reflect 
commercial reality in the marketplace. Petitioners contend that the 
commercial bill rate selected by the Department is a permissible and 
reasonable Best Information Available (BIA) because it represents the 
interest rate for 90-day commercial lending in the home market.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners . It is not the 
Department's practice to rely upon intra-corporate lending rates that 
are merely intra-company transfers of funds. (See, e.g., Tapered Roller 
Bearing and Parts, Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 57 FR 
4960, 71 (1992) (Comm. 32)). Additionally, even though BHP's intra-
corporate rate was comparable to the Australian ``Large Business'' 
rate, BHP failed to provide evidence on the record to support its 
contention that the Australian ``Large Business'' rate is a short-term 
rate. Therefore, for the final results we will continue to use 
information on the record regarding the Australian quarterly rates for 
commercial bills (90 days) in effect during the POR as quoted in the 
OECD's ``Main Economic Indicators'' for May 1995.
    Comment 5: Petitioners contend that respondent failed to report an 
unknown quantity of U.S. sales by its subsidiary BHP Steel Building 
Products (Building Products) of further manufactured merchandise made 
from Australian coils subject to review, and that BHP impermissibly 
reported only Building Products sales that Building Products could link 
to Australian coil tonnage entered during the POR. Petitioners assert 
that the Department requires that all ESP sales during the POR be 
reported, regardless of whether or not the subject merchandise 
(Australian coils) entered before suspension of liquidation.
    In addition, petitioners contend that the Department verified that 
Building Products did not report all of its sales of subject 
merchandise sold during the POR, and that the Department's verification 
of the total sales reported did not address the (1) unreported sales of 
accessories, (2) intra-company transfers of coil tonnage, and (3) 
unaccounted for coil tonnage.
    Petitioners claim that all sales made during the POR must be 
reported and point to Industrial Belts from Italy, 57 FR 8295, 8296 
(1992 1st Review) and Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR 29553 
(June 5, 1995) to support their position. In Industrial Belts From 
Italy petitioners assert that all sales, including sales from 
merchandise entered before the POR, were reported and used to ensure 
that there was no manipulation of the dumping margin.

[[Page 14053]]
However, petitioners argue that Building Products unilaterally decided 
which sales to report. Therefore, the Department should apply a BIA 
rate to all of Building Products unreported sales by applying the 
higher of (1) the ``second-tier'' margin under its AFBs 1992 partial 
BIA methodology, or (2) the highest non-aberrant margin in a given 
case.
    Respondent asserts that petitioners incorrectly contend that 
respondent did not report sales made during the POR from tonnage 
sourced from Australia which was in Building Products inventory prior 
to the suspension of liquidation, i.e., from coils entered before the 
POR. Respondent denies that it decided unilaterally not to report sales 
made during the POR which could not be linked to tonnage entered during 
the POR. In fact, respondent asserts that sales made from coils in 
beginning inventory (i.e., coils in inventory at the beginning of 
suspension of liquidation) constituted the bulk of Building Products 
reported sales during the POR. Respondent further asserts that all 
sales emanating from coils in beginning inventory were reported because 
respondent was unable to establish that these coils had, in fact, 
entered prior to the suspension of liquidation.
    Respondent claims that it identified sales of subject merchandise 
(in coil form) in 2 ways; it made a list of all coils in Building 
Products inventory at the time of suspension of liquidation, which were 
termed beginning inventory, and a list of all coils shipped from 
Australia that entered during the POR, which were identified as 
liability coils. Respondent asserts that from both of these lists 
Building Products then tracked all coils as they moved through 
inventory and production and into a particular line item on an invoice, 
representing a sale of subject merchandise. Respondent argues that the 
Department verified the completeness of Building Products response, 
including its reporting of sales made from beginning inventory. 
Therefore, respondent argues that petitioner is completely wrong in 
claiming that respondent did not report all sales made from Australian 
coils, whether or not they entered prior to, or after, suspension of 
liquidation.
    Additionally, respondent contends that Building Products not being 
able to account for all of the weight of the liability coils is not the 
result of respondent failing to report all sales from liability coil, 
as petitioners argue. Rather, this missing percentage merely reflects 
scrap and accessory sales made during the POR, as demonstrated by 
verification exhibits, and therefore no sales from liability coils were 
missing and not reported.
    Moreover, respondent asserts that Building Products had no sales of 
accessories which could be identified as being of Australian origin. 
Respondent claims that accessory sales are, like scrap, a percentage of 
coil used, and that verification exhibits demonstrate that the 
percentage of coil weight for accessories approximates that 
attributable to scrap. Respondent asserts that when a coil is roll-
formed, portions are lost in the process. This scrap is then collected 
and placed in a bin and from this point on the scrap's origin cannot be 
identified. Respondent contends that, as with scrap, when a small 
portion of a coil is subsequently converted into an accessory item, the 
origin of the accessory can no longer be identified. Therefore, 
Building Products was unable to identify accessory sales made from 
Australian coil.
    Department's Position: Except with regard to accessories, we agree 
with the respondent that it properly reported all sales made during the 
POR. At verification, we confirmed Building Products total sales 
universe of its reported sales to the first unrelated party during the 
POR. Our review established that Building Products properly linked all 
the ESP sales of further-manufactured goods to coils of subject 
merchandise from both beginning inventory and from liability coils, 
which included inter-company transfers of Australian tonnage. 
Additionally, we verified respondents method for ascertaining how 
further manufactured goods were produced from Australian subject coil 
and how respondents accounted for and sold the merchandise to the first 
unrelated party. We found this methodology accurately tracked all 
further manufactured sales (See Building Products Verification Report, 
May 19, 1995 and Sales Trace Exhibits BP53-BP61). We traced the subject 
coil from each sourced point to Building Products records (See 
verification Exhibits BP-22 through BP30(a)). In addition, we traced 
the linkage establishing total tonnage shipped from Sheet and Coil 
Products Division (SCPD) to Building Products (See verification 
Exhibits BHP-27 through BHP28), and found that Building Products has 
reported all of its sales from Australian sourced tonnage.
    In Industrial Belts From Italy the Department indicated that it 
would presume that all ESP sales of subject merchandise made during the 
POR were from subject merchandise entered after the date of suspension 
of liquidation and thus subject to antidumping duties, unless the 
respondent could affirmatively demonstrate that particular subject 
merchandise sold during the POR was entered prior to the POR. As in 
Industrial Belts from Italy, because Building Products was unable to 
link any sales with subject merchandise (coil tonnage) that entered the 
U.S. prior to the date of suspension of liquidation (February 4, 1993), 
all sales during the POR of merchandise made from Australian coils were 
reported by respondent. Therefore, we have included all sales made 
during the POR in our margin calculation. The Department accepts that 
it was impossible for Building Products to link sales of accessories, 
which only account for an insignificant portion of total sales, to 
particular coils of Australian origin. However, sales of accessories 
cannot properly be excluded. Therefore, the Department has treated all 
accessories as sales made from Australian-origin coil and has assigned 
to those sales the weighted-average margin based on all other sales 
made during the POR. (See e.g., AFBs From Germany, 54 FR 18,992, 19,033 
(1989); National Steel v. United States, 870 F. Supp. 857 (1994)).
    Comment 6: Respondent states that while, in the preliminary 
results, the Department denied BHP's claim for a cash (settlement) 
discount in the home market, the Department requested updated 
information for payment and shipment dates from BHP after the 
preliminary results were issued. Pursuant to the Department's 
instructions, on September 7, 1995, BHP submitted a computer tape 
containing updated payment and shipment dates. Therefore, respondent 
asserts that the Department should allow the cash (settlement) 
discounts adjustment reported for those sales in the final results.
    Petitioners argue that the Department correctly denied the reported 
cash discounts for sales for which respondent had not originally 
reported a date of payment. Although respondent has since provided 
shipment and payment dates for these sales, petitioners argue that the 
Department has not verified these dates and the estimated cash discount 
amounts reported by respondent. Additionally, petitioners assert that 
some of these sales with a certain term of payment were found at 
verification by the Department to have been misreported and thus 
unverified. Therefore, the Department should not deduct the estimated 
cash discounts amounts on any of these sales.
    Petitioners also contend that in the preliminary results, the 
Department deducted a cash discount with regard to a particular 
customer on certain home market sales even though the

[[Page 14054]]
Department verified that no discount was given. Therefore, the 
Department must deny cash discounts claimed on these particular home 
market sales to this customer.
    In rebuttal respondent notes that while it originally reported cash 
discounts on certain sales to this particular customer even though it 
did not actually grant the discounts, it deleted these cash discounts 
from the revised data BHP submitted after the preliminary results were 
published. Respondent also notes that this customer failed the arms-
length test so the sales were excluded from the calculation of BHP's 
fair market value in any event.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. In the 
Department's preliminary results, we stated that we would request the 
updated shipment and payment date information from BHP after the 
preliminary results were issued. The Department has analyzed the 
information BHP submitted on September 7, 1995, and found the 
information to be consistent with the verified information (See, BHP's 
Verification Report dated May 23, 1995, p. 17). Therefore, for the 
final results the Department will use the updated shipment and payment 
date information.
    With regard to a cash discount granted at the preliminary results 
to a customer who was not eligible to receive a discount, we agree with 
respondent that this customer, which did not actually receive the 
discount, failed the arms-length test. Therefore, the Department is 
excluding its sales from the Department's margin calculation program.
    Comment 7: Petitioners allege that because BHP failed to use a 
proper U.S. interest rate in the calculation of credit expenses and 
inventory carrying costs, in the preliminary results the Department was 
forced to use a BIA rate of 3.44 percent, which was the average of the 
Federal Reserve Statistical Release one month commercial paper rates. 
However, petitioners state that the Department should use the home 
market short-term interest as a BIA rate because respondent had no U.S. 
borrowings and did not show it had access to U.S. borrowing. Therefore, 
in keeping with the Department's practice and the holdings of review 
courts, the use of a U.S. interest rate to calculate U.S. credit 
expense and inventory carrying costs is not appropriate. (See, Gray 
Portland Cement and Clinker From Japan, 60 FR 43761, 67 (1995)) 
Additionally, petitioners argue that the BIA rate applied by the 
Department in the preliminary results was not sufficiently adverse. 
Therefore, the Department should use the short-term interest rate BHP 
obtained when borrowing in the home market when calculating U.S. credit 
expense and inventory carrying costs.
    Respondent asserts that it has not advocated use of its home market 
interest rate as a surrogate for the U.S. interest rate, as claimed by 
petitioners. Respondent contends that the petitioners are incorrect in 
claiming that it is the Department's practice to rely upon actual home 
market interest rates when a respondent has no U.S. dollar borrowings 
and provides no proof that it had access to U.S. borrowings. Rather, 
respondent asserts that the Department will now look to external 
information to determine an appropriate interest rate even in the 
absence of proof of access. (See, Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany, 
60 FR 38542, 38545 (1995)) Moreover, respondent argues that, in any 
event, it provided evidence that it had access to U.S. borrowings.
    Department's Position: When a respondent has no U.S. borrowings, it 
is no longer the Department's practice to substitute home market 
interest rates when calculating U.S. credit expense and U.S. inventory 
carrying costs. Rather, the Department will now match the interest rate 
used for credit expenses to the currency in which the sales are 
denominated. The Department will use the actual borrowing rates 
obtained by a respondent, either directly, or through related 
affiliates. Where there is no borrowing in a particular currency, the 
Department may use external information about the cost of borrowing in 
that currency. (See Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany 60 FR at 
38545,46 (1995)) Because respondent did not supply the Department with 
an actual U.S. borrowing rate, for the preliminary results, we turned 
to external information and applied the average of the Federal Reserve 
Statistical Release one-month commercial paper rates in effect during 
the POR to calculate U.S. credit expenses and inventory carrying costs.
    For the final results, we have reconsidered our use of the 
commercial paper rate. BHP provided no evidence that it would have had 
access to commercial paper rates in the United States during the POR. 
To show access to a U.S. rate, BHP provided the Department a letter 
from a U.S. bank stating the prime and LIBOR rates in effect during the 
POR. (See Verification Exhibit BT-32) However, this document does not 
state that this bank would have lent funds at/above/below these rates 
had BHP sought to borrow funds during the POR. This document also does 
not speak to the availability of commercial paper rates.
    In the absence of U.S. dollar borrowings, we need to arrive at a 
reasonable surrogate for imputing U.S. credit expense. There are many 
and varied factors that determine at what rate a firm can borrow funds, 
such as the size of the firm, its creditworthiness, and its 
relationship with the lending bank. Without actual U.S. dollar 
borrowings and without substantial evidence on the record indicating 
what rates a firm is likely to have received if it had borrowed 
dollars, it is impossible to predict the rate at which a company would 
have borrowed dollars. Therefore, we chose the average short-term 
lending rate as calculated by the Federal Reserve. Each quarter the 
Federal Reserve collects data on loans made during the first full week 
of the mid-month of each quarter by sampling 340 commercial banks of 
all sizes. The sample data are used to estimate the terms of loans 
extended during that week at all insured commercial banks. This rate 
represents a reasonable surrogate for an actual dollar interest rate 
because it is calculated based on actual loans to a variety of actual 
customers.
    For these reasons, we have recalculated BHP's imputed U.S. credit 
expense based on the average lending rate during the POR, as published 
by the Federal Reserve. (See the Final Analysis Memorandum for this 
review, which is on file in room B-099 of the main building of the 
Commerce Department)
    Comment 8: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the 
Department erred when it used gross unit price in calculating home 
market inventory carrying costs, but used average cost of manufacture 
(TCOMU) when it calculated U.S. inventory carrying costs. Petitioners 
state it is not the Department's practice to calculate inventory 
carrying cost based on cost in the U.S. market and price in the home 
market. Petitioners state inventory carrying costs should be compared 
on a fair apples-to-apples basis based on cost of the merchandise in 
both markets. In addition, petitioners note that the Department erred 
in calculating U.S. inventory carrying costs by averaging the cost of 
the merchandise rather than using the actual product-specific costs, 
because it is the Department's practice to use actual product-specific 
costs. Therefore, petitioners argue that the Department should 
recalculate inventory carrying cost based on total cost of manufacture 
in both markets.
    Respondent states that the Department did not calculate U.S. 
inventory carrying costs based on

[[Page 14055]]
prices, but based on average costs. Respondent notes that BHP submitted 
data in its responses pursuant to that methodology and the data was 
verified by the Department. Respondent also states that while gross 
price does appear in the Department's program with respect to inventory 
carrying cost, it is used (to no effect) only to ``convert'' BHP's 
inventory carrying expense, not to calculate it. Respondent argues that 
no change is required in the program because the Department did not 
calculate inventory carrying cost based upon home market gross unit 
price.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Contrary to the 
respondent's claim, in the preliminary results the Department erred in 
relying upon home market prices in calculating home market carrying 
costs, while calculating U.S. inventory carrying costs based on the 
cost of manufacture. It is the Department's practice to calculate 
inventory carrying costs based on costs of the merchandise in both 
markets (See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 Fed. Reg. 29553 
(June 5, 1995)). Moreover, it is our practice to base the calculation 
on product-specific rather than average costs (See, Television 
Receivers, Monochrome and Color From Japan, 56 FR 38417, 423 (1991)). 
Therefore, for the final results the Department will calculate 
inventory carrying costs based on the product-specific costs of the 
merchandise in both markets.
    Comment 9: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the 
Department incorrectly included pre-sale transportation expenses from 
the U.S. port to the warehousing and manufacturing operations of BHP 
Coated Steel Corporation (Coated) and Building Products as indirect 
selling expenses. Petitioners state that on those ESP sales that are 
further manufactured, the questionnaire and Department practice require 
that these transportation costs be included in the cost of further 
manufacture. On ESP sales that are not further manufactured, Section 
772(d)(2)(A) of the Act clearly instructs the Department to treat 
theses expenses as direct expenses. Accordingly, petitioners argue that 
on these sales by Coated and Building Products the pre-sale freight 
should be deducted as a cost of manufacture or direct expense.
    Department's Position: Section 772(d)(2)(A) requires that the 
Department deduct from USP all movement expenses incurred in bringing 
the merchandise from the place of shipment in the country of 
exportation to the place of delivery in the United States, regardless 
of whether sales of the merchandise are purchase price or ESP 
transactions. The Department does not treat these movement expenses as 
selling expenses, either direct or indirect, such as are incurred 
pursuant to section 772(e)(2). (See e.g. Television Receivers, 
Monochrome and Color, From Japan, 56 FR 37,078 (1991)); and Sharp 
Corporation v. United States, 63 F. 3d 1092 (August 1995)(upholding the 
Department's practice of distinguishing U.S. movement expenses from 
U.S. selling expenses and of limiting the ESP offset cap in adjusting 
FMV to the indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. that are 
deducted under 772(e)(2).) Therefore, for the final results, the 
Department will deduct pre-sale transportation expenses from these ESP 
sales that were not further manufactured. We note that for expenses for 
the movement of the imported product to the place of further 
manufacture prior to sale will be deducted as part of the cost of 
further manufacture (See e.g., Stainless Steel Hollow Products From 
Sweden, 59 FR 43810, 43813 (1994)).
    Comment 10: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the 
Department incorrectly included as indirect selling expenses slitting 
and painting costs that BHP Trading, Inc. (Trading) paid to unrelated 
parties for certain sales. Petitioners state that because these costs 
are directly identified with specific sales these expenses must be 
deducted from USP under section 772(d)(2)(A).
    Department's Position: Section 772 (e)(3), which states that the 
exporter's sales price will be reduced by ``any increased value, 
including additional material and labor, resulting from a process of 
manufacture or assembly performed on the imported merchandise after the 
importation of the merchandise and before its sale to a person who is 
not the exporter of the merchandise,'' applies here. Pursuant to that 
provision, for the final results, the Department will correct the 
margin calculation program and will deduct from ESP Trading's further 
processing expenses including slitting and painting costs. For a full 
discussion of how we arrived at the total cost of manufacturing of 
these further manufactured sales, see the Final Analysis Memorandum for 
this review, which is on file in room B-099 of the main building of the 
Commerce Department.
    Comment 11: For the preliminary results, petitioners state that the 
Department had to recalculate U.S. credit expenses because BHP's 
inaccurate reporting of payment and shipment dates caused the 
Department's margin computer program to calculate incorrect credit 
amounts on thousands of sales. Petitioners state that the 
miscalculation was caused by BHP reporting a zero in the payment date 
field for sales by Building Products, and the reporting of obviously 
incorrect shipment dates between June 1995 and December 1999 on sales 
by Building Products. Petitioners argue that for the final results the 
Department should follow its standard practice of using as BIA the 
highest credit cost calculated on any U.S. sale by Building Products 
which has a zero entered as the payment date, or an incorrect shipment 
date (See, Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement Clinker From France, 58 
FR 58683, 58684 (1993)).
    Respondent agrees that certain missing Building Products payment 
dates or incorrect shipping dates on its computer tape should be 
corrected. However, respondent contends that standard Department 
practice is to replace the missing or incorrect data with the weighted-
average credit cost for U.S. sales and cites to Stainless Steel 
Threaded Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, 59 FR 10784, 10786 (1994) in 
support. Respondent argues that a large number of Building Products 
transactions had correctly reported credit expenses which BHP states 
supports the accuracy and reliability of a weighted average. Respondent 
argues that using the highest credit expense as petitioners call for 
would result in a credit expense that will go beyond the highest non-
aberrant rate and, therefore, would not be appropriate. Respondent 
argues that if the Department chooses to use BIA, it should use the 
partial BIA practice outlined in Anti-Friction Roller Bearings From 
France, 57 FR 28360, 28379 (1992).
    Department's Position: Before the Department may find non-
compliance on the part of a respondent, there must be a clear and 
adequate communication requesting information. See e.g., Daewoo Elecs. 
Col v. United States, 712 F. Supp 931, 945 (1985). BHP failed to 
provide credit expense data for certain sales in Building Products 
database even though the Department provided numerous opportunities to 
Building Products to correct its credit expense (See Supplemental 
Questionnaires dated December 27, 1994 and February 10, 1995).
    The Department applies two types of BIA, partial BIA, which is used 
when a respondent's submission is deficient in limited respects, but is 
otherwise complete and reliable; and total BIA, which is used for a 
respondent who fails to timely respond or whose submission contains 
fundamental errors that render the entire submission unreliable. The

[[Page 14056]]
use of partial rather than total BIA reflects the fact that, in 
general, the respondent has been cooperative. Thus, it is the nature of 
the deficiency, rather than the level of cooperation that the 
Department considers in exercising its discretion to select partial 
BIA. See e.g., Steel Flat Products From France, 58 FR at 37,129 (1993) 
(applying highest margin to certain sales of cooperative respondent); 
Ad Hoc Committee v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 857 (1994). In this 
review, because respondent failed to provide a substantial portion of 
the total credit expense data in its possession, we have used the 
highest credit cost calculated on any U.S. sales (See e.g., 
Antifriction Bearings (other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From France, 60 FR 10900, 10907 (1995) ``AFBs'') (See e.g., 
Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement Clinker From France, 58 FR 58683, 
58684 (1993)).
    Comment 12: Petitioners contend that the Department must deduct 
antidumping duties paid by the respondent or related party importers. 
Section 1677a(d)(1994) states that the purchase price and exporter's 
sales price shall be reduced by United States import duties. According 
to the petitioners antidumping duties are ``incident to bringing the 
subject merchandise from the place of shipment in the country of 
exportation to the place of delivery in the United States'' and are 
therefore properly classified as import duties. Furthermore, 
petitioners claim ``duties'' or ``import duties'' in trade laws are to 
be read as antidumping or countervailing duties unless the provision 
specifically indicates otherwise.
    Petitioners claim that the CIT has never explicitly held that 
section 1677 (c)(2)(A) covers actual antidumping duties in addition to 
normal import duties, but argue that the court implicitly so held in 
Federal-Mogul v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856,872 (1993). 
Petitioners claim that the court distinguished actual antidumping 
duties from estimated antidumping duties, which they point to as 
support for the notion the actual antidumping duties are part of the 
normal import duties to be deducted under section 1677a(d)(2)(A). 
Lastly, petitioners claim that language in the legislative history of 
the newly enacted Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) which states that 
duty absorption is not intended to provide for the treatment of 
antidumping duties as cost does not mean that under the new law 
antidumping duties cannot be treated as normal duties, that is, as 
cost.
    Respondent argues that the Department's well-established practice 
of not deducting duty as a cost is not only required by law but this 
issue is also pending on appeal at the Court of International Trade. 
Therefore, respondent asserts it would be inappropriate for the 
Department to reverse its practice in this investigation without prior 
notice or comment.
    Department's Position: While section 772(d)(2)(A) requires the 
deduction of normal ``import duties,'' cash deposits of estimated 
antidumping duties are not normal import duties, and do not qualify for 
deduction under section 772. Contrary to petitioners'' argument, the 
CIT in Federal-Mogul v. United States 813 F. Supp. 856, 872 (CIT 1993), 
recognized that the actual amounts of normal duties to be assessed upon 
liquidation are known because they are based upon rates published in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and the actual entered value of the 
merchandise. In contrast, deposits of estimated antidumping duties are 
based upon past dumping margins and may bear little relation to the 
actual current dumping margin. Thus, the CIT recognized the distinction 
between estimated antidumping duties and ``normal'' import duties for 
purposes of section 772(d)(2(A).
    Petitioners' methodology also conflicts with the holding of the CIT 
in PQ Corp. v. United States, 652 F. Supp 724 (CIT 1987), in which the 
court addressed the issue of deduction of estimated antidumping duties 
under section 772(d)(2)(A). The court cited with approval the 
Department's policy of not allowing estimated antidumping duties, based 
upon past margins, to alter the calculation of present margins. The 
court explained ``[i]f deposits of estimated antidumping duties entered 
into the calculation of present dumping margins, then those deposits 
would work to open up a margin where none otherwise exists.'' Id. At 
737.
    Petitioners argue at length that the Department should not 
distinguish between purchase price and ESP transactions in deducting 
antidumping duties. However, because the Department does not deduct 
estimated antidumping duties from any transaction, this argument is 
inapposite.
    The Department agrees with petitioners that statements made in the 
URAA are not relevant in this review, which is being conducted under 
pre-URAA law.
    Comment 13: Petitioners state that the Department's calculation of 
Total Cost of Manufacture (TOTCOM) and Total Cost of Production 
(TOTCOP) is incorrect as a result of a clerical error and affects the 
cost test and the allocation of profit.
    Respondent agrees with petitioners that certain clerical errors 
were made regarding TOTCOM. Respondent also claims that the Department 
made an error in calculating BHP's general and administrative expense.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. For the final 
results, the Department will correct the calculation of TOTCOM, thereby 
correcting the calculation of TOTCOP in section 1 of the margin 
calculation program. In addition, we agree with respondent and the 
Department will correct its error in calculating BHP's general and 
administrative expense.
    Comment 14: Petitioners state that the definition of TOTCOP 
inadvertently omits the packing costs incurred at SCPD on sales shipped 
to BHP's steel service centers throughout Australia. Respondent agrees 
with petitioners.
    Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the 
Department will incorporate packing costs incurred at SCPD into its 
calculation of TOTCOP in section 1 of the margin calculation program.
    Comment 15: Petitioners note that Building Products and Trading 
reported the quantities of their sales in terms of short tons, while 
Coated claimed that it reported its sales in pounds. Petitioners state 
that the Department attempted to place all U.S. sales on the same 
weight basis by dividing Coated's reported weight by 2000 (lbs/ton). 
However, petitioners allege the Department mistakenly applied the 
computer code to Trading's sales instead of Coated's sales. In 
addition, petitioners state that Coated appears to have actually 
reported its quantities in short tons, not in pounds.
    Department's Position: We agree. Coated did report its sales on a 
short ton basis. Therefore, we will correct our error in the margin 
calculation program because there is no need to adjust Coated's sales 
to place all U.S. sales on the same weight basis.
    Comment 16: Petitioners state that the Department must put the home 
market COP and the U.S. further manufacturing costs on the same weight 
basis in order to arrive at an accurate allocation of profit on further 
manufactured sales. Petitioners note that BHP reported home market cost 
on a metric ton basis, while U.S. further manufacturing costs were 
reported on a per short ton basis.
    Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the 
Department will convert U.S. further manufacturing costs to a metric 
ton basis when calculating further manufacturing costs.

[[Page 14057]]

    Comment 17: Petitioners state that the Department incorrectly 
multiplied the U.S. warranty expenses by the exchange rate on Trading's 
U.S. sales twice.
    Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the 
Department will correct the margin calculation program.
    Comment 18: Petitioners state that the Department mistakenly added 
three incorrect programming lines to its standard margin calculation 
program which is simply a ministerial error. However, petitioners note 
that the middle line should be kept and inserted at different places in 
the program.
    Respondent asserts that the Department's apportionment of U.S. 
selling expenses to U.S. sales in the computer lines in question are 
correct. However, to avoid double-counting U.S. selling expenses, 
direct and indirect, it is necessary to apply a ratio which counts only 
the expenses which have not already been deducted as U.S. further 
manufacturing G&A costs.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the 
Department in its preliminary results inadvertently included this 
language in its computer program. However, we disagree with the 
petitioners that the Department should keep the middle line in order to 
properly calculate the home market indirect selling expense cap. For 
the final results, the Department will drop these three lines from its 
computer program. The program as written applies a ratio of U.S. 
selling (direct and indirect) expenses, where appropriate, to the ESP 
cap and offset section of our programming. The program will not be 
double-counting thoses U.S. selling expenses which BHP reported for ESP 
transactions with further manufacturing costs. For a full discussion of 
how we treated these specific programming changes in this review, see 
the Final Analysis Memorandum for this review, which is on file in room 
B-099 of the main building of the Commerce Department.
    Comment 19: Petitioners state that the U.S. packing costs for all 
further manufactured sales are reported in U.S. dollars per short ton. 
However, the program incorrectly multiplies these U.S. dollar amounts 
by the exchange rate in calculating Foreign Unit Price in Dollars 
(FUPDOL).
    Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the 
Department will correct section 2 of the margin calculation program and 
will not multiply the U.S. packing costs by the exchange rate when 
calculating FUPDOL.
    Comment 20: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the 
Department applied BIA to sales from Building Products that had missing 
customer codes and customer level of trade information. Petitioners 
argue that the Department should apply the higher of either the margin 
from the investigation, or highest non-aberrant margin to these sales.
    Department's Position: For certain sales, Building Products did not 
report customer level of trade and customer code in its database. 
Therefore, we were unable to match these sales to the home market 
database in the preliminary results, and we applied the final weighted-
average margin from the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation as 
BIA. However, for the final results, in accordance with AFBs and 
Department practice we are using the highest weighted-average margin 
from this review for these sales.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists for the period February 2, 1993, through July 31, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BHP..........................................................      39.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective, 
upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative 
review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Australia 
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for BHP will be the rate 
established above; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, or the original 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) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 24.96 percent, the all others rate established in the 
final results of the less than fair value investigation (58 FR 44161, 
August 19, 1993).
    The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO 
materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: March 20, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-7615 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P