[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9737-9750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5228]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
[A-489-807]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson, Cameron Werker, or 
Fabian Rivelis, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-1776, (202) 482-3874, or (202) 482-3853, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

Final Determination

    We determine that certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) 
from Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in Sec. 735 of the Act.

Case History

    Since the preliminary determination in this investigation (Notice 
of Preliminary Determination and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 61 FR 53203, (Oct. 
10, 1996)), the following events have occurred:
    In October 1996, we issued supplemental sales and cost 
questionnaires to Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu), Ekinciler Demir 
Celik A.S. (Ekinciler), and Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), and a supplemental cost questionnaire to Izmir 
Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A. S. (Metas). Responses to these 
questionnaires were also received in October 1996.
    From October through December 1996, we verified the questionnaire 
responses of Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas. We also verified 
that the following companies had no shipments of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the period of investigation (POI): Cebitas 
Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S., Cukurova Celik Endustrisi A.S., Icdas 
Istanbul Celik ve Demir Izabe Sanayii A.S., Diler Demir Celik 
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Diler Dis Ticaret A.S., and Yazici Demir 
Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
    On January 14 and 27, 1997, the Department requested that Colakoglu 
and Habas submit new computer tapes to include data corrections 
identified through verification. This information was submitted on 
January 17 and 29, 1997, respectively.
    Petitioners (i.e., AmeriSteel Corporation and New Jersey Steel 
Corporation) and three of the respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Ekinciler, 
and Habas) submitted case briefs on January 22, 1997, and rebuttal 
briefs on January 27, 1997. No case or rebuttal briefs were received 
from any other interested party.

Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is all stock deformed 
steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. 
This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, 
rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round 
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, 
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995.

Facts Available

    One of the respondents in this case, Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. 
(IDC), failed to respond completely to the Department's requests for 
information. Specifically, IDC submitted a response to Sections A, B, 
and C of the May 9 questionnaire, but did not provide any subsequent 
information, including a response to the supplemental sales 
questionnaire and the cost of production (COP) questionnaire.
    On August 12, 1996, IDC informed the Department that it would not 
be able to provide any additional information in a timely manner and 
requested that the Department use the information already on the record 
in its analysis. However, we were unable to perform any analysis for 
IDC without a COP response because COP data is an essential component 
in our margin calculations. We afforded IDC an opportunity to request 
additional time for completion of its responses. However, IDC neither 
requested an extension nor submitted any additional data.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: 
(1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested; (3) significantly impedes a determination under 
the antidumping statute; or (4) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, use facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination. Because IDC

[[Page 9738]]

failed to respond to the Department's supplemental and COP 
questionnaires and because that failure is not overcome by the 
application of subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, we must use 
facts otherwise available with regard to IDC.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used against a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See also 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. 
Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870. IDC's failure to reply to the 
Department's requests for information demonstrates that IDC has failed 
to act to the best of its ability in this investigation. Thus, the 
Department has determined that, in selecting among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is warranted with regard to IDC. As 
facts otherwise available, we are assigning to IDC the highest margin 
stated in the notice of initiation, 41.8 percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts 
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. Corroborative means that the secondary information to be used 
has probative value. See SAA at 870. In analyzing the petition, the 
Department reviewed all of the data the petitioners relied upon in 
calculating the estimated dumping margins, and adjusted those 
calculations where necessary. See Memorandum to the File from Case 
Analysts, dated March 26, 1996. These estimated dumping margins were 
based on a comparison of a home market price list to: (1) A contracted 
price to a U.S. customer; and (2) an offer of sale to a U.S. customer. 
The estimated dumping margins, as recalculated by the Department, 
ranged from 27.4 to 41.8 percent. The Department corroborated all of 
the secondary information from which the margin was calculated during 
our pre-initiation analysis of the petition to the extent appropriate 
information was available for this purpose at that time. For purposes 
of this determination, the Department re-examined the price information 
provided in the petition in light of information developed during the 
investigation and found that it continued to be of probative value.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Petitioners have requested that the Department and the ITC find 
that there is a regional industry 1 and perform the requisite 
analysis, in accordance with Sec. 771(4)(C) of the Act. Section 
736(d)(1) of the Act directs the Department to assess duties only on 
the subject merchandise of the specific exporters and producers that 
exported the subject merchandise for sale into the region concerned 
during the POI. In our notice of initiation we indicated that the 
petition had met the requirements of Sec. 771(4)(C) and 
Sec. 732(c)(4)(C) of the Act. However, because respondents were not 
able to provide requested information on sales which were ultimately 
made in the region, we have not limited our analysis in the LTFV 
investigation to only shipments entering ports located in the region. 
We will again attempt to collect this information during any subsequent 
administrative reviews, in the event that an antidumping duty order is 
issued in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     1  The region identified by the petitioners includes 
Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida, 
Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Colakoglu, 
Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas to the United States were made at less than 
fair value, we compared the Export Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV), 
as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice.
    Regarding Habas, we calculated NV based on constructed value (CV) 
in accordance with Sec. 773(a)(4) of the Act because Habas's home 
market sales did not provide an appropriate basis for calculating NV. 
See the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below, for further 
discussion.
    Regarding Metas, we calculated NV on the basis of CV because we 
found no home market sales at prices above COP. See the ``Normal 
Value'' section of this notice, below, for further discussion.
    Regarding Colakoglu and Ekinciler, as set forth in 
Sec. 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade as the U.S. sale. In accordance with 
Sec. 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared weighted-average EPs to 
weighted-average NVs. In determining averaging groups for comparison 
purposes, we considered the appropriateness of such factors as physical 
characteristics, level of trade, and significant inflation.

(i) Physical Characteristics

    In accordance with Sec. 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the description in the Scope of Investigation 
section, above, produced in Turkey and sold in the home market during 
the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Regarding Colakoglu and 
Ekinciler, where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
home market pursuant to Sec. 771(16)(B) of the Act, to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the physical characteristics listed in Appendix 
III of the Department's antidumping questionnaire.

(ii) Level of Trade

    In its preliminary determination, the Department found that no 
differences in level of trade existed between home market and U.S. 
sales for any participating respondent. Our findings at verification 
confirmed that the respondents performed essentially the same selling 
activities for each reported home market and U.S. marketing stage. 
Accordingly, we determine that all price comparisons are at the same 
level of trade and that an adjustment pursuant to Sec. 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act is unwarranted.

(iii) Significant Inflation

    Turkey experienced significant inflation during the POI, as 
measured by the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) published by the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the International Financial 
Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid the distortions caused by the effects 
of significant inflation on prices, we calculated EPs and NVs on a 
monthly-average basis, rather than on a POI-average basis. See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30315 (June 14, 1996) (Pasta).
Export Price
    We calculated EP, in accordance with subsections 772 (a) and (c) of 
the Act, where the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
where constructed export price was not otherwise warranted based on the 
facts of record.
A. Colakoglu
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions to EP for foreign inland freight, 
dunnage expenses, lashing expenses, loading charges, despatch expenses 
(which included an adjustment for revenue that was realized on a 
contractual agreement between Colakoglu and its ocean freight

[[Page 9739]]

carrier), demurrage expenses, and ocean freight, where appropriate, in 
accordance with Sec. 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed an 
adjustment to EP for wharfage revenue and freight commissions earned by 
an affiliated party because we were unable to make a corresponding 
deduction for the affiliate's costs (see Comment 8).
    We based our calculations on the revised U.S. sales database 
submitted by Colakoglu after verification. We revised the amount of 
despatch revenue received on one U.S. sale based on our findings at 
verification because this correction was not incorporated into the 
revised sales listing.
B. Ekinciler
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, 
warehousing expenses, loading charges, tallying expenses, forklift 
expenses, dunnage expenses, demurrage expenses (which included an 
adjustment for despatch revenues), ramneck tape expenses, customs fees, 
detention expenses, stevedoring expenses, wharfage expenses, overage 
insurance, and ocean freight, where appropriate, in accordance with 
Sec. 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed an adjustment to EP for 
agency fee revenue and freight commissions earned by an affiliated 
party because we were unable to make a corresponding deduction for the 
affiliate's costs (see Comment 8).
    We made the following corrections to the data reported by 
Ekinciler, based on our findings at verification: a) we revised the 
price and quantity for two U.S. sales; b) we revised the control number 
used for matching purposes for certain U.S. sales; c) we revised the 
following movement expenses for certain U.S. sales: international 
freight, forklift expenses, inland freight from plant to port, overage 
insurance, and pre-sale warehouse expenses; and d) we revised bank fees 
for two U.S. sales. In addition, we disallowed Ekinciler's claim for 
dunnage revenue on certain U.S. sales (see Comment 13).
C. Habas
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions to EP for foreign inland freight, 
dunnage expenses, despatch expenses (which included an adjustment for 
revenue that was realized on a contractual agreement between Habas and 
its customer), brokerage and handling, demurrage expenses, customs 
fees, ocean freight, and marine insurance, where appropriate, in 
accordance with Sec. 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed an 
adjustment to EP for freight revenue earned by an affiliated party 
because we were unable to make a corresponding deduction for the 
affiliate's costs (see Comment 8). We revised the amounts reported for 
demurrage, brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, and 
export fees for certain vessels based on our findings at verification.
D. Metas
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, 
lashing expenses, brokerage and handling, demurrage expenses (which 
included an upward adjustment for revenue that was realized on a 
contractual agreement between Metas and its ocean freight carrier), and 
ocean freight, where appropriate, in accordance with Sec. 772(c)(2)(A) 
of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with Sec. 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because 
each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home 
market was viable for each respondent.
    Regarding Habas, however, we did not use home market sales as the 
basis for NV. Rather, we based NV on CV in accordance with 
Sec. 773(a)(4) of the Act. In its questionnaire responses, Habas 
notified the Department that its home market was a residual market and 
that it did not maintain the records necessary to accurately report the 
unique physical characteristics of its home market products. We 
examined Habas's record-keeping practices at verification and confirmed 
that Habas was unable to report specific product characteristics for 
its home market database. Consequently, we are unable to use these 
products to make price-to-price comparisons according to the matching 
criteria listed in Appendix III of the Department's questionnaire.
    Regarding Ekinciler and Metas, these respondents made sales of 
subject merchandise to affiliated parties in the home market during the 
POI. Consequently, we tested these sales to ensure that, on average, 
they were made at ``arm's-length'' prices, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.45. To conduct this test, we compared the gross unit prices of 
sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement 
charges, rebates, and packing. Based on the results of that test, we 
discarded from each respondent's home market database all sales made to 
an affiliated party that failed the ``arm's-length'' test.
    Based on the cost allegation submitted by petitioners, the 
Department determined, pursuant to Sec. 773(b) of the Act, that there 
were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in the home 
market were made at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. 
Consequently, the Department initiated an investigation to determine 
whether the respondents made home market sales during the POI at prices 
below their respective COPs.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), 
in accordance with Sec. 773(b)(3) of the Act. As noted above, we 
determined that the Turkish economy experienced significant inflation 
during the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid the distortive effect of 
inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, we requested that 
respondents submit monthly COP figures based on the current production 
costs incurred during each month of the POI. See Pasta.
    We used the respondents' monthly COP amounts, adjusted as discussed 
below, and the WPI from the IMF (see Comment 2) to compute an annual 
weighted-average COP for each respondent during the POI. We compared 
the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the foreign 
like product, as required under Sec. 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below their COP. 
On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and packing 
expenses. We did not deduct selling expenses from the home market price 
because these expenses were included in the SG&A portion of COP.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined: 1) whether, within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time.

[[Page 9740]]

    Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
during the POI were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of 
that model were made in ``substantial quantities,'' and within an 
extended period of time, in accordance with Sec. 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) 
of the Act. To determine whether prices were such as to provide for 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, we tested whether 
the prices which were below the per-unit COP at the time of the sale 
were above the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POI, in accordance 
with Sec. 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. If prices that were below cost at 
the time of sale were above the weighted-average cost for the POI, we 
included such prices in determining NV (for all respondents except 
Habas). Otherwise, we disregarded them.
    In accordance with Sec. 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based 
on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
profit, and U.S. packing costs, except as noted in the company-specific 
sections below. In accordance with Sec. 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, where 
possible, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by each of these companies in connection with the production 
and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, 
for consumption in the foreign country. In addition, to account for the 
effects of inflation on costs, we calculated each respondent's CV based 
on the methodology described in the calculation of COP above. Company-
specific calculations are discussed below.
A. Colakoglu
    We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the 
following instances:
    (1) We adjusted Colakoglu's submitted scrap cost to include the 
transfer prices it paid to an affiliated company for freight service 
because the transfer prices were made at arm's length and represent the 
actual cost to Colakoglu (see Comment 11).
    (2) Colakoglu based its reported SG&A and financing expense rates 
on amounts contained in the company's tax return. However, because the 
Department prefers to use figures from audited financial statements, we 
revised the SG&A and financing expense rates for COP and CV using 
amounts reported in Colakoglu's 1995 audited financial statements.
    (3) We indexed the submitted monthly SG&A and financing expenses 
using the IMF's WPI (see Comment 2).
    (4) We included translation losses in financing expense (see 
Comment 3).
    (5) Because Colakoglu did not report costs for products which were 
once-folded, we assigned to these products the COP and CV amounts 
calculated for the same products sold in straight lengths, based on our 
findings at verification confirming that there were no appreciable cost 
differences associated with folding.
    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory prices to home market 
customers. In accordance with Sec. 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted 
home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In addition, we 
adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance 
with Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These adjustments included 
differences in imputed credit expenses (offset by the interest revenue 
actually received by the respondent), bank charges, testing and 
inspection fees, and Exporters'' Association fees. We revised the 
interest revenue amounts received on certain home market sales based on 
our findings at verification. In addition, we recalculated credit 
expenses using the interest rates associated with Colakoglu's actual 
borrowings in the home market (see Comment 7). Where appropriate, we 
made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with 
Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.57.
    Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the 
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.
B. Ekinciler
    We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the 
following instances:
    (1) We revised the reported COP and CV amounts to account for the 
costs of rebar produced by subcontractors.
    (2) We used the IMF's WPI to inflate the idle asset revalued 
depreciation expense adjustment, SG&A and financing expense (see 
Comment 2).
    (3) We included translation losses in financing expense and 
amortized them over the remaining life of the loans (see Comment 3).
    (4) We disallowed Ekinciler's offset to financing expenses for 
foreign exchange gains related to accounts receivable because they 
occurred after the sale date and therefore are not relevant to the 
Department's margin calculations.
    (5) We added intra-factory freight expense to the cost of billets 
(see Comment 19).
    (6) We reduced G&A expenses by non-operating revenue and increased 
G&A expenses by non-operating expenses (see Comment 17).
    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory, ex-warehouse or delivered 
prices to home market customers. We excluded from our analysis home 
market sales by Ekinciler of non-subject merchandise because this 
merchandise was not within the class or kind of merchandise subject to 
investigation (see Comment 12 and Sec. 731 and Sec. 771(16) of the 
Act). Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, inland insurance, and direct warehousing 
expenses. We revised certain foreign inland freight expenses based on 
our findings at verification. In accordance with Sec. 773(a)(6) of the 
Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs. As facts available for a portion of Ekinciler's total packing 
expenses, we used the highest verified packing expense for one of 
Ekinciler's mills (see Comment 15). In addition, we adjusted for 
differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance with 
Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These adjustments included 
differences in imputed credit expenses, bank charges, warranty 
expenses, testing and inspection fees, and Exporters'' Association 
fees. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
Sec. 353.57.
    Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the 
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.
C. Habas
    As noted in the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section above, we 
determined NV for Habas on the basis of CV. We relied on the 
respondent's CV amounts except in the following instances:
    (1) We revised the reported CV amounts to account for the cost of 
billets and rebar produced by subcontractors.
    (2) Because Habas could not accurately report the unique physical 
characteristics of its home market products, we were unable to 
determine whether Habas made home market sales in the ordinary course 
of trade (e.g., perform the cost test). Consequently, we based Habas's 
SG&A expenses and

[[Page 9741]]

profit on the weighted average of the profit and SG&A data computed for 
those respondents with home market sales of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade (i.e., Colakoglu and Ekinciler) in 
accordance with Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    Because we were unable to use Habas's home market sales data for 
purposes of making price-to-price comparisons, we compared export 
prices to CV. We deducted from CV the weighted-average home market 
direct selling expenses and added the weighted-average U.S. product-
specific direct selling expenses. Home market direct selling expenses 
were based on the weighted average of the selling expense data computed 
for Colakoglu and Ekinciler (the respondents for whom we found home 
market sales of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of 
trade after performing the cost test) in accordance with 
Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. U.S. direct selling expenses included 
imputed credit expenses, bank charges, testing and inspection fees, and 
Exporters' Association fees. We revised the total bank fee amount to 
account for unreported bank fees based on our findings at verification.
    Regarding Habas's U.S. packing expenses, we revised the monthly 
reported figures based on corrections found at verification.
D. Metas
    We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the 
following instances:
    (1) We used the IMF's WPI to recalculate the company's SG&A and 
financing expenses (see Comment 2).
    (2) We adjusted material costs by using the actual mix of scrap 
purchased during 1995 (see Comment 23).
    (3) We adjusted SG&A expenses to exclude expenses associated with 
the movement of finished goods because COP is calculated on an ex-
factory basis, in accordance with Sec. 773 of the Act.
    (4) Because Metas made no home market sales in the ordinary course 
of trade (i.e., all sales were found to be below cost), we based the 
profit and SG&A expenses used in CV on the weighted average of the 
profit and SG&A data computed for Colakoglu and Ekinciler, in 
accordance with Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    Because all of Metas's home market sales were sold below their COP, 
we compared export prices to CV. We deducted from CV the weighted-
average home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-
average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses. Home market 
direct selling expenses were based on the weighted average of the 
selling expense data computed for Colakoglu and Ekinciler (those 
respondents with home market sales of the foreign like product in the 
ordinary course of trade after performing the cost test), in accordance 
with Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. U.S. direct selling expenses 
included imputed credit expenses (offset by the interest revenue 
actually received by the respondent), bank charges, testing and 
inspection fees, and Exporters' Association fees.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service. See 19 CFR Sec. 353.60. See e.g., Pasta.

Critical Circumstances

    In the petition, petitioners made a timely allegation that there is 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise.
    According to Sec. 733(e)(1) of the Act, if critical circumstances 
were alleged under Sec. 733(e) of the Act, the Department will 
determine whether:
    (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason 
of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject 
merchandise, or
    (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
imported knows or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and
    (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over 
a relatively short period.
    In this investigation, the first criterion is satisfied because the 
Republic of Singapore began imposing antidumping measures against rebar 
from Turkey in 1995. Therefore, we determine that there is a history of 
dumping of rebar by Turkish producers/exporters. Because there is a 
history of dumping, it is not necessary to address whether the importer 
had knowledge that dumping was occurring and material injury was 
likely.
    Because we have found that the first statutory criterion is met, we 
must consider the second statutory criterion: whether imports of the 
merchandise have been massive over a relatively short period. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 353.16(f) and 353.16(g), we consider the following to 
determine whether imports have been massive over a relatively short 
period of time: (1) Volume and value of the imports; (2) seasonal 
trends (if applicable); and (3) the share of domestic consumption 
accounted for by the imports.
    When examining volume and value data, the Department typically 
compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and 
following the filing of the petition. Under 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), unless 
the imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 
percent over the imports during the base period, we will not consider 
the imports to have been ``massive.''
    To determine whether or not imports of subject merchandise have 
been massive over a relatively short period for all respondents, except 
IDC, we compared each respondent's export volume for the seven months 
subsequent to and including the filing of the petition to that during 
the comparable period prior to the filing of the petition. Based on our 
analysis, we find that imports of the subject merchandise from 
Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas increased by more than 15 percent over a 
relatively short period, whereas the imports of subject merchandise 
from Colakoglu did not increase by more than 15 percent. Moreover, 
regarding IDC, as facts available, we are making the adverse assumption 
that imports have been massive over a relatively short period of time 
in accordance with Sec. 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
    Therefore, because there is a history of dumping of such or similar 
merchandise, and because we find that imports of rebar from all 
respondents except Colakoglu have been massive over a relatively short 
period of time, we determine that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to exports of rebar from Turkey by Ekinciler, Habas, IDC, and 
Metas. Regarding Colakoglu, because we find that imports of rebar from 
this company have not been massive over a relatively short period of 
time, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with 
respect to exports of rebar from Turkey by Colakoglu. For further 
discussion, see Comment 10.
    Regarding all other exporters, because we find that critical 
circumstances exist for three of the four investigated companies, we 
also determine that critical circumstances exist for companies covered 
by the ``All Others'' rate.

[[Page 9742]]

Verification

    As provided in Sec. 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information 
submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We 
used standard verification procedures, including examination of 
relevant accounting and production records and original source 
documents provided by respondents.

Interested Party Comments

A. General

    Comment 1: Use of Total Facts Available for the Final Determination
    Petitioners assert that the Department should base its final 
determination with regard to Ekinciler on total facts available due to 
the numerous errors discovered by the Department at verification. 
Petitioners contend that these errors are so numerous and substantial 
that they call into question the propriety of using Ekinciler's 
response as the basis for calculating a dumping margin. Petitioners 
cite the following examples: (1) Ekinciler included non-subject 
merchandise in its home market sales database; (2) Ekinciler's packing 
expenses contained errors; (3) Ekinciler did not report the cost of old 
stocks (i.e., fuel oil) and certain service production costs; and (4) 
Ekinciler was unable to provide the Department with heat sheets for 
grade 60 billets as requested.
    In support of their position, petitioners cite to Circular Welded 
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from South Africa: Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR 24274 (May 14, 1996) (Steel 
Pipe), where the Department used facts available because ``the number 
of errors discovered draw into question the completeness and 
accurateness of respondent's remaining sales (i.e., sales not 
specifically reviewed at verification).'' Petitioners state that the 
antidumping law and the Department's practice require that the 
Department strive to calculate accurate margins, but that an accurate 
and fair comparison is not possible in view of the errors in 
Ekinciler's responses. Therefore, according to petitioners, the final 
determination for Ekinciler should be based on total facts available. 
Moreover, petitioners urge the Department to consider applying total 
facts available to Colakoglu and/or Habas on the same basis, even 
though their errors were not as egregious or numerous as those of 
Ekinciler.
    Ekinciler argues that its reported sales and cost data were 
substantially verified by the Department and, as a result, the use of 
total facts available for the final determination is not supported by 
evidence on the record. Respondent cites to Certain Cut-To-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 13834 (March 28, 1996), where the 
Department rejected petitioner's request to base the final results of 
the review on total best information available because respondent had 
been cooperative throughout the proceeding and the errors found at 
verification were not so large as to render the respondent's reported 
information unusable. Ekinciler maintains that, pursuant to 
Sec. 776(a)(2) of the Act, when errors or gaps appear in otherwise 
timely and verified information and the respondent has been 
cooperative, the Department will simply revise the information or fill 
the gaps using non-adverse facts available. Accordingly, Ekinciler 
asserts that the Department should, consistent with this practice, fill 
the gaps in its reported data found at verification with non-adverse 
facts available.
    Colakoglu and Habas argue that the information they have submitted 
on the record was also substantially verified, and, thus, the use of 
total facts available is not supported by evidence on the record.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondents. Although our verifications uncovered 
certain errors in the responses of these companies, those errors are 
not so egregious as to resort to total facts available for purposes of 
the final determination. The errors found at Ekinciler consisted 
primarily of minor variations in the reported movement expenses due to 
clerical errors and inadvertent omissions--errors that the Department 
routinely corrects in making its final determination. Regarding the 
inclusion of non-subject merchandise, the Department normally excludes 
sales from its analysis which were found at verification to have been 
incorrectly included. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from 
Turkey, 61 FR 69067, 69068 (Dec. 31, 1996), Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Extruded Rubber Thread from 
Malaysia, 61 FR 54767 (Oct. 22, 1996), and Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and 
Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 FR 31960, 
31965 (June 19, 1995).
    Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the errors found at Ekinciler 
were not of the same magnitude as the errors described in Steel Pipe. 
The errors encountered at verification in Steel Pipe undermined the 
fundamental components of the respondent's submitted data and included 
most notably quantity and value reconciliation errors, unreported 
sales, and incorrect prices for a majority of sales. Such errors led 
the Department to determine that respondent's questionnaire responses 
were unverifiable. In the instant case, the discrepancies found in 
Ekinciler's responses are not so material and pervasive as to warrant 
use of total facts available. Consequently, in accordance with our 
practice, we have used facts available only for certain aspects of 
Ekinciler's response, as discussed in other comments below.
Comment 2: Selection of Inflation Index
    Respondents argue that monthly costs should be inflated to year-end 
values using the WPI published by the IMF rather than the primary 
metals index (PMI) published by the Turkish Institute of Statistics. 
Respondents note that the WPI was used to determine that Turkey was 
experiencing hyperinflation and, thus, this index should be used to 
account for distortions caused by hyperinflation. Additionally, 
respondents argue that they paid for major material inputs using U.S. 
dollars. For this reason, respondents argue that the Department should 
use the WPI--which is a general indicator of the price levels of the 
whole economy--because it provides a reliable, macroeconomic indicator 
of the relative values of the Turkish lira and the U.S. dollar. 
Respondents assert that the PMI does not reflect macroeconomic 
considerations.
    Petitioners counter that PMI should be used to inflate monthly 
costs to year-end values because this index is industry-specific and, 
unlike the WPI, it is not subject to influences which are irrelevant to 
the merchandise under investigation. Petitioners argue that the test of 
whether an economy is experiencing hyperinflation is a threshold test 
and the use of a particular index to determine whether the threshold 
has been met does not imply that the same index should be used to 
measure the impact of inflation. Petitioners also claim that it is 
irrelevant whether the index used is a reliable indicator of the 
relative values of the Turkish lira and the U.S. dollar because the 
index is being used for a different purpose--to inflate Turkish lira-
denominated monthly expenses and cost of sales to year-end amounts.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioners that it is irrelevant whether the index 
used is a

[[Page 9743]]

macroeconomic indicator of the relative value of the Turkish lira and 
the U.S. dollar since inflation adjustments concern only the Turkish 
lira. However, we have reconsidered our use of the PMI in the 
preliminary determination and, for the reasons set forth below, have 
used instead the WPI published by the IMF to account for inflation in 
the final determination.
    There are no financial reporting requirements prescribed by Turkish 
authorities that require the financial statements of Turkish companies 
to be restated to account for the effects of inflation. Consequently, 
in the absence of this requirement, none of the respondents restated 
their financial statements to correct for the effects of inflation. 
Accordingly, in this instance, we relied on International Accounting 
Standard (IAS) 29 entitled ``Financial Reporting in Hyper-inflationary 
Economies'' for guidance on an appropriate methodology. (See Memorandum 
to the File from Paul McEnrue, dated February 12, 1997.) According to 
IAS 29, financial statements prepared in the currency of a highly 
inflationary economy must be restated to account for the effects of 
inflation. The statement requires the use of a general price index that 
reflects changes in general purchasing power to restate financial 
statements. The IAS statement also notes that the same index should be 
used for all enterprises that report in the currency of the same 
economy. Because the WPI measures changes in the general price index, 
while the PMI does not, we find that it is more appropriate to use the 
WPI to account for inflation for purposes of the final determination.
Comment 3: Translation Losses 2
    Respondents contend that translation losses from their foreign 
currency borrowings (which were principally U.S. dollar-denominated) 
should be excluded from the submitted costs. Respondents reason that, 
since the translation losses are not a result of cash transactions, the 
losses are fictional. Respondents explain that the translation losses 
result from converting dollar-denominated loans into their Turkish lira 
equivalents as of the balance sheet date. Respondents argue that the 
translation losses are equivalent to monetary corrections on domestic 
loans and the Department's practice is to exclude monetary corrections 
from reported costs. Respondents note that, where the indexation (i.e., 
adjustment for inflation) of domestic loan balances is required by the 
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) of a hyperinflationary 
economy, the Department's practice has been to exclude the monetary 
corrections on such loan balances and to treat the indexation of those 
loan balances as an adjustment which is not relevant to the 
determination of cost (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Tubeless Disc Wheels From Brazil, 52 FR 8947, 8949 (March 
20, 1987) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 59 FR 8598, 8598 (Feb. 23, 
1994)). Respondents maintain that their adjustment of foreign currency 
loan balances for translation losses is equivalent to the indexation of 
domestic loans and, thus, the Department should not include 
respondents'' translation losses in COP and CV. Additionally, because 
costs included in CV are eventually converted into dollars, respondents 
argue that the Department should base loan costs on the U.S. dollar-
denominated loan balances and avoid the conversion from dollars to 
Turkish lira and back to dollars which creates a loss that does not 
exist in dollar terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2  Foreign currency translation is the process of 
expressing amounts denominated in one currency in terms of a second 
currency, by using the exchange rate between the currencies. Assets 
and liabilities are translated at the current exchange rate on the 
balance sheet date. The Department typically includes foreign 
exchange translation gains and losses in a respondent's financial 
expenses if such gains and losses are related to the cost of 
acquiring debt for purposes of financing the production of the 
subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners argue that translation losses are ``real costs'' that 
should be included in COP and CV. To support their position, 
petitioners cite the decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) 
in Micron Tech. v. United States, 993 F. Supp. 21, 29-30 (CIT 1995). In 
that case, the CIT held that ``increased liability for borrowed funds 
caused by fluctuations in the exchange rate . . . are akin to an 
increased cost of borrowing funds that should be included in any 
reasonable measure of the cost climate faced by the company during the 
period of investigation. . .'' Moreover, petitioners maintain that it 
is the Department's practice to include foreign exchange translation 
losses in the cost of manufacturing (see Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products, 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37187 (July 9, 1993)).
    Petitioners contend that respondents'' argument for excluding 
translation costs from COP and CV fails for the following reasons. 
First, CV is the cost of producing merchandise in the exporting country 
and not the cost of producing merchandise in the United States or in 
U.S. dollars. Therefore, the fact that a translation loss does not 
exist in dollars is irrelevant. Second, the Department's practice of 
excluding from costs monetary adjustments from the indexation of 
domestic loan balances does not apply in this case because respondents 
do not index their foreign currency or domestic loans and Turkish GAAP 
does not call for such indexation. Third, respondents did not cite any 
precedent which establishes the Department's position regarding the 
treatment of monetary corrections for foreign currency loans. Thus, 
petitioners urge the Department to include respondents'' translation 
losses in COP and CV.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioners. The cases cited by respondents are not 
specifically related to the Department's treatment of monetary 
corrections for foreign currency loans. The Department does not agree 
with respondents' supposition that their translation losses are 
fictional. The translation losses are recorded in respondents'' 
financial statements in the ordinary course of business. In the past, 
the Department has found that translation losses represent an increase 
in the actual amount of cash needed by respondents to retire their 
foreign currency-denominated loan balances. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from 
Ecuador, 24 FR 7019, 7039, (Feb. 6, 1995). We have therefore included 
the translation losses in our calculation of COP and CV and have 
amortized these expenses over the remaining life of the companies'' 
loans.
Comment 4: Waste and Discarded Material
    Petitioners note that the accounting method used by each respondent 
to record the value of scrap (either generated from or recycled back 
into rebar production) can result in a significant understatement of 
costs. Petitioners reason, therefore, that the Department should 
closely scrutinize the quantity, value and accounting treatment of 
scrap reported by each respondent.
    Respondents maintain that each company's treatment of scrap is 
reasonable and does not result in a significant understatement of 
costs.
DOC Position
    We reviewed and verified the respondents' accounting treatment of

[[Page 9744]]

scrap. We found respondents' treatment accurately reflects the value of 
scrap. See Colakoglu Cost Verification Report at 6 and 7; Ekinciler 
Cost Verification Report at 10 and 18; Habas Cost Verification Report 
at 9 and 17; and Metas Cost Verification Report at 10 and 18.
Comment 5: Treatment of Defective Bar and ``Out-of-form'' Billets
    Petitioners assert that Colakoglu and Habas improperly treated 
defective bar and ``out-of-form'' billets, respectively, as co-
products. Petitioners argue that both respondents should have treated 
these products as by-products. Petitioners state that by-products are: 
(1) products that have low sales value compared to the sales value of 
the main product; and (2) produced unintentionally as part of the 
manufacturing process from the intended product. Petitioners assert 
that Colakoglu's defective bar and Habas's out-of-form billet satisfy 
all the by-product criteria and, therefore, should be treated as such.
    Colakoglu maintains that its co-product accounting treatment of 
defective bar is proper, stating that a co-product accounting 
methodology is consistent with the manner in which defective bar is 
treated in its books and records in the normal course of business. 
Colakoglu argues that during verification the Department did not find 
its co-product methodology distortive.
    Habas argues that it properly treated ``out-of-form'' billet as a 
co-product because billets are a finished good and are treated as such 
in Habas's books. Furthermore, Habas contends that it accounts for such 
billets in the same manner as it accounts for plain billets in the 
ordinary course of business. Habas also states that the only difference 
between billet and rebar production processes is the additional rolling 
time required for rebar.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondents. We believe that the methods used by 
Colakoglu and Habas to account for defective bar and ``out of form'' 
billet, respectively, are reasonable because we found that they do not 
distort the cost of producing rebar. Consequently, we have relied on 
them for purposes of the final determination.
    According to Sec. 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, ``costs shall normally 
be calculated based on the records of the exporter or producer of the 
merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with the generally 
accepted accounting principles of the exporting country (or the 
producing country, when appropriate) and reasonably reflect the costs 
associated with the production and sale of the merchandise.'' See also 
H.R. Doc. No. 316 (SAA) at 834 and 835. The CIT has upheld the 
Department's use of expenses recorded in the company's financial 
statements, when those statements are prepared in accordance with the 
home country's GAAP and do not significantly distort the company's 
actual costs. See e.g., Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 
94-160 at 22 (CIT 1994).
    Accordingly, our practice is to adhere to an individual firm's 
recording of costs, if we are satisfied that such principles reasonably 
reflect the costs of producing the subject merchandise and are in 
accordance with the GAAP of its home country. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit 
from Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29559 (June 5, 1995); Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel Welded Pipe 
from the Republic of Korea, 57 FR 53693, 53705 (Nov. 12, 1992); and 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 
from South Africa, 60 FR 22550, 22556 (May 8, 1995). Normal accounting 
practices provide an objective standard by which to measure costs, 
while allowing respondents a predictable basis on which to compute 
those costs. However, in those instances where it is determined that 
normal accounting practices result in an unreasonable allocation of 
production costs, the Department will make certain adjustments or may 
use alternative methodologies that more accurately capture the costs 
incurred. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: New Minivans from Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21952 (May 26, 1992).
    In the instant proceeding, therefore, the Department examined 
whether respondents' accounting methodology for defective bar and ``out 
of form'' billet reasonably reflects the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise. We found that the quantity of defective bar and ``out of 
form'' billet produced by these companies, in relation to total 
production of all bar products, is so small as to not significantly 
affect the per-unit cost for rebar. See Colakoglu Cost Verification 
Report at 12 and Habas Cost Verification Report at 11. As such, we have 
determined that respondents' methods of accounting for defective bar 
and ``out of form'' billet do not distort the cost of producing rebar. 
Moreover, these methods are used in the normal course of business. 
Accordingly, we have accepted these methods for purposes of the final 
determination.
Comment 6: Revised Cost Databases Submitted by Colakoglu and Habas
    Petitioners argue that several fields in the cost databases 
submitted after verification were revised without explanation from 
those used for the preliminary determination. Therefore, petitioners 
argue that the Department should use facts available instead of the 
unexplained values contained in the altered fields. If the Department 
has the information at its disposal, petitioners ask that the 
Department explain why certain fields were omitted from the revised 
cost databases.
    In addition, petitioners state that Habas reported costs for 
certain products for months during which there was no production of 
those products. Petitioners maintain that the Department should ensure 
that Habas did not fail to account for all costs actually incurred and 
that the method Habas used to calculate monthly costs appropriately 
allocated all costs. Petitioners argue that the Department should use 
total facts available if Habas's submissions do not account for all 
costs actually incurred, or if all costs are accounted for but 
inappropriately allocated.
    Colakoglu maintains that certain fields in its cost database were 
altered due to changes that were requested by the Department. 
Furthermore, Colakoglu states that certain fields were omitted because 
the Department did not use those fields for the preliminary 
determination, and, in fact, never requested that such data be 
reported.
DOC Position
    We disagree with petitioners. We analyzed respondents' revised 
databases and found that all revisions were the direct result of 
changes requested by the Department. Moreover, regarding the omitted 
fields, we agree with Colakoglu that these fields were unnecessary and 
were not used in our analysis. Therefore, we have accepted respondents' 
revised databases for purposes of the final determination.

Company-Specific Issues

B. Colakoglu

Comment 7: Interest Rate Used to Calculate Home Market Credit Expenses
    Colakoglu argues that the Department should not use loans issued by 
the Turkish Eximbank in calculating its home market imputed credit 
expenses. Colakoglu asserts that its Eximbank loans were related to 
export-oriented activities and, as such, were not used to

[[Page 9745]]

finance home market sales. As precedent for its position, Colakoglu 
cites Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 43327 (Aug. 16, 1993) 
(Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware), where the Department excluded short-
term export loans from the information used to calculate the home 
market interest rate.
    Petitioners disagree, stating that the Department should use 
Colakoglu's Eximbank loans in calculating credit because Colakoglu had 
no other source of borrowings denominated in Turkish lira during the 
POI. Petitioners maintain that Colakoglu's actual borrowings are more 
indicative of the company's short-term borrowing experience than are 
the rates published by the IMF. Moreover, petitioners claim that the 
facts in this case are distinguishable from those in Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cooking Ware because the respondent in Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware 
had other short-term loans denominated in the home market currency.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioners. In general, the Department's practice 
with regard to the interest rate used to calculate home market imputed 
credit expenses is to base the rate on a company's actual borrowings in 
the home market currency. The Department makes exceptions to this 
practice either when there are no loans in the home market currency or 
when a company is able to prove that its loans in that currency do not 
form an appropriate basis for the home market interest rate (e.g., when 
they are tied to specific export transactions).
    In Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware, it was demonstrated to the 
Department's satisfaction that the loans at issue were tied directly to 
exports of subject merchandise. In this case, however, not only is 
there no evidence on the record showing that these loans are tied to 
U.S. sales of rebar, but there is also no evidence that they are tied 
to exports at all. Moreover, these loans are based on Turkish lira-
denominated borrowings and bear interest rates into which inflation has 
been factored. Consequently, we find that the interest rates paid on 
these loans are more indicative of Colakoglu's actual borrowing 
experience than are the interest rates published by the IMF. 
Accordingly, we have used them in our calculation of home market credit 
for purposes of the final determination.
Comment 8: SG&A Expenses Incurred by Affiliated Parties at the Port
    Colakoglu argues that the Department should not include in its U.S. 
movement expenses those SG&A expenses incurred by Denak, an affiliated 
party, in connection with export-related activities at the port. 
According to Colakoglu, the administrative services performed by Denak 
consist of securing vessels and communicating with vessel owners, not 
running the port or moving goods. As such, Colakoglu asserts that these 
circumstances are analogous to the circumstances in which a respondent 
itself secures the services of an unaffiliated ocean freight company. 
Colakoglu notes that, in such an instance, the Department does not add 
a respondent's overhead expenses to the amount reported for ocean 
freight.
    Colakoglu also contends that in the event that the Department 
decides that it must make an adjustment for Denak's SG&A expenses, the 
Department should exclude those expenses which were unrelated to 
services provided on behalf of Colakoglu.
    Petitioners assert that the Department should make an adjustment 
for Denak's SG&A expenses in order to ensure that all U.S. movement 
expenses are captured in the margin calculation.
DOC Position
    We disagree with petitioners and have made no adjustment for 
Denak's SG&A expenses for the reasons explained below.
    Regarding services provided by affiliated parties, the Department's 
practice is to value the services at an arm's-length price. In order to 
determine whether the price between the parties is at arm's length, the 
Department generally looks at prices charged by the affiliate to 
unaffiliated parties or at prices paid by the respondent to an 
unaffiliated party. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Finland, 56 FR 56363 
(Nov. 4, 1991). When there is no transaction with an unaffiliated 
party, the Department must find another way to value the services in 
question.
    In this case, we examined Denak's role in the export process at 
verification. We noted that Denak performed several services for 
Colakoglu related to the shipment of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. However, we were unable to determine the arm's-length 
value of these services because we found that Denak did not charge 
Colakoglu for such services, nor did Colakoglu secure the same services 
from an outside party. As an alternative, we examined Denak's total 
SG&A expenses at verification. However, we are unable to use these 
expenses in our margin calculations because they relate to Denak's 
operations as a whole, and not just to the shipment of rebar to the 
United States.
    Under these circumstances, the Department would normally base the 
per-unit amount of the expense on facts available. Given the particular 
facts of this case, however, we find that this is not appropriate for 
Colakoglu. Specifically, we find that there is no net cost associated 
with Denak's activities because: (1) Denak received revenue from 
unaffiliated parties which was directly related to Colakoglu's export 
of subject merchandise to the United States; and (2) Denak's revenues 
exceeded its aggregate costs during the POI. As such, we determine that 
no adjustment for Denak's SG&A expenses (or the directly-related 
revenues) is warranted in this case.
    We note that two of the other respondents, Ekinciler and Habas, had 
similar arrangements with affiliated parties during the POI and similar 
problems in determining the amount of per-ton SG&A expenses. Consistent 
with our treatment of Colakoglu's situation, we have made no 
adjustments for either the expenses or revenues associated with these 
transactions.
Comment 9: Use of Data Contained in Revised Sales Database
    At verification, the Department found that in certain instances 
Colakoglu had reported average home market price and interest revenue 
data. Colakoglu argues that the Department should accept its revised 
database correcting these data for purposes of the final determination. 
Colakoglu maintains that the averaging affected only a limited portion 
of the home market database. Moreover, Colakoglu notes that the 
corrected information was verified by the Department.
    Petitioners contend that the Department should not use the data in 
question. According to petitioners, this information is untimely 
because it was submitted after the deadline for submission of factual 
information (i.e., seven days prior to the start of verification). 
Petitioners cite Elemental Sulfur from Canada: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (Jan. 7, 1997) 
(Elemental Sulfur), which outlines the conditions under which the 
Department will accept new information

[[Page 9746]]

at verification.3 Petitioners claim that the conditions set forth 
in Elemental Sulfur do not apply here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These conditions are: (1) the need for the information was 
not evident previously, (2) the information makes minor corrections 
to information already on the record, or (3) the information 
corroborates, supports, or clarifies information already on the 
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOC Position
    We disagree with petitioners. The information in question was not 
new information within the meaning of 19 CFR Sec. 353.31 because it 
consisted of minor corrections to data which were already on the record 
and affected only a limited portion of Colakoglu's home market 
database. Accordingly, consistent with our practice outlined in 
Elemental Sulfur, we used Colakoglu's revised home market database for 
purposes of the final determination.
Comment 10: Critical Circumstances
    Colakoglu maintains that the Department should determine that 
critical circumstances do not exist with respect to its shipments based 
on the fact that the increase in its imports has not been massive prior 
to the preliminary determination. According to Colakoglu, it is the 
Department's practice to use in its analysis the longest period for 
which information is available from the month of the filing of the 
petition until the effective date of the preliminary determination. In 
this case, the appropriate period would be seven months.
    Petitioners contend, however, that the Department should define the 
period used in its analysis as the five-month period between the filing 
of the petition and the date of the preliminary determination as 
originally scheduled (i.e., August 1996). Petitioners argue that, had 
it not been for the Department's decision to conduct a below-cost 
investigation, the Department would have issued the preliminary 
determination in August and Colakoglu would have been effectively 
precluded from making its argument on critical circumstances. Moreover, 
petitioners assert that a finding in Colakoglu's favor would have a 
chilling effect on petitioners' use of either the below-cost provisions 
or the critical circumstances provisions of the antidumping law, by 
forcing petitioners to choose between alleging the existence of sales 
below cost or critical circumstances.
DOC Position
    We agree with Colakoglu. In determining whether imports have been 
massive within the meaning of Sec. 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act, it is the 
Department's practice to base its analysis on the longest period for 
which information is available, normally beginning with the month of 
filing of the petition 4 and ending with the date of the 
preliminary determination. See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's 
Republic of China (issued on Feb. 24, 1997), where the Department used 
a seven-month period; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 60 
FR 56567, 56574 (Nov. 9, 1995), where the Department used periods 
ranging from three to six months, based on ``the Department's practice 
of using the longest period for which information is available from the 
month that the petition was submitted through the effective date of the 
preliminary determination,'' affirmed in Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic 
of China, 61 FR 19026, 19031 (April 30, 1996)); and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Disposable Pocket 
Lighters from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 436, 437 (Jan. 4, 
1995), where the Department used a period of seven months, affirmed in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
22359, 22363 (May 5, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  The date on which a petition is filed will determine 
whether the month of filing will be included in the base or 
comparison period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, we have based our analysis on the seven-month period 
between the filing of the petition and the date of the preliminary 
determination. Using these data, we find that imports by Colakoglu have 
not been massive over a relatively short period of time. Accordingly, 
we find that critical circumstances do not exist for Colakoglu.
Comment 11: Affiliated Party Freight Services
    Colakoglu argues that the transfer prices that it pays to its 
affiliate Denak for transporting imported scrap are not equivalent to 
market prices and, therefore, should not be used in the Department's 
final determination. Respondent notes that, in the past, the Department 
has included transfer prices only when it was demonstrated that they 
were equivalent to market prices. See Final Determination at Less Than 
Fair Value: High Information Content Flat Panel Displays and Display 
Glass from Japan, 56 FR 32376, 32376 (July 16, 1991). Respondent 
reasons that, in order for the Department to conclude that the transfer 
price between Colakoglu and its affiliate is at arm's length, the 
Department must conclude that prices charged by the affiliate are 
comparable to those charged by an unaffiliated freight supplier. 
Respondent argues that the discrepancy between Denak's price and the 
unaffiliated price demonstrates that the amount charged by Denak is not 
an arm's-length price and should be disregarded. Respondent notes that 
the statute does not specify that only transfer prices that are lower 
than market prices may be disregarded. Rather, respondent points out 
that in the past the Department has also disregarded transfer prices 
which are higher than arm's-length prices. See Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Color Picture Tubes from Japan, 
55 FR 37915, 37922 (Sept. 14, 1990).
    Petitioners argue that the Department should continue to use the 
price Colakoglu paid to Denak for freight services because it is an 
arm's-length price. Petitioners note that the Department has recently 
found that ``in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons 
involving a major input, we will use the highest of the transfer price 
between the affiliated parties, the market price between unaffiliated 
parties, and the affiliated supplier's cost of producing the major 
input.'' See Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United 
Kingdom, 62 FR 2081, 2115 (Jan. 15, 1997) (AFB's).
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioners. In determining whether a transaction 
occurred at an arm's-length price for a major input, as stated in 
AFB's, the Department will use the highest of the transfer price 
between the affiliated parties, the market price between unaffiliated 
parties, and the affiliated supplier's cost of producing a major input.
    In the normal course of business Colakoglu records the transfer 
price in its books to account for freight costs from its affiliate. 
However, Colakoglu submitted its affiliate's cost of providing freight 
service, the transfer price paid by Colakoglu, and prices from 
unaffiliated freight companies. In accordance with the practice 
outlined in AFB's, we

[[Page 9747]]

compared these data and found that the price paid to Denak was an 
arm's-length price for freight services pursuant to Sec. 773(f) (2) or 
(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we have used the affiliated company's 
transfer price to value freight services.

C. Ekinciler

Comment 12: Non-Subject Merchandise Ekinciler argues that the inclusion 
of de minimis quantities of non-subject merchandise in its home market 
database is not material to the calculation of dumping and that the 
Department should not adjust its reported home market sales database 
with regard to non-subject merchandise. Ekinciler states that the 
number of sales of fabricated rebar inadvertently included in its home 
market sales database is so small as to be insignificant. Ekinciler 
maintains that a comparison of the relative prices of the non-subject 
rebar to the subject rebar demonstrates that the inclusion of the non-
subject merchandise is of no consequence and may work to its 
disadvantage. Thus, Ekinciler asserts that the Department should 
continue to use Ekinciler's submitted home market database without 
making adjustments for fabricated rebar for purposes of the final 
determination.
    Petitioners contend that, if the Department does not base 
Ekinciler's margin on total facts available (see Comment 1), it should 
use the most adverse facts available for this aspect of Ekinciler's 
margin.
DOC Position
    We disagree with respondent, in part. We agree with respondent that 
the Department should continue to use its home market sales listing 
because the quantity of non-subject merchandise included is small. 
However, according to Sec. 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the price on 
which normal value is based is ``the price at which the foreign like 
product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) 
for consumption in the exporting country * * *'' Therefore, we are 
required by the statute to exclude non-subject merchandise from our 
calculation of normal value.
    Petitioners point to the inclusion of non-subject merchandise as 
evidence that Ekinciler's entire response is unreliable and propose the 
use of the most adverse facts available for this aspect of Ekinciler's 
response. We find, however, that adverse facts available is not 
warranted in this instance because we were able to verify Ekinciler's 
home market sales of subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have excluded 
all sales of non-subject merchandise discovered at verification.
Comment 13: Dunnage Revenue
    Petitioners argue that the Department should omit dunnage revenue 
from the calculation of U.S. price for Ekinciler because dunnage 
revenue could not be verified. Specifically, petitioners cite to the 
verification report which stated that Ekinciler was ``unable to provide 
bills of lading for third country sales that would have confirmed which 
shipment was more appropriately associated with the dunnage sales.''
    Ekinciler contends that, although it was not possible to directly 
tie the reported dunnage revenue to a specific U.S. sale, its 
methodology is reasonable, and the Department should make an adjustment 
for the reported revenue. Ekinciler maintains that, as stated in the 
verification report, no more than one vessel may dock at the port for 
loading at any one time. Therefore, since Ekinciler matched dunnage 
sales to shipments that left the port on approximately the same date as 
the date of the dunnage sale, it claims that it is reasonable to assume 
that the reported dunnage revenues were earned in connection with the 
identified U.S. shipments.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioners. At verification, we noted that Ekinciler 
did not receive revenue from the sale of dunnage materials on every 
export shipment. Consequently, we were unable to verify that the 
reported dunnage revenue actually corresponded to shipments of U.S.-
bound rebar and not to shipments to other export markets. Therefore we 
did not include dunnage revenue in our final margin calculation for 
Ekinciler.
Comment 14: Home Market Credit Expense
    Ekinciler asserts that the Department should make no adjustment for 
imputed home market credit expense for the final determination because 
this adjustment is de minimis. Ekinciler claims that the imputed credit 
expense resulting from the use of its verified average number days 
outstanding is insignificant, and that the Department should disregard 
this insignificant adjustment to NV in accordance with Sec. 777A(a)(2) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 353.59(a). Alternatively, Ekinciler contends that 
the Department should correct its calculation of credit to reflect that 
the interest rate reported is an annual rate.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent, in part. According to Sec. 773A(a)(2) of 
the Act, the Secretary may disregard adjustments that are 
insignificant. However, there is no requirement that adjustments which 
may be insignificant must be disregarded. We have made the adjustment 
to NV for imputed credit expenses because this adjustment can be easily 
made and the information on which it is based has been verified and is 
reliable. However, we agree with respondent that this expense was 
calculated incorrectly for the preliminary determination. Accordingly, 
we have corrected our calculation for the final determination to 
reflect that the interest rate was reported on an annual basis.
Comment 15: Packing Expenses
    Ekinciler argues that the Department should accept its packing 
expenses as reported. Ekinciler maintains that, although the 
Department's verification report indicates that there was a variation 
in the reported packing expenses for one of its mills as well as a 
difference in home market and U.S. packing, it was unaware that there 
was any significant discrepancy between the reported packing costs and 
those found at verification. Ekinciler states that, if the Department 
should find that the packing expenses with respect to the mill in 
question need to be corrected, the Department may use any of the 
reported monthly packing expenses from its other mills. According to 
Ekinciler, these sources provide accurate, verified data reasonable for 
use as facts available, particularly since Ekinciler can be assumed to 
have sourced all of its packing materials for all of its mills from the 
same sources at the same prices.
    Petitioners argue that, if the Department does not base Ekinciler's 
margin on total facts available (see Comment 1), it should use the most 
adverse facts available for this aspect of Ekinciler's margin 
calculation.
DOC Position
    We disagree with Ekinciler that the Department should accept its 
submitted packing expenses. At verification, Ekinciler was unable to 
demonstrate that the packing expenses associated with one of its mills 
were reported correctly. Consequently, we have based the packing 
expenses for the mill in question on facts available. As facts 
available, we used the highest verified monthly packing expense 
reported by Ekinciler for any of its other mills.

[[Page 9748]]

Comment 16: Depreciation
    Petitioners claim that Ekinciler failed to allocate the year-end 
inflation adjustment for depreciation expense to each month of the 
year. Thus, petitioners maintain that Ekinciler's monthly depreciation 
costs are understated.
    According to Ekinciler, its cost submissions clearly show that the 
year-end inflation adjustment to depreciation expense was included in 
the monthly costs used to derive COP and CV. Also, Ekinciler asserts 
that, if the Department inflates its monthly production costs as it did 
in the preliminary determination, it will overstate its depreciation 
expense because this expense was already adjusted to account for 
inflation. Ekinciler notes that the Department verified its reported 
depreciation expense included a monthly adjustment. This adjustment was 
calculated at year-end using the revaluation index published by the 
Turkish Ministry of Finance and applied to each month's costs. 
Therefore, Ekinciler contends that in the final determination the 
Department should either: (1) Not inflate reported monthly depreciation 
expenses; or (2) deflate the reported monthly depreciation expenses to 
remove the effects of the revaluation before depreciation expenses are 
inflated.
DOC Position
    We agree with Ekinciler. Ekinciler expressed the year-end inflation 
adjustment to depreciation expense as a percentage of cost of sales and 
applied this percentage to reported monthly manufacturing costs to 
derive the monthly depreciation expense reported for COP and CV. Thus, 
contrary to petitioners'' claim, the adjustment to inflate depreciation 
expense was applied to each month of the POI.
    Additionally, the Department found at verification that the 
reported depreciation expense was calculated using asset costs that had 
been revalued with the revaluation index published by the Turkish 
Ministry of Finance. Moreover, Ekinciler provided a translation of the 
Ministry of Finance's regulations concerning asset revaluation which 
indicated that the revaluation index is based on an inflation index. 
Thus, revaluation using this index means that the depreciation expense 
was already adjusted for inflation. Accordingly, for the final 
determination we have subtracted depreciation expense from total 
manufacturing costs before inflating those costs to year-end values. We 
added inflated manufacturing costs to the reported depreciation expense 
to derive the total cost of manufacturing.
Comment 17: Other Revenue and Expenses
    Petitioners maintain that Ekinciler should include non-operating 
and other expenses in general and administrative (G&A) expenses because 
these expenses are related to the production of subject merchandise. 
However, petitioners argue that non-operating and other revenue should 
not be used to offset G&A expenses because this revenue is either from 
activities unrelated to the sale or manufacture of rebar or from 
accounting adjustments.
    Ekinciler maintains that both non-operating and other expenses and 
revenue should be included as reported because these are components of 
G&A expenses. Unless G&A expenses are reported on a divisional or 
product-line basis, Ekinciler contends that it is irrelevant that an 
element of G&A does not relate to the subject merchandise.
DOC Position
    We agree with Ekinciler that both non-operating and other revenue 
and expenses should be included in G&A. At verification, we identified 
each item included in non-operating and other revenue and expenses. 
After examining these items we determined that, except for one revenue 
item, Ekinciler's non-operating and other revenue and expenses relate 
to the subject merchandise. We reached this conclusion because these 
items are generated from resources associated with the production of 
subject merchandise. The Department's practice is to adjust G&A 
expenses for miscellaneous revenue and expenses related to the 
production of subject merchandise (see Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, 60 FR 
33539, 33550, (June 28, 1995)). Therefore, we have increased G&A by 
non-operating and other expenses and reduced G&A expenses by non-
operating and other revenue except for the one revenue item unrelated 
to the production of subject merchandise.
Comment 18: G&A Rate
    Petitioners note that Ekinciler included certain non-manufacturing 
costs (i.e., costs associated with operating Ekinciler's port and 
cafeteria) in the denominator of its G&A ratio, but did not report 
these costs elsewhere in its response. Petitioners argue that, because 
these non-manufacturing costs were not included in COP and CV, the 
Department should base both Ekinciler's G&A rate and COP on adverse 
facts available. Petitioners claim that Ekinciler's failure to report 
the costs in question demonstrates that the company's response contains 
other inaccuracies. At a minimum, however, petitioners argue that, if 
the Department does not apply adverse facts available, it should treat 
the non-manufacturing costs consistently (i.e., either exclude or 
include such costs from both the G&A rate and the reported costs).
    Ekinciler maintains that the Department should accept its G&A rate 
as reported (i.e., by including the non-manufacturing costs in question 
as part of the denominator of the calculation of the G&A rate). 
Ekinciler notes that the Department defined G&A expenses in its cost 
questionnaire as ``those period expenses which relate to the activities 
of the company as a whole rather than to the production process 
alone.''
DOC Position
    We agree with Ekinciler. Because the G&A expenses used to derive 
the G&A rate relate to the activities of the company as a whole, 
including non-manufacturing activities, we have determined that the 
methodology Ekinciler used to compute the G&A rate is appropriate. 
Furthermore, the non-manufacturing costs are related to a separate line 
of business and, thus, they are unrelated to the manufacture of the 
subject merchandise. Therefore, these costs were properly excluded from 
the COP and CV.
Comment 19: Billet Transportation Costs
    At verification, the Department found that Ekinciler failed to 
include the cost of transporting billets within the factory in its 
reported billet cost. Ekinciler urges the Department to accept the 
reported billet costs because the omission found at verification is 
insignificant.
    Petitioners claim Ekinciler's failure to include intra-factory 
transportation costs in reported billet costs indicates Ekinciler's 
responses are unreliable and therefore, the Department should base 
Ekinciler's billet cost on adverse facts available.
DOC Position
    We disagree with petitioners. For the reasons stated in Comment 1, 
we do not find that Ekinciler's omission of intra-factory 
transportation costs satisfies the statutory requirements for using 
facts available or making adverse inferences in reaching a 
determination. Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice of 
correcting minor errors where the use of adverse facts available is 
unwarranted, we adjusted the

[[Page 9749]]

reported billet cost to include intra-factory transportation costs (see 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium Alloys From the Republic of 
Kazakstan, 62 FR 2648, 2650 (Jan. 17, 1997)).
D. Habas
Comment 20: Packing Expenses
    Habas acknowledges that the Department was unable to verify the 
monthly production quantities of exported billet, which together with 
monthly rebar production quantities serve as the denominator for 
monthly per-unit strap expense. However, Habas maintains that the 
Department was able to successfully verify all other components of its 
packing calculation. Habas, therefore, argues that the Department 
should continue to use Habas's reported packing costs in the margin 
calculation.
    Petitioners argue that, because the Department found Habas's 
packing expense to be erroneous at verification, the Department should 
either base Habas's packing expense on adverse facts available or 
recalculate Habas's packing expense taking into account the information 
discovered at verification. Petitioners maintain that using adverse 
facts available with respect to calculating Habas's packing expense is 
appropriate because: 1) the respondent has an obligation to provide 
accurate data; 2) the Department has a practice of not accepting new 
information submitted at verification; and 3) the Department's 
resorting to the use of facts available constitutes a significant 
incentive for the submission of accurate data.
DOC Position
    To calculate the per unit strap expense in its overall packing 
calculation, Habas used billets produced for export along with total 
rebar production as part of the calculation's denominator. At 
verification, Habas was unable to provide supporting documentation for 
billets produced for export. We agree with respondent that, other than 
this one element, the Department was able to successfully verify all 
other packing material and labor expenses. Therefore, we disagree with 
petitioners that adverse facts available is warranted in this instance. 
We do, however, agree with petitioners that the Department should 
recalculate Habas's packing expense taking into account the information 
discovered at verification. Therefore, rather than billets produced for 
export, we used the total verified 1995 exports of billets and total 
rebar production as the denominator for the per-unit strap calculation.
Comment 21: Home Market Credit
    Habas states that, as reported to the Department, its books do not 
accurately reflect the date of receipt of payment for home market 
sales. However, Habas contends that its methodology for reporting 
payment dates and amounts of payment is consistent with the records 
kept by Habas in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, Habas 
argues that the Department should continue to use its reported home 
market credit expenses in the final determination.
DOC Position
    Because we did not use Habas's selling expense data for purposes of 
the final determination, this issue is moot.
Comment 22: G&A Expenses
    Petitioners assert that, as facts available, the Department should 
base Habas's G&A expenses on Habas's annual corporate-wide G&A expenses 
for 1995, adjusted for inflation, rather than the G&A expenses for the 
iron and steel division. As support for this position, petitioners cite 
the Department's practice in the following determinations: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR 37099, 
37114 (July 9, 1993).
    Habas maintains that the Department verified all of its SG&A 
expenses. Habas states that, although the Department frequently uses a 
corporate-wide G&A rate, the Department's practice is to use selling 
expenses which are based on the expenses of the relevant division 
within a company. Therefore, Habas maintains that the correct ratio to 
use for the sales portion of the SG&A is the indirect selling expenses 
of the iron and steel division divided by the iron and steel division's 
cost of sales.
DOC Position
    Insofar as we did not use Habas's G&A expenses in the calculations 
for the final determination, this issue is moot.

E. Metas

Comment 23: Material Costs
    Petitioners argue that Metas's submitted cost of materials is not 
based on the actual quantities of scrap used in the production of 
rebar. Petitioners note that Metas calculated its submitted cost of 
scrap inputs based on the company's policy regarding the preferred 
mixture of different scrap types. Petitioners maintain that the 
Department was unable to verify that Metas's policy of preferred scrap 
usage is indicative of the actual scrap used to produce rebar during 
the POI. Petitioners believe that Metas's schedule of scrap purchases 
during the POI is the best evidence on the record of actual scrap used 
and argue that the Department should adjust Metas's material costs so 
that the average usage of scrap reflects the ratio of scrap purchased 
during 1995.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioners. In order to provide the Department with 
product-specific material costs, Metas calculated the cost of materials 
using the average scrap quantities it believes are typical of the 
mixtures required to make rebar. During verification, we found that 
Metas does not specifically track the quantity of the types of scrap 
used in the production of rebar. As a result, Metas was unable to 
provide us with documentation to substantiate the ratio of scrap types 
used in its calculations. Therefore, we recalculated Metas's material 
costs using the actual mix of scrap purchased during 1995.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with Sec. 735(c) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
rebar from all companies except Colakoglu that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 12, 1996, 
which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the notice of the 
preliminary determination in the Federal Register. Regarding Colakoglu, 
we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of rebar from Colakoglu that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 10, 1996, the date 
of publication of our preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount 
by which NV exceeds export price, as indicated in the chart below. This 
suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Weighted-                        
                                        average           Critical      
        Exporter/manufacturer            margin        circumstances    
                                       percentage                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu...........................         9.84  No.                  
Ekinciler...........................        18.68  Yes.                 
Habas...............................        19.15  Yes.                 

[[Page 9750]]

                                                                        
IDC.................................        41.80  Yes.                 
Metas...............................        30.16  Yes.                 
All Others..........................        16.25  Yes.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with Sec. 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC 
of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the 
ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing 
material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the 
United States. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of 
material injury, does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and 
all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 
determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an 
antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess 
antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective 
date of the suspension of liquidation.
    This determination is published pursuant to Sec. 735(d) of the Act.

    Dated: February 24, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-5228 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P