[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12744-12752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6713]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-817]


Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 9, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Brazil. This review covers one collapsed entity which 
was a manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period of review (POR), August 1, 1995, through July 
31, 1996. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have changed the results from those presented in the preliminary 
results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Denenberg or Linda Ludwig, 
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-0414 or (202) 482-3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 9, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(58 FR 37091) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil. We published an 
antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44164). On September 
9, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register (62 FR 47436) 
the preliminary results of the administrative review (Preliminary 
Results) of the antidumping duty order on Certain Cut-

[[Page 12745]]

to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil. On December 24, 1997, we 
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 67345) an extension of the 
time limit (Extension of Time Limit) for conducting this review. The 
Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the 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). 
In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department's regulations refer to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR 
part 353, as they existed on April 1, 1996.
    On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed.Cir.). 
In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court 
discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as the 
basis for foreign market value when the Department finds home market 
sales to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was 
not raised by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended 
the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to 
include sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently, 
the Department has reconsidered its practice in accordance with this 
court decision and has determined that it would be inappropriate to 
resort directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis 
for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise 
identical or most similar to that sold in the United States to be 
outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the Department will 
use sales of similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department 
will use CV as the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales 
that are otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this 
proceeding, when making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) 
of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as 
described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice, 
below, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the 
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics listed in 
Sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented 
the Court's decision in this case, to the extent that the data on the 
record permitted.

Scope of this Review

    The products covered by this administrative review constitute one 
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate. These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill 
plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed 
box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 
millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in 
coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither 
clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, 
or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain 
hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of 
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with 
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or 
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and 
of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice 
the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 
7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 
7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 
7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 
7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular 
cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the 
rolling process (i.e., products which have been ``worked after 
rolling'')--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at 
the edges. Excluded is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.
    The POR is August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. This review 
covers entries of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate by Usinas 
Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (``USIMINAS'') and Companhia Siderurgica 
Paulista (``COSIPA''). These two producers/exporters have been 
collapsed (``USIMINAS/COSIPA'') and are being treated as one entity for 
the purpose of this review.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received case and rebuttal briefs from the 
respondent (USIMINAS/COSIPA) and petitioners (Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation; U.S. Steel Company, a Unit of USX Corporation; Inland 
Steel Industries, Inc.; Geneva Steel; Gulf States Steel, Inc. of 
Alabama; Sharon Steel Corporation; and Lukens Steel Company). Based 
upon our analysis of the comments received, we have changed the results 
from those presented in the preliminary results of review.
    Comment 1: Respondent objects to the fact that, in the preliminary 
determination, the Department did not deduct PIS and COFINS taxes from 
normal value, arguing that while the Department did not state its 
reason for denying this adjustment, neither of the reasons it can 
conceive of is a valid reason for doing so. USIMINAS/COSIPA states that 
the relevant statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(B)(iii), calls 
for the Department to reduce the starting prices for normal value by 
the amount of home market taxes which meet three criteria: (1) they are 
``directly imposed'' on the foreign like product or components thereof, 
(2) they are rebated or not collected on the subject merchandise, and 
(3) they are added to or included in the price of the foreign like 
product. Because the second requirement has never been an issue in any 
case involving PIS and COFINS, USIMINAS/COSIPA state, the Department 
could only refuse to make this adjustment due to concerns as to whether 
these taxes were ``directly imposed'' or ``included in the price'' of 
the merchandise used to determine normal value.
    With respect to the ``directly imposed'' prong, USIMINAS/COSIPA 
notes that in Silicon Metal from Brazil, 62 FR 1954, 1968 (Jan. 14, 
1997), the Department declined to deduct PIS and COFINS from home 
market prices on the grounds that because these taxes are ``gross 
revenue taxes'' they are not ``directly imposed.'' Respondent notes 
that, prior to the determination in Silicon Metal from Brazil, the 
Department had a long history of finding that these taxes were 
``directly imposed.'' Further, respondent argues that the Department's 
reliance in that case upon the precedent in Silicon Metal from 
Argentina, 56 FR 37891, 37893 (Aug. 9, 1991), for the principle that 
gross revenue taxes cannot be ``directly imposed'' is misplaced for 
three reasons. First, the Argentine tax at issue is distinguishable 
from the PIS

[[Page 12746]]

and COFINS taxes. Second, the Argentine notice cites another Brazilian 
case (in which PIS and the predecessor of COFINS were adjusted for) as 
an example of circumstances in which it would adjust for taxes. Third, 
respondent argues that, although these taxes are not itemized on the 
invoices, from the standpoint of mathematics, accounting and public 
finance there is no difference between a tax imposed on an invoice-
specific basis and one imposed on an aggregate basis when the same rate 
is applied to both.
    With respect to the ``included in home market price'' prong, 
USIMINAS/COSIPA argues that the Department's determinations prior to 
January of 1997 support the position that these taxes are included in 
home market price, and that the Department has long held that it may, 
under the dumping law, presume that a company includes the full amount 
of home market taxes in its home market price and thus passes the tax 
through to its home market customers. USIMINAS/ COSIPA notes that the 
Department has made no finding in this review that such tax pass-
through does not occur, and has not raised this issue in the course of 
the review. On February 18, 1998, USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted further tax 
legislation, court documentation, and fuller translation of previously 
submitted documents, as requested by the Department.
    Petitioners argue that the Department correctly did not deduct PIS 
and COFINS taxes from the home market prices in calculating normal 
value, claiming that they are not ``directly imposed'' on the foreign 
like product because they are calculated on all of the gross monthly 
receipts of USIMINAS/COFINS. They note that in three recent final 
determinations regarding Brazilian products the Department did not 
deduct PIS and COFINS taxes from home market price. Silicon Metal from 
Brazil, 62 FR 1954, 1968 (1992-1993 review) (Sept. 5, 1996); Silicon 
Metal from Brazil, 62 FR 1983 (1993-1994 review) (January 14, 1997); 
and Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 62 FR 43,504, 43,508 (Aug. 14, 1997). 
Thus, petitioners argue that respondent's reliance on earlier cases is 
unwarranted, because it is clear that the Department now recognizes 
that taxes that are levied on gross revenues, rather than solely on a 
company's sales, are not ``directly imposed'' on home market sales. For 
example, they point out that the Brazilian law in effect during the 
period of review stated that PIS is to be imposed on financial revenue 
as well as sales revenue. Finally, petitioners state that the statutory 
language on tax deductions is clear and that respondent was given 
adequate opportunity to comment on this approach in their case briefs 
by virtue of the Department's position in Silicon Metal from Brazil and 
by the position taken in the preliminary determination in this case.
    At the request of the Department, the petitioners commented further 
on this issue in response to USIMINAS/COSIPA's February 18, 1998 PIS/
COFINS submission. Petitioners reiterate that the Department should not 
adjust for PIS and COFINS taxes because, they claim, these taxes are 
not directly imposed on the subject merchandise and are not consumption 
taxes. Petitioners recall the basis upon which the PIS and COFINS taxes 
are levied, highlighting that both are gross revenue taxes. Petitioners 
state that as a consequence, the PIS and COFINS taxes are not imposed 
directly on the foreign like merchandise. Petitioners also note that 
the Department very recently reaffirmed in the 1995-1996 review of 
Silicon Metal from Brazil that these taxes cannot be tied directly to 
sales and therefore do not qualify for an adjustment. See Final results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 
63 FR 6899, 6910 (Feb. 11, 1998). Petitioners continue to rely on 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act and the SAA at pg. 827-828 
(discussing the requirement that taxes be directly imposed on the 
subject merchandise and referring to ``consumption taxes''). 
Petitioners cite the Department's determination in the 1993-1994 review 
of Silicon Metal from Brazil, 62 FR 1954, 1968 (Jan. 14, 1997) for the 
proposition that PIS and COFINS are not ``consumption taxes,'' arguing 
that the Court of Appeals for The Federal Circuit has defined 
``indirect taxes'' as ``consumption taxes'' in United States v. Zenith 
Radio Corp., 562 F.2d 1209, 1233 n.20 (1997).
    Department's Position: As in the most recent review of Silicon 
Metal from Brazil, the Department has determined that a deduction of 
the PIS and COFINS taxes is not correct in the calculation of NV. 
Commerce has determined that since these taxes are levied on total 
revenues, except for export revenues, the taxes are direct taxes and 
thus akin to taxes on profit or wages. Since the Department has 
determined these taxes are not indirect taxes, there is no basis to 
deduct them in the calculation of NV, according to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. The Department finds that it is not the 
sale of the merchandise that is being taxed but rather USIMINAS/
COSIPA's revenue, and as such, the PIS and COFINS taxes should not be 
adjusted for in the calculation of normal value.
    Comment 2: USIMINAS contends that the Department failed to deduct 
one component of its home market movement expenses from the gross home 
market price. Both USIMINAS and COSIPA originally included an extra 
letter in the Department's computer code variable for inland freight. 
In its post-verification submission, COSIPA conformed its field name to 
the one used by the Department. Thus, the Department's SAS program 
correctly deducted the inland freight expense for COSIPA because it 
corresponded to the Department's field name.
    USIMINAS also used the incorrect variable name in its submissions. 
However, unlike COSIPA, USIMINAS did not change the variable name of 
this field in its post-verification submission. Consequently, the 
Department failed to deduct USIMINAS'' home market freight expense. 
USIMINAS urges the Department to revise its computer program so that 
inland freight expenses are deducted from the gross home market price.
    Department's Position: We agree with USIMINAS and have revised the 
computer program so that USIMINAS'' home market inland freight expense 
is deducted from the gross unit price in these final results.
    Comment 3: USIMINAS believes that the Department incorrectly 
deducted related party commissions from the U.S. price. Based on 
USIMINAS'' relationship with its wholly-owned subsidiary, USIMINAS 
Overseas, the nature of the commissions, and the Department's treatment 
of intracompany commissions, USIMINAS believes that the Department's 
decision to deduct these commissions was incorrect.
    USIMINAS notes that the Department has a long-standing practice of 
not deducting commissions to related parties. Pursuant to the Federal 
Circuit's decision in LMI-La Metalli Industriale v. United States 
(``LMI''), 912 F. 2d 455 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department will only 
make an adjustment for related party commissions when it is 
demonstrated that (1) the commissions are arm's length, and (2) they 
are directly related the underlying sale (see Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper From Finland 
(``Grounwood Paper''), 56 FR 56363, 56372 (Nov. 4, 1991)).
    USIMINAS cites two cases in support of its contention that, absent 
a demonstration to the contrary, the Department presumes that related 
party commissions are not at arm's length (see Outokumpu Copper v. 
United States, 850 Supp. 16, 22 (CIT 1994) and Brass

[[Page 12747]]

Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 61 FR 1324, 1326 (Jan. 19, 
1996)).
    USIMINAS suggests that the Department's preliminary determination 
to deduct these commissions was incorrect because (1) there were no 
allegations by petitioners that the commissions to USIMINAS Overseas 
were directly related or made at arm's length; (2) there are no bench 
mark commissions to compare to the commissions granted to USIMINAS 
Overseas, and (3) the record demonstrates that the commissions are not 
directly related to sales.
    Petitioners rebut USIMINAS'' claim that related party commissions 
should not be deducted from U.S. price. Petitioners state that 
documentation presented in USIMINAS'' response to the Department's 
questionnaire and the method by which the commissions were calculated 
clearly suggest that commissions to USIMINAS Overseas were directly 
related to sales. Petitioners further argue that the commissions were 
arm's-length transactions, relying upon the holding in LMI that a 
commission is at arm's length if the recipient is a bona fide sales 
agent. Petitioners state that the Department's practice is to consider 
the totality of the circumstances surrounding the commission in order 
to determine whether or not the recipient is considered a bona fide 
agent (see Groundwood Paper at 56372). Petitioners note that it is the 
Department's practice to analyze contracts and agreements between 
producers and affiliated agents. An analysis of the proprietary 
contract presented to the Department and USIMINAS'' narrative response 
to the Department's supplemental questions cause petitioners note that 
USIMINAS Overseas has contracted to and assumed multiple duties in 
connection with USIMINAS sales. See USIMINAS A/B/C Response to the 
Department's Second Supplemental Questionnaire (May 30, 1997), Exh. 15 
at 1-2 and narrative at 18-19 (APO Version)). In addition, information 
received at the sales verification adds to the list of responsibilities 
taken on by USIMINAS Overseas (see USIMINAS Sales Verification Report 
at 3-5).
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondent. Further 
analysis of the related party commission confirms that it should be 
classified as an intracompany transfer of funds. Due to the proprietary 
nature of the contractual arrangements between USIMINAS and USIMINAS 
Overseas, see Final Analysis Memorandum of March 9, 1998, for further 
discussion of the Department's rationale with respect to this issue.
    Comment 4: The petitioners claim that the respondent improperly 
reported home market credit expense for the following reasons: first, 
USIMINAS/COSIPA used a tax-inclusive gross unit price as the basis for 
its submitted credit calculation; second, USIMINAS/COSIPA made two 
improper adjustments to the short-term interest rate reported.
    The petitioners note that the Department's longstanding practice is 
to exclude taxes from the basis of the home market imputed credit 
expense calculation. They cite the final results of the previous review 
in support of their position (see, Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 18486, 18488 (April 15, 1997)). The petitioners request 
that the Department follow its longstanding practice in this review, 
and recalculate home market imputed credit expense, deducting IPI, 
ICMS, PIS, and COFINS taxes from the home market gross unit price 
before using it as the basis for this calculation.
    The petitioners also maintain that, in calculating home market 
credit expense, USIMINAS/COSIPA incorrectly changed the rate actually 
received from the bank two times. According to petitioners, by failing 
to explain how or why it changed the nominal rate to the discount rate, 
USIMINAS/COSIPA has not met its burden of demonstrating why the 
adjustment embodied in the credit calculation USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted 
should be allowed. Accordingly, the petitioners urge the Department to 
reject this adjustment.
    The petitioners conclude that the respondent's distortion of the 
discount rate requires the Department to use an alternative: the ``taxa 
referential'' (TR). The petitioners note that this short-term lending 
rate is a benchmark similar to the prime rate and was used in the last 
administrative review of this proceeding. Therefore, the petitioners 
conclude that the Department should use the TR to calculate home market 
credit expenses. However, if the Department decides not to use the TR, 
the petitioners maintain that it should at least utilize the nominal 
rate during the month of the U.S. sale to calculate home market credit 
expenses.
    Regarding the use of gross price inclusive of taxes in calculating 
imputed credit costs, respondent disagrees with petitioners. USIMINAS/
COSIPA points to Stainless Steel Angles From Japan, 60 F.R. 16608 
(March 31, 1995) as evidence that the Department has previously 
calculated imputed credit costs using a tax inclusive gross price. 
USIMINAS/COSIPA states that the Department was incorrect in the 
previous review of this case when it dismissed the relevance of the 
Japanese case (see Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Brazil, 62 FR 18486, 18487-88 (April 15, 1997)). In the previous 
review, the Department found that imputed credit costs should be 
calculated on net price, not gross price. USIMINAS/COSIPA maintains 
that there is no complication in this review in recognizing that the 
seller is extending payment terms for both the underlying goods, and 
for tax liability associated with the sale.
    USIMINAS/COSIPA also objects to the petitioners' comments on 
procedural grounds because they waited a year to object to USIMINAS/
COSIPA's credit methodology and it is too late in the proceeding for 
the Department to accept alternative credit costs calculations.
    Concerning the petitioners' complaint that USIMINAS/COSIPA used an 
overstated interest rate in its home market imputed credit costs 
calculations, USIMINAS/COSIPA contends that the petitioners fail to 
understand the distinctions between a conventional loan and discounting 
receivables. However, USIMINAS/COSIPA agrees with petitioners that it 
used incorrect interest rates to the extent that there is no 
justification for adjusting the interest rate twice to derive an 
effective rate from a nominal rate. Therefore, USIMINAS/COSIPA suggests 
that the Department revise imputed credit costs and, if necessary, 
inventory carrying costs, using USIMINAS/COSIPA's actual borrowing 
experience during the POR, and not the TR, as proposed by the 
petitioners.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioners that 
imputed credit expense should be calculated on the basis of a price net 
of taxes, rather than a gross price basis. The Department has found 
previously in several cases that it is impossible for it to determine 
the opportunity cost of every expense for each sale reported. For 
example, in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 
3235 (Jan. 8, 1993), Commerce determined that ``[w]hile there may be an 
opportunity cost associated with the prepayment of [taxes], that fact 
alone is not a sufficient basis for the Department to make an 
adjustment in price-to-price comparisons. We note that virtually every 
charge or expense associated with price-to-price comparisons is either 
prepaid or paid for at some point after the cost is incurred. 
Accordingly, for each pre-or post-service payment, there is also an 
opportunity cost (or gain).

[[Page 12748]]

Thus, to allow the type of adjustment suggested by respondent would 
imply that in the future the Department would be faced with the 
impossible task of trying to determine the opportunity cost (or gain) 
of every freight charge, rebate and selling expense for each sale 
reported in a respondent's database. In order to make a price-to-price 
comparison, this exercise would make our calculations inordinately 
complicated, placing an unreasonable and onerous burden on both 
respondents and the Department.'' See also Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope from Korea, 58 FR 11029, 11032 
(Feb. 23, 1993); Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 59407, 59410 (Nov. 22, 1996); Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Adminstrative Review, 62 FR 18486, 18487 (Apr. 15, 
1997)).
    The respondent's reliance on Stainless Steel Angles from Japan is 
not on point. As the Department found in the previous review of this 
case, ``[t]he comment in the Stainless Steel Angles case cited by the 
respondent refers to pre-shipment advance payment for the merchandise, 
rather than taxes, and is not contrary to the Department's position 
with respect to basing credit calculations on a price net of taxes' 
(see Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil, 62 FR 18486 
(Apr. 15, 1997)).
    For these final results, we have recalculated credit expense and 
used a price net of taxes for the basis of the recalculation. See Final 
Analysis Memorandum of March 9, 1998.
    With respect to the selection of interest rates for use in 
calculating credit expense, the Department agrees with petitioners that 
the nominal rate should be used. The Department does not have 
information on the record of this proceeding with respect to nominal 
rates for each week of the POR. However, such information was not 
requested by the Department. Accordingly, on the basis of the facts 
available, we are using the weekly nominal rates for the weeks for 
which such information is on the record. For all other weeks, we are 
using the simple average of the available weekly nominal rates. Because 
the Department finds that USIMINAS/COSIPA has acted to the best of its 
ability in providing information relating to credit expenses, we are 
not making an adverse inference. See Final Analysis Memorandum of March 
9, 1998. Because we are eliminating the adjustments to the interest 
rate in question and instead are using the nominal rates, we have not 
used the ``taxa referential'' are suggested by petitioners.
    Comment 5: The petitioners object to USIMINAS/COSIPA's use of all 
plate products, including non-subject merchandise, in calculating its 
home market inventory carrying costs. The petitioners state that any 
inventory expenses associated with non-subject merchandise ``may not be 
used in calculating deductions of expenses from FMV for in-scope 
merchandise'' (NSK Ltd. v. United States, 896 F.Supp. 1236, 1272 (CIT, 
1995) aff'd in relevant part 115 F. 3d 965, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The 
petitioners conclude that if the respondent could not develop a viable 
method to separate inventory carrying costs of subject merchandise from 
non-subject merchandise, the Department must deny the adjustment 
altogether. Petitioners close by stating that if the Department decides 
to allow the inventory carrying cost adjustment, the Department should 
recalculate the cost using the ``taxa referential'' instead of the 
discount rate.
    In response, USIMINAS/COSIPA characterizes the inventory carrying 
cost adjustment as irrelevant in this review because there are no U.S. 
commissions and, therefore, no need to calculate a commission offset 
which would include inventory carrying costs.
    Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that the inventory cost adjustment 
is relevant, USIMINAS/COSIPA states that the petitioners have confused 
``selling out of inventory'' and ``having an inventory.'' ``Selling out 
of inventory,'' from USIMINAS/COSIPA's viewpoint, is based on a 
decision by a producer to manufacture and inventory products without a 
specific customer request for the products. COSIPA and USIMINAS contend 
that having an inventory is a natural consequence of selling to order 
for several reasons: (1) export shipments are often held until the 
entire order is produced; (2) overruns, a natural consequence in steel 
production, are inventoried; (3) materials are held at distribution 
warehouses.
    Finally, USIMINAS/COSIPA urges the Department to reject the 
petitioners' suggestion that the Department deny this adjustment 
altogether.
    Department's Position: As the Department has determined that there 
were no U.S. commissions, there is no need to consider how inventory 
carrying costs might affect a commission offset in this case.
    Comment 6: The petitioners state that the COSIPA verification team 
found that the IPI tax, an indirect home market tax of 5% of the gross 
unit price, was incorrectly reported for February through April 1995. 
However, the petitioners claim that USIMINAS/COSIPA did not submit the 
correct values in a revised database, as instructed by the Department. 
Since the Department may deduct taxes from normal value ``only to the 
extent that such taxes are added to or included in the price of the 
foreign like product'' pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a) (6) (B) (iii), 
the petitioners urge the Department to recalculate the IPI tax to 
reflect the correct amount of 5% of the gross unit price.
    USIMINAS/COSIPA counters that the petitioners' comments are based 
on a confused understanding of how IPI is calculated and how it is 
presented on COSIPA's sales listing. USIMINAS/COSIPA states that 
petitioners' proposal that the Department divide the IPI adjustment in 
the sales listing by the gross price in the sales listing fails to 
account for: (1) the need to adjust the IPI base for the ICMS rate, and 
(2) the fact that the IPI base is not net of discounts. The respondent 
concludes that the Department should reject petitioners' comments with 
respect to the IPI because COSIPA'S IPI adjustments are correct in its 
post-verification sales listing.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondent. At the start 
of COSIPA's verification, the respondent presented the Department 
officials with a list of corrections (see COSIPA Sales Verification 
Report, Exhibit 1). The list of corrections makes a brief mention of 
miscalculated IPI taxes. This correction was not directed at COSIPA's 
sales database. Rather, this correction was directed toward Exhibit 23 
of respondent's April 10, 1997 Supplemental Questionnaire Response, 
wherein COSIPA misreported the monthly payments of IPI tax for the 
months of February through April of 1995. In an effort to provide 
accurate information to the Department, COSIPA sought to correct this 
mistake in the questionnaire response at the beginning of verification. 
No change was made to the IPI tax field as reported in the pre-
verification sales tape because this tax field was never incorrect. As 
further proof of this point, Department officials verified the IPI tax 
reported from an invoice dated during the February--April period (see 
COSIPA Verification Exhibit 7).
    Comment 7: The petitioners maintain that the Department must 
disallow COSIPA's claimed warranty expenses because they represent 
credits to customers for a defective product or a price adjustment. 
According to petitioners, COSIPA had the burden of demonstrating which 
``warranty''

[[Page 12749]]

expenses related to quality problems and which related to price 
adjustments. Since COSIPA could not directly relate the post-sale price 
adjustments (``PSPAs'') to specific transactions, the petitioners 
believe the Department should disallow COSIPA's claimed ``warranty'' 
expense. The petitioners argue that since the reported ``warranty'' 
expense included post-sale price adjustments, COSIPA's warranty claim 
should be rejected because while warranty expenses may be allocated, 
petitioners argue that post-sale price adjustments may not be 
allocated. Petitioners cite Torrington Co. v. United States 
(``Torrington''), 82 F.3d 1039, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and Timken 
Company v. United States, 930 F. Supp. 621, 632 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996).
    The respondent states that the Department should dismiss 
petitioners' comments because they are tardy, and mischaracterize the 
law and Departmental practice. The respondent notes that the 
petitioners have waited until the record is effectively closed and 
verification has been completed to attack COSIPA's warranty expense and 
urge the Department to reject this adjustment. The respondent requests 
the Department to discourage such tactics and reject petitioners' 
comments on procedural grounds.
    The respondent also challenges petitioners' statement that PSPAs 
may not be based on allocations. The respondent maintains that the 
petitioners' cite to the Federal Circuit's holding in Torrington in 
support of their position ignores the Department's application of the 
Torrington holding in recent investigations. The respondent notes that 
in a final results of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in 
Part (``Tapered Roller Bearings''), 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997), the 
Department rejected the petitioners' interpretation of Torrington and 
stated that it would accept adjustments for PSPAs based on allocation 
if : (1) The respondent acted to the best of its ability to report the 
adjustment in the most specific manner, and (2) the allocation 
methodology was not unreasonably distortive. Moreover, the respondent 
states that the final antidumping regulations published on May 19, 
1997, specifically permit allocations for price adjustments (62 FR 
27296, 27410 (section 351.401(g)).
    In addition, the respondent states that the Department verified 
that COSIPA's warranty calculation was based on the most specific 
allocation permitted, given COSIPA's record-keeping system and the 
Department did not perceive any distortions in COSIPA's adjustment (see 
COSIPA's Sales Verification Report at 16). The respondent concludes 
that the Department was correct to allow COSIPA's warranty adjustment 
in its preliminary results and should continue to do so in the final 
results.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondent. At 
verification, the Department officials found that COSIPA was unable to 
link credit notes to specific notas fiscais (invoices). Therefore, 
COSIPA could not link the credit notes to the specific sales of 
merchandise, nor discriminate between warranties and post-sale price 
adjustments. We found COSIPA's methodology to be reasonable. In the 
Tapered Roller Bearings case cited by respondents, the Department 
allowed adjustment for post-sale price adjustments that had been 
allocated, provided that it was not feasible for the respondent to 
report the adjustment on a more specific basis, and provided that the 
allocation methodology was not distortive. Department officials 
verified that these adjustments could not be more specifically reported 
and also verified the allocation methodology for COSIPA. We do not find 
it to be distortive. Thus, allowance of COSIPA's PSPAs is consistent 
with the Department's practice (see section 351.401(g) of the 
Department's new regulations (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997).
    Comment 8: USIMINAS/COSIPA challenges the Department's exclusion of 
inter-company transactions between USIMINAS and COSIPA from the 
denominator in the calculation of the cost of goods sold of USIMINAS. 
Respondent points out that this adjustment is irrelevant for purposes 
of the consolidated financial expense ratio, but increases the 
consolidated G&A ratio. First, USIMINAS/COSIPA maintains that the 
exclusion of inter-company sales is unfounded from an accounting and 
economic perspective. In USIMINAS/COSIPA's view, if the manufacture and 
sale of a category of products generates any of the expenses in the 
numerator, like other sales, there is no justification for excluding 
that category from the denominator. USIMINAS/COSIPA argues that its 
accounting department must perform its services regardless of whether 
the product is manufactured for sale t o an unaffiliated distributor, 
an affiliated distributor, or to COSIPA. USIMINAS/COSIPA conjectures 
that the Department's concern with including sales to COSIPA may be 
based on a suspicion that these sales are not normal. However, 
USIMINAS/COSIPA notes that the denominator of the G&A ratio is the cost 
of goods sold which is incurred regardless of the ultimate destination 
of the product. Therefore, according to USIMINAS/COSIPA, there is no 
basis for the exclusion from the cost of goods sold, of the costs 
associated with sales of products by USIMINAS to COSIPA.
    Secondly, USIMINAS/COSIPA maintains that the Department currently 
requests the respondent to calculate financial ratios on a consolidated 
basis, while the Department's questionnaire requires respondents to 
calculate G&A ratios on a non-consolidated basis (see the Department's 
September 19, 1996 Questionnaire at D-21-22). USIMINAS/COSIPA supports 
the calculation of the G&A ratio on a non-consolidated basis, stating 
that according to Department practice, neither the numerator nor the 
denominator in the G&A ratio calculation should be adjusted for the 
effects of any consolidation.
    Petitioners state that the Department was correct in deducting 
costs associated with inter-company transactions from cost of goods 
sold. Petitioners state that since the Department has declared USIMINAS 
and COSIPA to be affiliated and collapsed them into one entity for the 
purposes of this review, their costs must be treated as if they were 
consolidated. Therefore, petitioners state that the deduction of costs 
associated with inter-company transactions is necessary in order to 
avoid double-counting. Petitioners cite Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Plate From Canada, 62 FR 18464 (Apr. 15, 1997) as evidence 
of precedent for the Department's decision.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. As indicated in 
the preliminary results of this review, we have treated USIMINAS and 
COSIPA as a collapsed, single entity for purposes of our antidumping 
analysis. Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil, 62 FR 
47436 (Sept. 9, 1997). We have determined that USIMINAS/COSIPA should 
be considered a single producer of certain cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate.
    The decision to treat affiliated parties as a single entity 
necessitates that transactions between such parties also be viewed in 
terms of a single, consolidated whole. The Department has determined it 
would be inappropriate to combine the cost of goods sold by USIMINAS 
and COSIPA without adjustment, because this would

[[Page 12750]]

recognize income/expenses which would not be recognized in the context 
of consolidation. When treating companies as consolidated, the 
Department eliminates profits/losses from intercompany transactions in 
order to recognize profits/losses from transactions only with 
unaffiliated companies. For the final results, therefore, the 
Department has eliminated intercompany transactions from the 
calculation of cost of sales.
    Comment 9: USIMINAS notes that in reformulating financial expenses 
for USIMINAS and COSIPA, the Department did not deduct financial 
expenses associated with exports or home market sales from total 
financial expenses. Since the Department found the financial expenses 
of both parties to be de minimis, this error is irrelevant. However, 
USIMINAS/COSIPA requests that in the event the Department revises its 
financial expense calculations, and in the event constructed value 
comparisons are used, the Department ensure that it includes these 
deductions from financial expenses for purposes of any comparison of 
U.S. price to constructed value.
    Petitioners state that the Department correctly omitted from its 
financial expense recalculation amounts for ``Excluded Export 
Expenses'' and ``Excluded Financial Expenses on Sales''. Petitioners 
cite Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 
and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900 (Feb. 
28, 1995), as illustration of the Department's practice in this matter.
    Department's Position: This issue is moot because we continue to 
find the financial expense rate to be de minimis. However, we disagree 
with respondent. The Department's normal practice is to compute the 
actual net financial expenses of the entire company in arriving at the 
financial expense ratio used in constructed value. The statute directs 
Commerce to calculate selling, general and administrative costs, 
including interest expenses, based on the actual experience of the 
company. See section 773(b)(3)(B) and section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act 
of 1930, as amended.
    Comment 10: The petitioners maintain that under section 773(f)(2) 
and (3) of the Tariff Act, major inputs purchased from affiliated 
parties must be valued at the highest of market value, transfer price, 
and the affiliate's cost of production (COP). The petitioners note that 
the respondent failed to report the cost of iron ore provided by 
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD), an affiliate of USIMINAS. Further, 
they state that CVRD declined to release the cost of production 
information because they claimed it was business proprietary 
information, regardless of whether or not they were affiliated with 
USIMINAS.
    The petitioners state that this same situation existed in the 
recent 1994-1995 review of Silicomanganese from Brazil; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (``Silicomanganese from 
Brazil''), 62 FR 37869 (July 15, 1997). According to petitioners, in 
that case the Department rejected CVRD's argument that the information 
was confidential, noting that the information could have been submitted 
directly to the Department. According to petitioners, in 
Silicomanganese from Brazil, the Department also rejected CVRD's and 
USIMINAS' argument that the profits reported by these parties proved 
that they were not transferring major inputs to affiliated parties at 
below-cost prices. The Department stated that the record showed that 
the company earned an overall profit, but did not establish that 
specific products were sold above cost to affiliated parties.
    The petitioners note that, in Silicomanganese from Brazil, CVRD's 
and USIMINAS/COSIPA's refusal to provide COP data led the Department to 
apply adverse facts available with respect to the major input in 
question. Petitioners argue that the Department should also apply 
adverse facts available in this case.
    The petitioners contend that the conditions required by section 
776(a) of the statute for the application of facts available have been 
met. Specifically, petitioners claim that CVRD's refusal to provide the 
requested information on two occasions (i.e., in its response to the 
Department's initial questionnaire and in the supplemental 
questionnaire) is imputable to the respondent, and that, thus, 
respondent has ``withheld information'' within the meaning of section 
776(a)(2)(A). Moreover, the petitioners state that under section 782(d) 
of the Tariff Act, once notice of a deficiency is provided and the 
response is unsatisfactory, the Department may reject all or part of a 
respondent's original and subsequent responses subject to the 
provisions of section 782(e), which outlines the five criteria under 
which the Department cannot decline to consider submitted information. 
In the petitioners' view, CVRD and the respondent failed to comply with 
one of the criteria when they repeatedly failed to supply the necessary 
COP data in response to the Department's requests for information. For 
this reason, the petitioners urge the Department to apply adverse facts 
available.
    The respondent rejects these arguments, stating that petitioners' 
analysis is flawed by misinterpretation of the statute and a misplaced 
reliance on the Department's recent decision in Silicomanganese from 
Brazil, 62 FR 37869 (July 15, 1997). The respondent maintains that the 
petitioners fail to recognize that application of the major input 
provision requires ``reasonable grounds'' to believe that an input is 
being supplied at below cost prices. 19 U.S.C. 1677b(F)(3). The 
respondent states that the Department verified that the CVRD prices for 
iron ore were above prices from unaffiliated suppliers and that CVRD 
was a highly profitable company. According to USIMINAS/COSIPA, this 
provides the Department with reasonable grounds to conclude that CVRD 
was selling iron ore to the respondent at prices above its costs and 
above market prices.
    Respondent argues that the major input provision includes a 
``reasonable grounds'' requirement identical to the clause that 
requires petitioners to submit information that provides sufficient 
``reasonable grounds'' to initiate a below cost investigation. The 
respondent states that the petitioners did not even attempt to submit 
information to establish reasonable grounds to believe that CVRD sold 
to USIMINAS or COSIPA at below-cost prices in this proceeding and, 
therefore, they are not positioned to argue that the Department should 
have invoked its authority under the major inputs provision. Thus, the 
respondent states that the record supports the conclusion that there is 
no reason to suspect that CVRD is providing iron ore at prices below 
its COP, and below market price.
    In addition, the respondent claims that the petitioners incorrectly 
state that the Department ``must'' use the highest of market value, 
transfer price, and cost of production. In the respondent's opinion, 
the Department's authority under the major input provision is 
discretionary because the statute states plainly that even if there are 
reasonable grounds to believe that below cost sales of a major input 
exist, the Department ``may'' seek an affiliated suppliers' COP for 
major inputs and use that value in lieu of transfer prices for the 
inputs at issue.
    Department's Position: We agree, in part, with both the petitioners 
and respondent. Pursuant to sections 773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act, the

[[Page 12751]]

Department may value major inputs purchased from affiliated suppliers 
at the higher of market value, transfer price or the affiliated 
supplier's cost of production. In the Department's original 
questionnaire, supplemental questionnaires and at verification, 
officials requested CVRD's cost of production information for iron ore, 
which is a major input in carbon steel plate.
    USIMINAS/COSIPA argues that the petitioners did not provide 
``reasonable grounds'' for the Department to invoke the major input 
rule and therefore to seek cost information on this input. However, it 
is the Department's position that a separate sales-below-cost 
allegation need not always be filed and accepted before we can 
investigate whether prices of major inputs purchased from affiliated 
suppliers were below COP. Specifically, in those instances in which we 
conduct an investigation of sales below cost under section 773(b) of 
the Act, it is our practice to analyze production-cost data for major 
inputs purchased by a respondent from its affiliated suppliers (see, 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 37871 (Apr. 15, 1997)). In such 
situations, the ``reasonable grounds'' provision of section 773(f)(3) 
of the Act is met by the evidence on record that the respondent may be 
selling below cost in the home market, since this may be linked to 
major inputs obtained at below cost transfer prices from affiliated 
parties. Because a COP investigation was properly initiated with 
respect to USIMINAS/COSIPA in this review, Commerce properly requested 
that USIMINAS/COSIPA provide cost of production data for the iron ore 
it obtains from its affiliate CVRD.
    Of the three elements which may be compared in determining the 
value of major inputs supplied by affiliates (transfer price, market 
value and cost of production), USIMINAS/COSIPA provided the transfer 
price of iron ore from CVRD to USIMINAS/COSIPA in its submissions. In 
addition, at verification, the respondent provided market price data 
from unaffiliated iron ore suppliers. In most instances, the market 
price was much lower than the transfer price from the affiliated 
supplier.
    The Department has determined that USIMINAS/COSIPA did attempt to 
obtain cost of production information from its affiliate, CVRD, and 
otherwise complied with the Department's information requests. Further, 
the Department has determined that, due to the nature of its 
affiliation with CVRD, USIMINAS/COSIPA could not compel CVRD to provide 
such information to the Department. Thus, the Department will not 
impute CVRD's refusal to provide the requested cost information to 
USIMINAS/COSIPA. In Silicomanganese from Brazil, the Department 
determined that USIMINAS and CVRD, which together wholly owned the 
respondent Ferro Ligas Group, were to be considered ``interested 
parties'' to the case. Given these facts, the Department held that the 
burden of supplying information to the Department fell not only to the 
wholly owned subsidiary, but also to these ``parent'' companies. The 
Department stated, ``[b]ecause the Department requires such data and 
because the business of the parent entity is clearly affected by its 
ability to ensure that its subsidiary avoids or lessens the effect of 
antidumping duties on U.S. sales, the consolidated or parent entity 
must be considered an ``interested party'' for purposes of responding 
to requests for information.'' The current proceeding is distinguished 
from Silicomanganese from Brazil by the degree of ownership involved. 
Public data on the record of the current proceeding indicates that CVRD 
holds only 15 percent of USIMINAS' stock, and CVRD's interest in 
USIMINAS constitutes only a small portion of CVRD's total operation. 
Thus, USIMINAS/COSIPA could not compel CVRD to supply its cost of 
production information, nor is CVRD an interested party as in 
Silicomanganese from Brazil. Instead, CVRD holds only a minor interest 
in USIMINAS. See Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan: Notice 
of Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 60472 (Nov. 10, 1997), in which the 
Department determined that a respondent could not compel an affiliate 
to supply downstream sales information due to similar ownership 
circumstances. Adding to the difficulty faced by USIMINAS/COSIPA in 
obtaining CVRD's cost information was the fact that CVRD was in the 
process of privatization throughout most of this review. Some aspects 
of the privatization may have prevented CVRD from releasing cost 
information even to the Department, let alone to USIMINAS/COSIPA. In 
addition, USIMINAS' major competitor in Brazil, CSN, was part of the 
group involved in the privatization of CVRD.
    Finally, as the petitioners point out, the fact that USIMINAS/
COSIPA submitted the profitable financial statements of CVRD at 
verification does not negate the possibility that CVRD was selling 
major inputs to USIMINAS and COSIPA at prices below CVRD's cost of 
production (see Silicomanganese from Brazil). However, at verification, 
Department officials noted that CVRD's metals mining line of business 
appeared to be profitable. We note that, while not dispositive, the 
fact that not only CVRD as a whole, but also its metals mining 
division, were profitable during the period during which USIMINAS/
COSIPA purchased iron ore from CVRD, constitutes some evidence that 
CVRD's sales of iron ore to the respondent likely were at above-cost 
levels.
    Because USIMINAS/COSIPA did not provide CVRD's cost of production 
data, the Department has made a determination with respect to the 
appropriate value for iron ore on the basis of the facts available. 
Because the Department finds that USIMINAS/COSIPA has acted to the best 
of its ability in attempting to obtain the CVRD cost data, however, we 
will not make an adverse assumption in selecting from the facts 
available. Therefore, because the transfer prices for iron ore are 
generally higher than the market prices for iron ore, and because the 
record contains no indication that the cost of production of the iron 
ore would be higher than the transfer prices for that input, we are 
using the reported transfer prices for this major input as facts 
available in these final results. Therefore, we made no changes to the 
major input calculations employed in the preliminary determination, 
which were also based on the use of transfer prices.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
          Manufacturer/exporter              Time period      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USIMINAS/COSIPA.........................     8/1/95-7/31/96        11.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12752]]

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and foreign market value may 
vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit 
value per pound basis. To calculate the per pound unit value for 
assessment, we summed the margins on U.S. sales with positive margins, 
and then divided this sum by the entered pounds of all U.S. sales.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of plate from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the 
reviewed company will be the rate for that firm as stated above; (2) 
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original less than fair value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this review, the cash rate will be 36.00 percent. 
This is the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. See 
Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Germany, 58 FR 44170 (August 19, 1993). These deposit requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 353.26 of the Department's regulations to 
file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 
of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: March 9, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-6713 Filed 3-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P