[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76-85]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34799]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-809]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: 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, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the 1996-97 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-
length (CTL) carbon steel plate from Mexico. This review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise. The period of review 
(POR) is August 1, 1996 through

[[Page 77]]

July 31, 1997. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, we have not changed the results from those presented in our 
preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Osborne or Mike Heaney, 
Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3019 
or 482-4475, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (1998).

Background

    On September 9, 1998, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the 1996-97 administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain CTL carbon steel plate from Mexico. See Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico, 63 FR 48181 (Preliminary Results). This 
review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, 
Altos de Hornos de Mexico (AHMSA). The POR is August 1, 1996 through 
July 31, 1997. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
the preliminary results and held a public and closed hearing on 
November 4, 1998. The following parties submitted comments and/or 
rebuttals: Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Geneva Steel, Gulf Lakes Steel, 
Inc., of Alabama, Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Lukens Steel Company, 
Sharon Steel Corporation, and U.S. Steel Group (a unit of USX 
Corporation) (collectively the petitioners), and AHMSA.
    The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered in this review 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 coil 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 7208.31.0000, 
7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 
7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 
7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 
7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this review are flat-rolled 
products of non-rectangular 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 from this review is grade X-
70 plate.
    These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. 
Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary 
results. We received comments from AHMSA and the petitioners.

Comment 1: Reported Costs

    AHMSA contends that the Department's rationale for using adverse 
facts available is refuted by statements in the Department's cost 
verification report which demonstrate that AHMSA's reported costs 
reconciled to its accounting records and financial statements. AHMSA 
cites to several statements in the cost verification report where the 
Department performed tests of specific cost data and traced that cost 
data to AHMSA's accounting records. AHMSA urges the Department to 
reexamine its own findings, as set forth in the cost verification 
report, and reconsider its conclusions. AHMSA contends that the cost 
data is verifiable.
    Petitioners claim that the fact that certain of AHMSA's costs in 
the aggregate may have reconciled to AHMSA's financial statement does 
not suggest that AHMSA's control number (CONNUM)-specific costs were 
verified or reconciled to AHMSA's financial statements. Petitioners 
note that the verification report identifies specific costs which, in 
the aggregate, were verified, including the trace of trial balance 
accounts to financial statement line items. Citing to Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review) Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal 
Republic of Germany, 56 FR 31692, 31707 (July 11, 1991), petitioners 
state that the verification of aggregate costs does not equate to the 
verification of CONNUM-specific costs.
    Department's Position: We were unable to verify the CONNUM-specific 
costs reported by AHMSA. The individual verification procedures cited 
by AHMSA are tests of individual elements of the submitted data and do 
not, separately or combined, indicate that AHMSA correctly reported its 
cost data.
    Section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act specifically requires that costs 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 (GAAP) of the exporting country and 
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of 
the merchandise. In accordance with the statutory directive, the 
Department will accept costs of the exporter or producer if they are 
based on records kept in accordance with GAAP of the exporting country 
and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and 
sale of the merchandise (i.e., the cost data can be reasonably 
allocated to subject merchandise). In determining if the costs were 
reasonably allocated to all products the Department will, consistent 
with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, examine whether the allocation 
methods are used in the normal accounting records and whether they have 
been historically used by the company.
    Before assessing the reasonableness of a respondent's cost 
allocation methodology, however, the Department must ensure that the 
aggregate amount of the reported costs captures all costs incurred by 
the respondent in producing the subject merchandise during the period 
under examination. This is done by performing a reconciliation of the 
respondent's

[[Page 78]]

submitted cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV) data to 
the company's audited financial statements, when such statements are 
available. Because of the time constraints imposed on verifications, 
the Department generally must rely on the independent auditor's opinion 
concerning whether a respondent's financial statements present the 
actual costs incurred by the company, and whether those financial 
statements are in accordance with GAAP of the exporting country. In 
situations where the respondent's total reported costs differ from 
amounts reported in its financial statements, the overall cost 
reconciliation assists the Department in identifying and quantifying 
those differences in order to determine whether it was reasonable for 
the respondent to exclude certain costs for purposes of reporting COP 
and CV.
    Although the format of the reconciliation of submitted costs to 
actual financial statement costs depends greatly on the nature of the 
accounting records maintained by the respondent, the reconciliation 
represents the starting point of a cost verification because it assures 
the Department that the respondent has accounted for all costs before 
allocating those costs to individual products.
    AHMSA, however, was unable to perform such a reconciliation. As 
discussed in Comment 8 below, the Department found that AHMSA had 
failed to include costs incurred in its coke plants, sinter plant, 
blast furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces, and continuous casters. AHMSA 
incurred all of these costs in the production of the subject 
merchandise. These unreported costs were substantial and raise serious 
concerns about whether there are additional cost center costs related 
to the plate production process which were not reported by AHMSA and 
not discovered by the Department at verification.
    Moreover, even if AHMSA had been able to reconcile its submitted 
costs to its financial statements, it still would have failed 
verification due to its failure to use its normal cost accounting 
system in developing its COP and CV data. AHMSA indicated in its 
questionnaire response that its normal cost accounting system, which 
AHMSA used to prepare its financial statements, is not maintained on 
the product-specific level requested by the Department. See AHMSA's 
Cost Questionnaire Response at D-46, D-47. Therefore, AHMSA claimed 
that it was necessary to use a separate costing model to develop such 
grade-specific COP and CV data. In an effort to verify AHMSA's 
statements that its normal cost accounting system did not capture costs 
at the product-specific level, the Department was obligated to review 
and evaluate AHMSA's normal cost accounting system. As explained in the 
preliminary results, AHMSA withheld its normal cost accounting system's 
product-specific cost records until the end of verification. See 
Preliminary Results, 63 FR at 48182, September 9, 1998. AHMSA's 
withholding of this data precluded us from verifying AHMSA's COP/CV 
data. However, we were able to determine that AHMSA's normal cost 
accounting system included grade-specific slab cost data (the process 
preceding the plate rolling process). This data was more detailed than 
and significantly different from the data submitted by AHMSA. Based on 
the foregoing, we determined that the data submitted by AHMSA was not 
based on the allocation methods AHMSA historically used in its normal 
cost accounting system, even though such data was available to AHMSA.

Comment 2: Verification

    AHMSA argues that the purpose of the Department's verification is 
to verify the information submitted on the record. AHMSA claims the 
Department verifiers refused to examine the information that was 
prepared in advance by AHMSA to support its COP/CV information. AHMSA 
states the Department verifiers mistakenly concluded that AHMSA 
maintains only standard costs in its normal accounting system, and 
claims that the Department verifiers misunderstood its cost accounting 
system and the submitted data. AHMSA maintains that it used actual 
costs recorded in its normal accounting system to prepare its cost 
response, and that the Department's insistence on examining its 
standard costs was based upon a misunderstanding of AHMSA's accounting 
system.
    Petitioners state that there is no basis for AHMSA's claim that the 
Department verifiers misunderstood its cost accounting system. 
Petitioners assert that the Department's verification report clearly 
indicates that it fully understood that AHMSA's normal accounting 
records included both actual and standard costs. Petitioners note that 
at verification the Department found that AHMSA has both a standard 
cost report and a version of the report that adjusts standard costs to 
actual costs. See Memorandum from Michael Martin to Christian Marsh, 
Verification Report on the Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Data Submitted by Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Cost 
Verification Report) at 21 (August 27, 1998). A public version of this 
report is available in Room B099 of the Main Commerce Building. (AHMSA 
references these reports in its brief to indicate that it maintains 
both standard and actual costs.)
    Petitioners also note that in its questionnaire responses AHMSA 
described its normal cost accounting system as being based on standard 
costs which were adjusted to actual costs through the application of 
variances. Petitioners contest AHMSA's assertion that because AHMSA 
used actual average plate cost and not its standard costs in reporting 
CONNUM-specific costs, the Department was not obliged to examine 
AHMSA's standard cost build-ups during verification. Petitioners argue 
that without substantiation, the standard input factors could be 
manipulated to improperly shift plate costs to non-subject merchandise. 
Further, petitioners argue, the only way to rule out mis-allocations to 
non-subject merchandise was for the Department to review the standard 
usage factors compared to the actual consumption for AHMSA's steel 
grades. Accordingly, petitioners conclude that the standard cost build-
ups were crucial to the verification because they identify the types of 
costs included in AHMSA's average plate cost calculation.
    Department's Position: We agree with AHMSA that the purpose of 
verification is to verify the accuracy of information submitted on the 
record, and note that the Department verifiers adhered to this basic 
tenet during verification. However, as discussed in our response to 
Comment 1, it was necessary for the Department verifiers to fully 
understand AHMSA's normal cost and financial accounting systems before 
they could evaluate the reported product-specific costs. Therefore, it 
was crucial for the verifiers to review the costs as maintained in the 
normal cost accounting system. It was also essential that the 
Department verify AHMSA's claim that it had to resort to a system 
outside its normal cost accounting system to prepare the reported 
grade-specific COP and CV data because, as explained by AHMSA, its 
normal cost accounting system did not include grade-specific cost 
information at the level of specificity required by the Department. As 
noted in the verification report, we found that AHMSA's normal cost 
accounting system cost build-ups did in fact distinguish between the 
grades of product produced.
    Additionally, the Department verifiers clearly understood AHMSA's 
normal accounting system and realized that it included both standard 
and actual costs. Moreover, it was clear from AHMSA's responses that 
AHMSA's normal cost

[[Page 79]]

accounting system (used in the preparation of AHMSA's financial 
statements) is based on standard costs adjusted to actual costs through 
the application of variances. Thus, because the normal cost accounting 
system was based on standards, the Department was obliged to review the 
build-up of AHMSA's standard costs. Because AHMSA's normal cost 
accounting system was based on standard costs, there is no basis for 
AHMSA's assertion that it had to prepare the requested standard cost 
data for the first time during verification.
    At verification the Department must review the normal financial and 
cost accounting systems before reviewing the reported cost allocation 
methodologies. The cost questionnaire and verification agenda are 
organized and presented so that the respondent is aware that it must 
use its normal books and records in preparing its response. Both the 
cost questionnaire and the verification agenda start with the 
explanation of the normal financial accounting system, then progress to 
the normal cost accounting system, and finally to the reported cost 
methodology. In this case the verifiers attempted to proceed in this 
fashion; however, they were hampered by AHMSA's refusal to provide the 
standard cost build-ups used to prepare the financial statements until 
late in the verification process.
    As to the methods and techniques of verification, the Court of 
International Trade (CIT), in Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG, et al., v. 
United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 834 (CIT 1998), acknowledged that 
``[c]ongress has afforded ITA a degree of latitude in implementing its 
verification procedures'' and that ``[t]he decision to select a 
particular method of verification rests solely within the agency's 
sound discretion. * * * If a reasonable standard is applied and the 
verification is supported by substantial evidence, the court will 
sustain the methodology.'' Consistent with its practice, the Department 
first attempted to review AHMSA's normal financial and cost accounting 
system. The problems encountered at this crucial first step were 
significant (see Cost Verification Report at 2) and resulted in AHMSA's 
failure of the cost verification. See Preliminary Results, 63 FR at 
48182-84 (describing AHMSA's failure of the cost verification). 
Contrary to AHMSA's arguments, the Department cannot simply verify 
reported information in a vacuum. If reported cost information is not 
verifiably grounded in a respondent's normal books and records, it is 
meaningless to ``verify'' the reported information. This is because 
deviating from the product-specific costs recorded in a respondent's 
normal books and records can significantly distort reported COP and CV 
data. AHMSA's failure to use the product-specific costs recorded in its 
normal books and records prevents us from quantifying the magnitude of 
the distortions which exist in its submitted data. Under these 
circumstances, the Department's conduct of verification and 
verification findings are reasonable.

Comment 3: Use of Normal Cost Accounting System

    AHMSA claims that, contrary to the statements in the Department's 
cost verification report, it did rely on its ``normal'' cost accounting 
system to prepare its COP and CV data. AHMSA states that it maintains 
both actual and standard costs in its normal cost accounting system. 
The actual costs tie to the cost of goods sold on the income statement, 
while the standard costs tie to the inventory value on the balance 
sheet.
    For purposes of preparing its COP and CV information, AHMSA 
maintains that it reported the actual cost of producing plate, and then 
used its quarterly cost model to determine the costs of specific grades 
of plate. According to AHMSA, the Department incorrectly concluded that 
AHMSA did not rely on its ``normal'' cost accounting system because it 
failed to report standard costs.
    AHMSA asserts it is being unfairly and improperly penalized because 
of the Department's misunderstanding of AHMSA's normal cost accounting 
system. AHMSA maintains that its normal cost accounting system 
comprises both actual and standard costs. AHMSA contends that the 
result is identical whether using standard costs adjusted for variances 
or actual costs. However, to comply with the verifiers' requests for 
standard cost build-ups, AHMSA claims it had to manually calculate 
these standard costs, delaying the verification. AHMSA contends that 
the Department's misunderstanding of its cost accounting system and the 
verifiers' insistence on reviewing AHMSA's standard costs resulted in 
the failed cost verification.
    Petitioners note that AHMSA's method of deriving CONNUM-specific 
COPs and CVs involves two major steps. First, petitioners claim AHMSA 
derived an average cost for all plate based on standard costs adjusted 
for variances. Second, according to petitioners, AHMSA calculated the 
cost of specific plate grades using its costing model. In petitioners' 
view this resulted in CONNUM-specific costs that are significantly 
different than those recorded in its normal accounting records.
    Petitioners contend that there is no basis for AHMSA's claim that 
the Department misunderstood its normal cost accounting system. 
Petitioners assert that the Department's verification report clearly 
indicates that AHMSA normally maintains both actual and standard costs. 
Petitioners claim that the Department's statement that AHMSA did not 
use its normal cost accounting system to prepare the submitted COP and 
CV data refers to AHMSA's use of a ``sales pricing model'' which AHMSA 
admittedly does not use in its normal accounting system. Regardless of 
the model's nomenclature, petitioners allege that it is disingenuous of 
AHMSA to suggest that the Department's statement refers to anything but 
AHMSA's cost/pricing model.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AHMSA. The cost 
verification report accurately reflected the procedures performed and 
issues found during the verification. While AHMSA's reporting 
methodology may have relied on certain total actual costs from its 
accounting system in calculating the aggregate average cost of all 
plate, AHMSA did not rely on the allocation methodologies used in its 
normal cost accounting system, which are used to prepare the GAAP-based 
financial statements to calculate the reported product-specific costs. 
AHMSA concedes this point in its case brief at page 20.
    Additionally, we disagree with AHMSA's assertion that the verifiers 
misunderstood its normal cost accounting system. To the contrary, the 
verifiers were fully aware that a standard cost accounting system and 
financial accounting system includes both the standard costs and actual 
costs. See response to Comment 2 above. We also disagree with AHMSA's 
assertion that it is being unfairly and improperly penalized for the 
Department's misunderstanding of its normal cost accounting system. 
AHMSA did not use its normal cost allocation methodology as the basis 
for its COP and CV submissions, as required by the Department. 
Therefore, we were obligated to reject in its entirety the cost data 
submitted by AHMSA.
    Moreover, we disagree with AHMSA's claim that its methodology leads 
to the same result as would adjusting AHMSA's standard costs for 
variances. The Department's questionnaire requires respondents to 
report product-specific costs as defined by product characteristics 
identified by the Department. While AHMSA's contention that standard 
costs plus

[[Page 80]]

variances are the same as actual costs may be true on an overall basis, 
it does not hold true in this instance for the CONNUM-specific cost 
data. The methodology used by AHMSA started with certain plate 
production costs in total, from which AHMSA calculated an average plate 
cost for all steel grades. AHMSA's cost model then attempted to 
differentiate grade-specific cost differences. The costs derived from 
the model were not representative of the more detailed costs maintained 
in AHMSA's normal cost accounting system, which includes grade-specific 
costs for different grades of steel slab.
    As described in Comment 1 above, the underlying basis for 
formatting AHMSA's COP/CV response should have been AHMSA's normal cost 
accounting system. The Department allows a respondent to deviate from 
its normal cost accounting system only if the normal cost accounting 
system does not allocate product-specific costs to the level of detail 
required or does not appropriately allocate costs to products, and only 
after consulting with representatives from the Department (see 
Questionnaire, Section D-III, Response Methodology). AHMSA deviated 
from its normal accounting system, and never discussed the deviation 
with the Department prior to filing its cost response. In its response, 
AHMSA claimed that it did not account for grade-specific cost 
differences in its accounting records; yet at verification, the 
Department found that in fact it did account for such differences. 
Therefore, the Department found AHMSA's reported product-specific costs 
were based on a methodology that was completely separate from AHMSA's 
normal cost accounting system.

Comment 4: Grade-Specific Slab Costs

    AHMSA argues that it did not withhold information about its grade-
specific slab costs from the verifiers. AHMSA insists that its 
questionnaire response at pages D-46 and D-47 indicated that the 
company maintains grade-specific costs for slab, but does not maintain 
grade-specific costs for plate. According to AHMSA, if the Department 
had wanted AHMSA to recalculate grade-specific plate costs using the 
grade-specific slab costs as the starting point, then it was incumbent 
upon the Department to notify AHMSA of this requirement prior to the 
verification. AHMSA argues that the methodology it employed to report 
its costs should not be considered unreasonable and inappropriate 
simply because the Department believes there is a more appropriate 
methodology for reporting costs.
    Petitioners claim that AHMSA's failure to provide the standard cost 
build-ups prevented verification of its submitted CONNUM-specific 
costs. Petitioners argue that the average plate cost is a function of 
the standard costs that are used to produce the plate. Petitioners 
contend that it was imperative for the Department to review the 
underlying standard costs of slab to determine if the reported CONNUM-
specific costs were consistent with costs actually incurred to produce 
the merchandise. Because AHMSA did not provide the standard cost build-
ups until very late in the verification, petitioners argue the 
Department was deprived of its opportunity to examine the grade-
specific slab costs normally maintained by AHMSA.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that AHMSA 
withheld from the Department information concerning its grade-specific 
slab costs. There is no record evidence supporting AHMSA's claim that 
AHMSA explained in its questionnaire response that grade-specific slab 
costs were maintained in its normal accounting system. The evidence 
cited to by AHMSA at pages D-46 and D-47 of its questionnaire response, 
where AHMSA asserts it ``notified'' the Department that the normal cost 
accounting system included grade-specific slab costs, reads:

    These actual costs are the costs recorded in AHMSA's plate mill 
cost center and include all costs incurred in prior production 
processes. Given AHMSA's accounting system, it is most appropriate 
to cost product at this level since slab is used to produce a number 
of different products, including many types of non-subject 
merchandise. Thus, the most accurate measure of the amount of slab 
(which is the compilation of all materials and other inputs up to 
that point in the production process) used to produce a ton of plate 
occurs at the plate mill cost center.

This cannot reasonably be construed as notification that AHMSA's normal 
cost accounting system included grade-specific slab costs. In fact, 
AHMSA's response arguably gave no indication that its normal cost 
accounting system was more detailed with respect to grade-specific slab 
costs. Had AHMSA provided the Department with a clear, complete, and 
accurate response to the questionnaire regarding its normal cost 
accounting system, we would have been able to address these concerns in 
a supplemental questionnaire.
    Because AHMSA had described its normal cost accounting system as a 
standard cost system which was adjusted to actual costs through the 
application of variances, the verification agenda sent to AHMSA prior 
to the verification indicated that the Department would review the 
normal accounting system. This verification agenda included standard 
cost build-ups. The data withheld by AHMSA, and used by AHMSA in its 
normal accounting records, is clearly more detailed than the data 
submitted by AHMSA in its cost questionnaire response. Accordingly, 
there is no basis for AHMSA's assertion that it was obligated to use a 
methodology which was outside the normal cost accounting system to 
develop product-specific costs.

Comment 5: Reconciliation of Costs

    AHMSA contends that the Department reconciled AHMSA's reported 
costs to its accounting system and to the audited financial statements. 
AHMSA explains that when the Department verifiers requested the general 
ledger in order to trace amounts from the trial balances, AHMSA did not 
understand what the Department wanted, because those specific amounts 
could not be seen directly in the general ledger. AHMSA acknowledges 
that the Department has the authority to review documentation other 
than that specified in the verification outline. However, AHMSA claims 
that it was wrong for the Department to conclude that AHMSA failed to 
reconcile its costs when it was able to tie its reported costs to the 
company's trial balances. AHMSA states that the Department's 
verification outline does not require that the trial balances be 
reconciled to the general ledger. Moreover, AHMSA contends that the 
statement in the verification report that the Department reconciled the 
total cost, which AHMSA identified as plate cost per the accounting 
system, to the total reported cost of manufacture (COM), refutes the 
Department's conclusion that AHMSA's costs could not be reconciled to 
its accounting records.
    Petitioners disagree with AHMSA's claim that a reconciliation of 
its financial statement to its trial balances would be sufficient for 
its reported costs to verify. According to the petitioners, the 
verification of certain aggregate costs neither constitutes 
reconciliation of costs nor constitutes verification of AHMSA's CONNUM-
specific plate costs.
    Responding to AHMSA's claim that the agenda did not require the 
Department to trace the amounts from the trial balance to the general 
ledger, petitioners note that a company's general ledger links the 
individual trial balance amounts to the source documentation that 
substantiate the trial balance amounts. Additionally,

[[Page 81]]

petitioners note that in Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 98-95 (CIT July 2, 1998) the CIT upheld the 
Department's practice of using facts available when a respondent fails 
to provide basic accounting documentation such as expense ledgers.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AHMSA's claim that a 
general ledger does not include amounts shown on a trial balance. To 
the contrary, the trial balance is simply a summary of the account 
balances from the general ledger. The general ledger contains 
transactions, and is the connection between the trial balance and the 
underlying source documents. Because AHMSA did not provide the general 
ledger, we were unable to make the connection between total amounts 
shown on the trial balance and the source documents.
    Moreover, we disagree with AHMSA's assertion that its reported 
costs were reconciled to the financial statements. See complete 
discussion of this issue in Comment 1 above. When we discovered that a 
significant percentage of costs were excluded from the reported costs, 
AHMSA attempted to distinguish total costs recorded for all products 
from total costs allocated to plate. See Comment 8 below. The statement 
cited by AHMSA simply indicates that the total costs AHMSA allocated to 
plate were reconciled to the total reported COM (i.e., multiplication 
of the reported per-unit COM and the production quantity).

Comment 6: Physical Characteristics Cost Differences

    AHMSA claims that it informed the Department long before the start 
of the verification that its reported COP and CV amounts do not capture 
cost differences arising from products that undergo different levels of 
rolling or slitting. AHMSA contends that characteristics such as 
overruns vs. non-overruns, prime vs. non-prime, painted vs. non-
painted, checkered vs. non-checkered, and scaled vs. non-scaled, are 
the same for all plate products produced by AHMSA. With respect to 
products of different widths and thicknesses, AHMSA contends that these 
cost differences are accounted for because its reported costs are 
calculated on a per-ton basis.
    Petitioners contend that AHMSA's cost reporting methodology is 
inadequate because it did not reflect the level of CONNUM-specificity 
requested by the Department. Citing the cost verification report, 
petitioners state that thinner plates should incur greater costs 
because they require more processing. Noting that AHMSA's normal cost 
accounting system distinguished grade-specific slab costs, petitioners 
claim that AHMSA could have provided costs with greater product 
specificity if it had used its normal cost accounting system rather 
than its quarterly costing model. Additionally, petitioners state that 
AHMSA's failure to disclose accurately the level of product specificity 
maintained in its normal accounting system prevented the Department 
from notifying AHMSA of its response deficiency.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that AHMSA's cost 
reporting methodology inadequately accounted for CONNUM-specific cost 
differences. For steel grade differences, AHMSA used its cost model 
rather than its normal cost accounting system. See Comment 3. Moreover, 
we disagree with AHMSA's claim that its per-ton cost allocation 
reasonably accounts for cost differences attributable to differing 
widths and thicknesses. AHMSA's assertion that products with different 
width and thicknesses both share the same processing cost is contrary 
to our verification findings that thinner plate requires more 
processing than thicker plate. By allocating processing costs equally 
to all types of plate, regardless of its thickness, AHMSA significantly 
understated the processing cost on its thinner plate sizes.

Comment 7: Raw Material Consumption

    AHMSA contends that, contrary to the conclusion of the cost 
verification report, the Department did in fact verify the actual 
materials consumption upon which AHMSA's reported costs are based. 
AHMSA claims that the monthly production reports included in one of the 
verification exhibits contains information on actual consumption of all 
raw material inputs used to produce plate.
    Petitioners claim that AHMSA's refusal to provide the normal 
accounting system cost build-ups prevented the Department from 
verifying material costs.
    Department's Position: We do not support AHMSA's claim that any 
number appearing on a verification exhibit is a verified number. 
Because AHMSA withheld standard cost build-ups which include standard 
usage and standard prices, we were unable to verify the consumption 
included in the reported costs to the consumption amounts reflected in 
AHMSA's normal cost accounting system.

Comment 8: Unreported Costs

    In a letter submitted to the Department on June 8, 1998, AHMSA 
explained it found that certain depreciation and other expenses related 
to processes occurring prior to the plate mill cost center had been 
inadvertently omitted from the reported costs. AHMSA claims that the 
Department's verification finding of additional unreported depreciation 
costs was not discovered by the verifiers. Instead, AHMSA holds that 
the identified costs were submitted to the Department at the 
commencement of verification.
    AHMSA maintains that it also inadvertently omitted certain fixed 
costs associated with these same processes. AHMSA declares that these 
additional unreported cost center costs were not found by the 
verifiers. AHMSA claims that it discovered these unreported cost 
centers, quantified them, and informed the Department verifiers of the 
missing additional fixed costs on the morning of the second day of 
verification. Additionally, AHMSA claims that its position is 
substantiated by record evidence. AHMSA contends that the omitted costs 
are shown in Verification Exhibit B14, AHMSA Total Cost Reconciliation, 
on the line ``additional fixed costs.''
    Petitioners contend that the cost verification report clearly 
establishes that AHMSA failed to include a substantial portion of plate 
manufacturing costs.
    Department's Position: AHMSA did not identify the cost centers in 
question at the onset of verification. While the Department verifiers 
were reviewing the cost center list and the corrections presented by 
AHMSA at the beginning of verification, the verifiers identified 
several cost centers which AHMSA had excluded from the reported costs. 
These cost centers relate to plate production incurred prior to the 
plate mill, and should have been included by AHMSA. During our review 
of AHMSA's cost centers, we asked AHMSA to quantify the costs incurred 
in those cost centers and to provide an allocation of those costs to 
plate. Only after we identified the cost centers and requested AHMSA to 
quantify the amounts, did AHMSA provide the data. The cost centers 
identified by the verification team were in addition to the cost 
centers AHMSA identified at the beginning of verification.

Comment 9: Possible Unreported Costs

    AHMSA claims that the Department's assumption that there may be 
additional cost centers related to the production of plate which were 
neither included in the reported costs nor identified at verification 
is unwarranted. AHMSA contends that the Department could not have 
reconciled these costs to its accounting system if there were

[[Page 82]]

additional missing fixed costs. AHMSA cites to the verification reports 
which states, ``We reconciled the total costs which AHMSA identified as 
plate cost per the accounting system, to the total reported COM (B14) * 
* *'' AHMSA concludes that the Department's statement that there could 
be other missing costs is illogical given that the Department verified 
its total reported COM.
    Petitioners cite the verification report which states that the 
Department could not determine whether there were additional cost 
centers related to plate which were not included in the reported costs.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AHMSA's statement that we 
performed an overall reconciliation of its total costs. As discussed in 
Comment 5 above, the statement in the verification report only 
indicates that the total reported COMs (i.e., multiplication of the 
per-unit COM and the production quantity) reconciled to the amounts 
AHMSA allocated to plate. However, it does not indicate that we were 
able to reconcile the total costs for all products to the total costs 
allocated to plate. See Comment 1 above.

Comment 10: Comparison of Reported Costs to Standard Costs

    AHMSA claims that the cost verification report incorrectly 
concluded that the actual costs AHMSA reported to the Department 
differed significantly from the standard costs reviewed by the 
Department at verification. Specifically, AHMSA contends that the 
Department's conclusion that AHMSA had understated its reported costs 
was erroneous based on the fact that the Department incorrectly 
compared the inventory cost for one discrete product to the reported 
average cost for all plate products. AHMSA maintains that it actually 
overstated its reported costs based on a comparison of the company's 
December 1996 average inventory value to the reported average POR plate 
cost.
    Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AHMSA's claim that the 
actual costs it reported to the Department did not differ significantly 
from the standard costs reviewed by the Department at verification. A 
comparison of AHMSA's product-specific standard costs of production, as 
recorded in its normal accounting records for ten sampled products, to 
the reported per-unit costs for the same ten products, reveals 
significant differences in the per-unit costs between the reporting 
methodology and AHMSA's normal books and records (see Cost Verification 
Report at 2). This inconsistent difference in per-unit costs between 
its reporting methodology and its normal books and records supports the 
Department's contention that the cost model used by AHMSA to determine 
product-specific costs for its COP and CV response generated per-unit 
costs that differed significantly from those maintained in its normal 
accounting records.

Comment 11: Use of Facts Available

    AHMSA contests the Department's characterization of the company as 
uncooperative and claims it did not withhold information. AHMSA claims 
to have complied with every request for information made by the 
Department. AHMSA notes that it submitted sales and expense data on 
over 25,000 home market plate sales during a 14-month period, and that 
it also submitted information indicating that it reported all home 
market plate sales of all plate products sold during the 12-month 
period of review and the two months following the last month in which 
AHMSA had sales.
    As evidence of its cooperation, AHMSA notes that it reported the 
COP for every plate product sold in the home market during the 14-month 
period, which totaled over 200 different products, as well as CV 
information for merchandise exported to the United States.
    AHMSA also notes that it allowed the Department to spend two full 
weeks at its Monclova, Mexico facility to verify its reported sales and 
cost data. AHMSA emphasizes that the submitted sales data was verified 
without any problems or discrepancies. AHMSA objects to the 
Department's statement that AHMSA failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability, given the amount of information that it compiled and 
reported to the Department. Because AHMSA claims to have cooperated to 
the best of its ability, it disputes the Department's decision to apply 
adverse facts available in this case. Finally, as an alternative to 
total adverse facts available, AHMSA suggests that the Department use 
data contained in petitioners' sales-below-cost allegation to determine 
normal value. AHMSA further suggests that the Department base CV on the 
highest cost reported for any single plate product, and calculate a 
margin using the verified sales information and the highest reported 
cost.
    Petitioners contend that the Department's practice is to use total 
adverse facts available in cases in which the absence of reliable cost 
data renders a respondent's entire response unusable. Petitioners argue 
that the Department's use of facts available in this case is consistent 
with its position in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 
18396, 18398 (April 15, 1997).
    Department's Position: Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if 
an interested party withholds information that has been requested by 
the Department, fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding 
under the antidumping statute, or provides information which cannot be 
verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e), 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In 
this review AHMSA had described its normal cost accounting system as a 
standard cost system which was adjusted to actual costs through the 
application of variances. The verification agenda sent to AHMSA prior 
to the verification indicated that the Department would review the 
normal accounting system including the standard cost build-ups. As 
noted in the Cost Verification Report, AHMSA withheld from the 
Department this data which clearly indicated that its normal cost 
accounting system maintained more detailed costs than claimed in the 
cost questionnaire response (i.e., the normal cost accounting system 
did include grade-specific costs). Therefore, AHMSA's claim that it had 
to use its model (a methodology which was outside the normal cost 
accounting system) to develop product-specific costs, was incorrect. 
Since AHMSA failed to provide the necessary information in the form and 
manner requested, and in some instances the submitted information was 
found to be inaccurate, we conclude that, pursuant to section 776(a) of 
the Act, use of facts otherwise available is appropriate.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and, to the extent 
practicable, shall provide that person the opportunity to remedy or 
explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department, subject to section 
782(e), may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate. In this case, we were unable to inform AHMSA 
of its deficiency of not using its normal

[[Page 83]]

accounting system to report grade-specific costs because, until 
verification, we relied upon AHMSA's claim that its normal standard 
cost accounting records did not account for grade-specific cost 
differences. At verification, after significant delays in providing its 
standard cost build-ups, we noted that AHSMA's standard cost accounting 
system did in fact account for grade-specific cost differences.
    The Department rejects AHMSA's suggestion that we should determine 
normal value by relying on the data contained in the petitioners's 
sales-below-cost allegation. Although this information was sufficient 
to warrant a cost investigation, we have no assurance that petitioners' 
alleged costs capture all of AHMSA's costs. Because we could not 
confirm that the petitioners' cost allegation fully reflected AHMSA's 
costs, we could not determine whether sales were made above or below 
COP in this review. Similarly, we could not base CV on the highest cost 
reported by AHMSA for any single plate product because, as shown at 
verification, we could not verify the full extent of AHMSA's costs.

Comment 12: Use of Adverse Facts Available (FA)

    AHMSA claims the Department's assertion that AHMSA failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability is not supported by record 
evidence. Citing to the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 59 FR 
33952 (July 1, 1994), AHMSA claims the Department's prior precedent 
suggests that despite a failed cost verification, AHMSA should not be 
considered uncooperative. Like the respondent in Grain Oriented 
Electrical Steel from Italy, AHMSA claims it responded to all 
information requests from the Department and permitted verification of 
its sales and cost data. Due to its degree of cooperation, AHMSA 
considers a determination based on total adverse FA to be unwarranted 
in this case.
    Petitioners argue that the statute gives the Department ample 
discretion to draw an adverse inference where a respondent has failed 
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Petitioners 
claim that the Department could not verify AHMSA's information because 
AHMSA failed to provide necessary supporting documentation in a timely 
fashion, failed to provide CONNUM-specific costs, and omitted a 
significant portion of its total cost of manufacturing. Additionally, 
petitioners note that AHMSA submitted incomplete and erroneous 
responses to the Department's questionnaire.
    Regarding whether the highest rate from the petition is the most 
appropriate adverse FA rate, petitioners cite section 776(b) of the 
Act, which allows the Department to use as FA information derived from 
a petition, a final determination, any previous administrative review, 
or any other information placed on the record.
    Petitioners distinguish Grain Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy 
from the present case because the respondent in that case was 
considered cooperative, while AHMSA was determined not to have acted to 
the best of its ability.
    Finally, citing Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Administrative Review of Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, 
from Japan, 62 FR 60472 (November 10, 1997), petitioners note that when 
considering whether the FA selected are sufficiently adverse, a factor 
to consider is the extent to which a party may benefit from its own 
lack of cooperation.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AHMSA's argument that the 
Department should not use an adverse inference in selecting FA. Section 
776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be used when a 
party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information. As discussed in our 
positions in the comments above and in the verification report, AHMSA 
failed to use its normal cost accounting system to report the submitted 
COP and CV data and, as a result, failed to reconcile the reported 
costs to its normal cost accounting system. Moreover, the Department 
was unable to reconcile AHMSA's submitted costs to its financial 
statements because, among other issues, AHMSA failed to report costs 
from a number of relevant cost centers. Reporting of costs based on a 
respondent's normal books and records and reporting of all relevant 
costs are both central to the Department's cost questionnaire. By 
failing to comply with the information requests in the questionnaire 
and by failing to notify the Department or request assistance on these 
issues as instructed in the questionnaire, the Department finds that 
AHMSA failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Furthermore, in 
certain instances, AHMSA failed to cooperate with even minimal requests 
for information at verification (such as presentation of its general 
ledger). Hence, an adverse inference is warranted.
    The statute provides no clear obligation or preference for relying 
on a particular source in choosing information to use as adverse FA. In 
this case, as adverse FA we have used the highest rate from any prior 
segment of the proceeding, 49.25 percent. This rate was used as the 
best information available rate in the LTFV investigation and was based 
on information in the petition. As determined in Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18396, 18398 (April 15, 1997), the 
Department may use as FA the final determination in the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) proceeding, even when the LTFV determination is based on 
best information available.
    When making adverse inferences, the Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA) authorizes the Department to consider the extent to which 
a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation (SAA at 870). 
Because AHMSA's current cash deposit rate is 49.25 percent, the 
Department believes that assigning a 49.25 percent rate will prevent 
AHMSA from benefitting from its failure to respond to the Department's 
requests for information. Anything less than the current cash deposit 
rate would effectively reward AHMSA for not cooperating to the best of 
its ability. The cash deposit rate at the time AHMSA requested this 
review was 49.25 percent and we presume that the 49.25 percent rate is 
sufficiently adverse to induce cooperation in future segments of this 
proceeding. Generally in cases resulting in adverse determinations the 
assigned rate is greater than the current cash deposit rate. In this 
case, however, the only rate comparable to AHMSA's current cash deposit 
rate is the highest rate from the petition.
    In Grain Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy the Department 
indicated that as best information available it would have used the 
higher of (1) the average of the margins alleged in the petition or (2) 
the calculated dumping margin for another respondent; however, it would 
not make an adverse inference that resulted in a rate lower than the 
current cash deposit rate for the company. Although in Grain Oriented 
Electrical Steel from Italy the Department deemed the respondent to be 
cooperative, despite a failed cost verification, it rejected in full 
the information submitted during the review and relied on the margin 
alleged in the petition. In this review, we also are rejecting in full 
the information submitted during the course of the review and instead 
are using the margin alleged in the petition. In contrast to Grain 
Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, we do not consider AHMSA's 
efforts to comply with the

[[Page 84]]

Department's requests, reflective of its ability to provide the 
information or its willingness to cooperate. It is not our practice to 
use dumping margins based on adverse FA that effectively reward a 
respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. Because 
we will not use a dumping margin based on adverse FA that is less than 
the current cash deposit rate, we determine the most appropriate rate 
to apply as adverse FA in this review is the rate from the LTFV 
investigation of 49.25 percent.

Comment 13: Corroboration

    AHMSA states that if the Department maintains its position in the 
preliminary results and applies adverse FA, the Department must 
adequately corroborate the information. AHMSA claims that the 
Department took no affirmative action in the preliminary results to 
corroborate the information in the 1992 petition.
    Petitioners consider the rate from the petition to be sufficiently 
probative, citing the Final Results of Administrative Review in Certain 
Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Taiwan, 62 FR 37543 (July 13, 1997), 
where the Department determined that the highest margin is the most 
probative evidence of current margins because, if it were not so, the 
importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information 
showing the margin to be less.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AHMSA's contention that the 
Department has not corroborated the facts available rate assigned to 
AHMSA. The 49.25 percent rate is based on the LTFV final determination, 
which in turn was based on information in the petition. Section 776(b) 
of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse FA information 
derived from, among other places, the petition or the final 
determination from the LTFV investigation. This type of information is 
considered secondary information. See SAA at 870; 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1).
    Section 776(b) of the Act mandates that the Department, to the 
extent practicable, shall corroborate that secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. In accordance with the 
law, the Department, to the extent practicable, will examine the 
reliability and relevance of the information used. However, in an 
administrative review the Department will not engage in updating the 
petition to reflect the prices and costs that are found during the 
current review. Rather, corroboration consists of determining that the 
significant elements used to derive a margin in a petition are reliable 
for the conditions upon which the petition is based. With respect to 
the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider the 
information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are 
circumstances that would render a margin not relevant.
    To corroborate the LTFV rate of 49.25 percent, we examined the 
basis of the rates contained in the petition. The U.S. price in the 
petition was based on actual prices from invoices, quotes to U.S. 
customers, and IM-145 import statistics. Additionally, the foreign 
market value was based on actual price quotations to home market 
customers, home market price lists, and published reports of domestic 
prices. Home market price quotations were obtained through a market 
research report. (See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations and 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Various Countries, 57 FR 33488 
(July 29, 1992).)
    We were able to corroborate the 1991 fourth quarter average unit 
values listed in the petition by comparing these values to publicly 
available information compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and made 
available by the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC reports 
quantity and value by HTS numbers. Using the same HTS numbers as listed 
in the petition (HTS 7208.42 and 7208.43), we divided the total 
quantity by the total volume for the fourth quarter 1991 and noted the 
average unit values were very similar to those reported in the original 
petition. In addition, export prices which are based on U.S. import 
statistics are considered corroborated. Price lists and published 
reports of domestic prices which support the petition margin are 
independent sources. With regard to the normal values contained in the 
petition, the Department was provided no useful information by the 
respondent or other interested parties and is aware of no other 
independent sources of information that would enable us to further 
corroborate the margin calculation in the petition. Furthermore, with 
respect to the relevance of the margin used for adverse FA, the 
Department stated in Tapered Roller Bearings from Japan; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 47454 (September 9, 
1997), that it will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is 
not appropriate as adverse FA, the Department will disregard the margin 
and determine an appropriate margin. See also Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
60 FR 49567 (September 26, 1995). We have determined that there is no 
evidence on the record that would provide a more appropriate adverse FA 
rate than the petition rate.
    Finally, we note that the SAA at 870 specifically states that where 
``corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance,'' the 
Department may nevertheless apply an adverse inference. The SAA at 869 
emphasizes that the Department need not prove that the facts available 
are the best alternative information. Therefore, based on our efforts, 
described above, to corroborate information contained in the petition, 
and mindful of the legislative history discussing FA and corroboration, 
we consider the petition margin we are assigning to AHMSA in this 
review as adverse facts available to be corroborated to the extent 
practicable.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 1, 1996 
through July 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
          Manufacturer/exporter                  Period        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHMSA....................................     8/1/96-7/31/97       49.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
For assessment purposes, we normally calculate importer-specific duty 
assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio

[[Page 85]]

of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales during the POR to the total entered value of sales examined 
during the POR. Because we could not calculate a margin based on sales 
during the POR, and had to base the margin on adverse FA, we have 
determined that importer-specific duty assessments rates are not 
necessary for this review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of certain CTL carbon steel plate from Mexico, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the 
cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate stated 
above; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in these reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
review, the cash deposit rate for this case will continue to be 49.25 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate in the LTFV investigation. These 
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the 
final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34 (1997). Timely written 
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or 
conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: December 22, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-34799 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P