[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51406-51410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-421-805]


Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from 
the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of the antidumping duty administrative 
review; aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene terephthalamide from 
the Netherlands.

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

SUMMARY: On April 9, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene 
terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid) from the Netherlands. The review covers 
one manufacturer/exporter and the period December 16, 1993 through May 
31, 1995.
    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: October 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping 
duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands on June 24, 1994 (59 FR 
32678). On June 6, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 
29821) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands 
covering the period December 16, 1993 through May 31, 1995.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), Aramid Products V.o.F. 
(Aramid) and Akzo Nobel Fibers Inc. (collectively ``Akzo'') and 
petitioner, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, requested that we 
conduct an administrative review of Akzo's sales. We published a notice 
of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on July 
14, 1995 (60 FR 36260). The Department is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
    On April 9, 1996, the Department published the preliminary results 
in the Federal Register (61 FR 15766). The Department has now completed 
the review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are all forms of PPD-T aramid 
from the Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T aramid in the form of 
filament yarn (including single and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or 
dry), spun-laced and spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber and floc. 
Tire cord is excluded from the class or kind of merchandise under 
review. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040, 
5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000, 5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and 
5603.00.9000. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of PPD-T aramid, Akzo, 
and the period December 16, 1993 through May 31, 1995.

Analysis of the Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results of review. We received comments from Akzo and 
petitioner.
    Comment 1: The petitioner contends that Akzo's accounting method 
for goodwill expense resulting from Akzo Nobel N.V.'s (Akzo Nobel's) 
increased ownership in Aramid significantly understates the amount of 
these charges included in the company's reported production costs. Most 
egregious, in petitioner's view, is that Akzo's submission allegedly 
ignores the normal treatment of goodwill as recorded by Akzo Nobel and, 
instead, relies on an inappropriate amortization period that is 
inconsistent with both Dutch generally accepted accounting principles 
(GAAP) and international accounting standards. According to petitioner, 
Akzo's submitted amortization period grossly distorts actual costs by 
artificially extending the useful lives of certain assets.
    The petitioner also notes that certain parts of Akzo's goodwill 
adjustment relate to items appropriately included in the cost of 
manufacturing rather than in general expenses as Akzo included them for 
its submitted costs. Thus, the petitioner maintains, the Department 
should reclassify amounts related to these items from general expenses 
to cost of manufacturing and recognize the full amount of each item 
rather than an amortized portion.
    Akzo argues that the submitted amortization of goodwill does not 
distort its reported costs. Akzo contends that Akzo Nobel properly 
revalued the assets of Aramid to conform to Akzo Nobel's accounting 
polices and calculated goodwill based on the revalued amount. Akzo 
maintains that prior Department practice indicates that goodwill should 
be amortized over a predetermined useful life. Thus, for submission 
purposes, Akzo amortized the goodwill over a reasonable period in 
accordance with U.S. GAAP.
    Akzo claims that adjustment to the asset values should not be 
depreciated over the remaining useful lives of the assets as suggested 
in the Department's July 11, 1996 memorandum because this method does 
not conform to Aramid's records. Akzo asserts that the most appropriate 
methodology to account for the revaluation of assets is through Akzo 
Nobel's goodwill calculation. However, Akzo states that, should the 
Department decide to adjust production costs for the revalued assets, 
then it should exclude the entire amount of amortized goodwill from 
general expenses.
    Department's Position: Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, 
we have addressed this comment in our September 25, 1996 Cost of 
Production Analysis Memorandum. We note, however, that we adjusted 
Akzo's submitted costs to account for the revalued assets. Moreover, in 
making this adjustment, we excluded the entire amount of the goodwill 
amortization

[[Page 51407]]

from general expenses in order to avoid double counting the expense and 
to recognize that any goodwill remaining after our adjustment to the 
revalued assets was not a part of Aramid's production costs.
    Comment 2: The petitioner argues that the Department should 
calculate financing costs based on the audited financial statements of 
the producer, Aramid, rather than on the consolidated financial 
statements of its parent. According to the petitioner, the Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) indicates that where specific information 
on the actual financing costs incurred in the production of merchandise 
under review or investigation is available, then that information must 
be used to compute financing costs. The petitioner maintains that 
specific information on the actual financing costs incurred by the 
producer of the subject merchandise is available through Aramid's 
financial statements. Thus, the petitioner asserts, the Department 
should recalculate the interest expense reported in Aramid's financial 
statements by applying Aramid's unaffiliated 1994 borrowing rate to the 
full amount of loans reported on Aramid's balance sheet.
    Akzo argues that the Department should follow its normal practice 
and calculate interest expense based on Akzo Nobel's consolidated 
financial statements. Akzo states that the Department's questionnaire 
requires a company to calculate interest expense based on the parent 
company's consolidated financial statements because money is fungible 
and a corporate parent determines the capital structure of the company. 
Akzo argues that, in contrast to the petitioner's assertions, the SAA 
does not include any language explaining a change in the Department's 
methodology for computing financing expenses. Akzo maintains that, 
according to the petitioner's interpretation, the Department would use 
the higher of the producer's or the parent's financing costs in all 
cases.
    Akzo asserts that the Department should disregard petitioner's 
suggestion of recalculating interest on Aramid's borrowings derived 
from Akzo Nobel loans because these loans are rolled up into Akzo 
Nobel's consolidated financial statements. Thus, Akzo maintains, Akzo 
Nobel has the only actual borrowings for the entire group.
    Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. It is the Department's 
longstanding practice to calculate the respondent's net interest 
expense based on the financing expenses incurred on behalf of the 
consolidated group of companies to which the respondent belongs. In 
general, this practice recognizes the fungible nature of invested 
capital resources (i.e., debt and equity) within a consolidated group 
of companies. In Camargo Correa Metais, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 
93-163 (CIT August 13, 1993), the Court of International Trade ruled 
that the Department's practice of allocating interest expense on a 
consolidated basis due to the fungible nature of debt and equity was 
reasonable. The Court specifically quoted the following from Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Small Business 
Telephone Systems and Subassemblies Thereof from Korea, 54 Fed. Reg. 
53,141, 53149 (1989).

    The Department recognizes the fungible nature of a corporation's 
invested capital resources, including both debt and equity, and does 
not allocate corporate finances to individual divisions of a 
corporation * * *. Instead, [Commerce] allocates the interest 
expense related to the debt portion of the capitalization of the 
corporation, as appropriate, to the total operations of the 
consolidated corporation.

    Also, See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 60 FR 
10552, 10557 (February 27, 1995). The controlling entity within a 
consolidated group has the ``power'' to determine the capital structure 
of each member company within the group. In this case, Akzo Nobel 
maintains a controlling interest in Aramid and includes the company in 
its consolidated financial statements.
    See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New 
Minivans from Japan, 57 FR at 21946 (comment 18) (May 26, 1992).
    Furthermore, the SAA and new law do not address any specific change 
in the Department's practice of calculating interest expense. 
Therefore, for the final results of review, we have relied on Akzo's 
submitted financing expense based on Akzo Nobel's consolidated 
financial statements, and have not imputed interest expense on 
affiliated party loans as suggested by the petitioner.
    Comment 3: The petitioner contends that Akzo may have understated 
its production costs by manipulating its normal standard costs. 
According to the petitioner, Akzo may have inappropriately decreased 
its normal standard costs for certain products sold to the U.S. market 
and increased the standard costs for other products or for products 
that the company did not sell in the United States. Therefore, the 
petitioner asserts, the Department must reject Akzo's reported 
methodology of allocating its production costs and cost variances based 
on its standard costs. As an alternative allocation methodology, the 
petitioner suggests spreading the costs among the products based on 
relative production quantities.
    The petitioner contends that, because the Department rejected its 
repeated request that Akzo's standard costs from the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation be put on the record of this review, the 
petitioner was limited in its ability to establish that the 
unreliability of the standard costs used in the current review.
    Akzo argues that the Department should reject petitioner's 
allegation of cost shifting and rely on the company's submitted costs. 
Akzo states that the Department rejected this same unsubstantiated 
claim in the preliminary results of review. Lastly, Akzo asserts that 
using the petitioner's approach would apply the same per unit costs and 
cost variances to all products regardless of the differences between 
products. According to Akzo, this approach is the equivalent of 
computing the same cost of production for all subject merchandise 
(i.e., total cost divided by total weight of production).
    Akzo maintains that putting the standard costs from the initial 
investigation on the record of this review would not satisfy the 
petitioner's doubts concerning cost shifting. Rather, according to 
Akzo, it would just raise more questions because of the many factors 
that go into the standard cost build-up for each specific control 
number (See Akzo's February 28, 1996 letter).
    Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that the petitioner has 
not provided reasonable grounds for rejecting the company's normal 
standard cost allocation methodology. Akzo's method of allocating 
production costs and cost variances based on product-specific standard 
costs is consistent with its normal accounting practices. Moreover, 
there is no evidence on the record to suggest, as the petitioner does, 
that the standard costs were developed under methods other than those 
normally followed by Akzo. We also note that in a similar case 
involving a different Akzo Group company, the Department accepted the 
company's methodology of allocating the plant-wide variance based on 
product-specific standard costs. See High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn 
from Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
60 FR 15897 (March 28, 1995).
    We believe that requesting the product-specific standard cost data 
from the initial investigation would merely

[[Page 51408]]

serve to confuse and complicate the issue rather than provide 
sufficient conclusive proof of cost shifting. We know of differences 
between the investigation and the review that would render such a 
comparison meaningless. First, in the initial investigation, the 
Department relied on third country sales and cost data as the basis for 
fair value. In this review, however, we are relying on Akzo's home 
market sales as the basis for normal value since the company submitted 
information showing that the home market was viable. Because of this 
change in comparison markets, it is highly doubtful that, between the 
two proceedings, there would be a sufficient number of common non-U.S. 
products from which to draw any conclusions regarding revisions to 
standard costs.
    Secondly, Akzo grouped together products defined as ``identical'' 
in accordance with our hierarchy of physical characteristics. Akzo then 
computed a single weighted-average standard cost for these products 
based on production quantities. From the investigation to this review, 
changes in relative production quantities of the various Akzo products 
within any single product group could significantly change the 
weighted-average standard costs Akzo submitted. Thus, we determined 
that conducting a meaningful comparison of cost figures between the two 
segments would be difficult without first knowing the specific products 
and production quantities within each reported COP and CV figure. 
Accordingly, the Department appropriately rejected the petitioner's 
request to put standard costs from the LTFV investigation on the record 
in this review.
    Comment 4: The petitioner claims Akzo excluded maintenance costs by 
allocating these costs over a twenty-four month period, seven months of 
which fall outside the period of review (POR). Since the POR shutdown 
of Akzo's production operations occurred less than two years after the 
previous shutdown, the petitioner believes that a twenty-four month 
amortization period is too long.
    Akzo argues that no maintenance costs related to the shutdown in 
1995 were excluded from the POR costs. Akzo claims that, under its 
normal standard cost allocation methodology, a portion of its shutdown 
maintenance costs are amortized over a twenty-four month period, while 
another portion is expensed in the month incurred. For submission 
purposes, Akzo amortized all shutdown maintenance costs over the same 
twenty-four month period. Accordingly, Akzo asserts that it 
appropriately excluded the costs attributable to those months outside 
the cost reporting period. Akzo notes that it used the same twenty-four 
month amortization period for the same type of shutdown maintenance 
costs in the original investigation. The only difference is that the 
shutdown in plant operations occurred before the period of 
investigation (POI) (i.e., amortized costs from shutdown were 
recognized in later months during the POI), whereas in this review the 
shutdown took place during the POR, resulting in a portion of amortized 
costs being carried outside the POR.
    Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that its submitted 
methodology for reporting shutdown maintenance costs reasonably 
reflects the company's costs during the POR and follows the method used 
in the original investigation. Approximately every two years, the 
company shuts down its plants to perform maintenance on its plant and 
equipment. In the LTFV investigation, Akzo recognized amortized costs 
during the POI that related to a shutdown that occurred before the POI. 
We consider it reasonable to amortize the same types of costs over a 
time period consistent with the methodology that we accepted during the 
LTFV investigation even though, in the instant review, this methodology 
results in allocating costs incurred during the POR to months outside 
the POR.
    Comment 5: The petitioner contends that Akzo's goodwill 
amortization expense failed to account for certain proprietary expenses 
incurred by the company that should be included in its production costs 
for the POR. According to the petitioner, if the Department does not 
recalculate goodwill to include these expenses, then it should reduce 
constructed export price (CEP) by the amount of these expenses.
    Akzo claims its goodwill calculation includes all necessary 
adjustments to cost. However, Akzo contends that, if the Department 
adopts the alternative approach set forth in its July 11, 1996 memo, 
then this issue is moot.
    Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. Since we utilized the 
alternative approach discussed in Comment 1, this issue is moot. Due to 
the proprietary nature of this issue, we have addressed this comment in 
our September 25, 1996 Cost of Production Analysis Memorandum.
    Comment 6: According to the petitioner, the Department should 
exclude Akzo's reported insurance credit because it does not relate to 
costs incurred during the POR.
    Akzo argues that the insurance credit is properly included in its 
reported general expenses. According to Akzo, the insurance credit 
relates to its unexpected operational problem. Akzo claims its 
situation is similar to the circumstances in the LTFV investigation of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Furfuryl Alcohol 
from Thailand, 60 FR 22557, 22561 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol from 
Thailand), where the Department allowed the respondent to offset its 
submitted COP by the insurance proceeds received due to an unexpected 
equipment failure.
    Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that it should be allowed 
to reduce its POR production costs for the insurance proceeds. During 
the POR, the company incurred higher-than-normal per unit costs due to 
an operational problem at its Emmen production facility. Akzo 
maintained an insurance policy under which it was reimbursed for cost 
overruns incurred as a result of such problems. Thus, the insurance 
credit Akzo received related directly to the higher-than-normal per 
unit production costs incurred by the company. Accordingly, we consider 
it appropriate for Akzo to include the insurance reimbursement as a 
reduction to its submitted costs. See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand.
    Comment 7: The petitioner objects to Akzo's inclusion of a certain 
non-operating income amount as an offset to general and administrative 
expenses (G&A). According to the petitioner, the income item in 
question does not relate to either U.S. or home market sales of subject 
merchandise, and therefore should not be allowed as a reduction in 
Akzo's G&A expense.
    Akzo argues that the non-operating income item is properly included 
in its reported G&A expenses because this amount relates to the general 
operations of the company. Moreover, Akzo notes that the Department 
accounted for this item as part of G&A expense in the original LTFV 
investigation.
    Department's Position: We agree with Akzo that it appropriately 
included the non-operating income amount in its submitted G&A expense 
calculation. As stated in the original LTFV investigation of this case, 
this amount relates to the general operations of the company (i.e., a 
general expense rather than a direct cost of production). See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Aramid Fiber Formed of 
Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands, 59 FR 23686, 
23690 (comment 17) (May 6, 1994).
    Comment 8: The petitioner argues that the Department is authorized 
to reduce normal value by a CEP offset only if (1) different levels of 
trade (LOT) exist between U.S. and home market sales, (2)

[[Page 51409]]

the data on the record do not provide an appropriate basis to make an 
LOT adjustment and (3) normal value is established at a more advanced 
stage of distribution than the CEP. Petitioner contends that Akzo 
merely asserted, without any evidence, that it was entitled to a CEP 
offset because its U.S. sales were based on CEP. Petitioner argues that 
the treatment of U.S. sales as CEP transactions does not by itself 
establish that different LOTs exist, nor does it relieve respondent of 
the requirement that it substantiate the necessity for an LOT 
adjustment as a predicate to obtaining the CEP offset. Petitioner 
asserts that the SAA states: ``only where different functions at 
different levels of trade are established under section 
773(a)(7)(A)(i), but the data available do not form an appropriate 
basis for determining a level of trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A)(ii), will Commerce make a constructed export price offset 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(B).'' Petitioner asserts that Akzo 
did not demonstrate that different LOTs exist between U.S. and home 
market sales and that an LOT adjustment is warranted.
    Petitioner argues that Akzo's position closely parallels that of 
the respondent Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) in Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, from Japan: Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Normal Value, 61 FR 38189 (July 23, 1996) (Large Newspaper Printing 
Presses from Japan). Petitioner asserts that MHI did not claim an LOT 
adjustment, and failed to establish that LOT differences exist between 
U.S. and home market sales. Petitioner argues that, in that case, MHI 
claimed that, if the Department uses CEP analysis for its U.S. sales, 
an LOT adjustment must be made because CEP analysis removes economic 
activities which change the LOT for U.S. sales. Petitioner argues that 
MHI claimed it was entitled to a CEP offset because the record did not 
contain data permitting an actual LOT adjustment.
    Petitioner states that the Department rejected the respondent's 
claim in Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan. Petitioner 
asserts that the Department determined that, without first establishing 
the basis for LOT adjustment, a CEP offset is not authorized. 
Petitioner argues that Akzo, like the respondent in Large Newspaper 
Printing Presses from Japan, asserts that the mere use of CEP analysis 
is sufficient to establish that different LOT exist. Petitioner argues 
that the Department should reject this argument, as it did in Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan.
    Akzo maintains that the 773(a)(7) of the Act directs the Department 
to deduct the CEP offset in the following situation:

    When normal value is established at a level of trade which 
constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than the level of 
trade of the constructed export price, but the data available do not 
provide an appropriate basis to determine under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
a level of trade adjustment, normal value shall be reduced by the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the country in which 
normal value is determined on sales of the foreign like product but 
not more than the amount of such expenses for which a deduction is 
made under section 772(d)(1)(D).

19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(7)(B).
    Akzo argues that the Department's decision to grant the CEP offset 
was not made solely because CEP was used. Instead, Akzo claims, it was 
based on Akzo's demonstration that different LOTs exist between the two 
markets, the home market was at a more advanced stage of distribution 
than the LOT of the CEP, and the LOT adjustment could not be 
quantified. Akzo also contends that it calculated and supplied the 
indirect selling expenses needed to measure the CEP offset. Akzo argues 
that it submitted the information related to the selling functions for 
the relevant comparison value. Akzo contends that the petitioner never 
objected to Akzo's claim or request for offset during the antidumping 
proceeding. Akzo argues that it fully responded to the Department's 
requests for information.
    Akzo notes that, in the Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan 
case that the petitioner relied upon, the Department specifically 
distinguished the circumstances compelling rejection of the offset from 
the facts of this review.
    Akzo argues that petitioner claims that the channels of trade and 
selling activities in each market are identical, but fails to compare 
the LOTs at the appropriate points. Akzo argues that the only 
undisputed aspect of the CEP offset in any proceeding to date is that 
the net CEP (i.e., after statutory adjustments on the U.S. side), not 
the selling price to the unrelated purchaser, is the starting point for 
determining whether there are differences in the LOT. Akzo argues that 
the petitioner focuses on the U.S. price before adjustments are made 
under Section 772(d).
    Akzo maintains that the clearest standards from recent Department 
decisions for the criteria used in granting the offset is Antifriction 
Bearings (Other than Taper Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Thailand and the 
United Kingdom, 61 FR 35713, (AFBs from France). The test for 
determining whether different levels of trade exist was described as 
follows:

    To test the claimed levels of trade, we analyzed the selling 
activities associated with the channels of distribution respondents 
reported. In applying this test, we expect that, if claimed levels 
of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of 
trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be dissimilar.

AFBs from France 61 FR 35718. Akzo argues that the circumstances of 
this case fit squarely with those of AFBs from France.
    Akzo argues that the fact that the Department contrasted the facts 
in Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan with the preliminary 
results in the present case is evidence enough that the circumstances 
are different. Akzo argues that having used the aramid fiber 
preliminary results as the standard in Large Newspaper Printing Presses 
from Japan, it would be inappropriate for the Department to reverse the 
decision in the final results.
    Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. In identifying the LOT 
for CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities reflected in 
the U.S. price after deduction of expenses and profit under section 
772(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
consider the selling functions reflected in the starting price of the 
home market sales before any adjustments.
    Unlike Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan, the respondent 
in this case provided the information necessary to determine that LOT 
differences exist between the U.S. and home market sales. As explained 
in the preliminary results of this case, the facts on the record of 
this review establish that there is one LOT in the United States, and 
that the selling activities associated with the LOT of the CEP sales to 
the United States are different than the selling functions for sales in 
the home market. Further, the sales of PPD-T aramid fiber in the home 
market are at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP level 
of trade. Because the sales of PPD-T aramid fiber in the home market 
were all made at one LOT and there was no information regarding sales 
of other products by Akzo in the home market, any differences in the 
LOTs could not be quantified. Alternatively, there was no other 
information on the selling activities of other producers of the same

[[Page 51410]]

product or other similar products on the record on which to base a LOT 
adjustment. See Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene 
Terephthalamide from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 15766 (April 9, 1996). 
Therefore, a CEP offset is appropriate, and we are continuing to grant 
a CEP offset for these final results.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
          Manufacturer/exporter             Period of review   (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akzo....................................    12/16/93-05/31/95      22.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the 
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of PPD-T aramid fiber from the Netherlands entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 66.92 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 32678, 
June 24, 1994). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 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 subsequent assessment 
of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: September 25, 1996.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25246 Filed 10-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P