[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36333-36338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-833]


Stainless Steel Bar From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel bar from Japan. This review covers one 
producer/exporter, Aichi Steel Corporation, during the period February 
1, 1997, through January 31, 1998.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have made certain changes for the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minoo Hatten or Robin Gray, Office of 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1690 or (202) 482-4023, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

    On March 4, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel bar from Japan. Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Japan, 
64 FR 10445 (preliminary results). Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., 
Dunkirk, N.Y., Carpenter Technology Corp., Reading, PA, Republic 
Engineered Steels, Inc., Massillon, OH, Slater Steels Corp., Fort 
Wayne, IN, Talley Metals Technology, Inc., Hartsville, SC, and the 
United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, collectively petitioners 
in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (hereafter 
petitioners), submitted their case brief on April 5, 1999. Aichi Steel 
Corporation (Aichi), respondent in this review, also submitted its case 
brief on April 5, 1999. The petitioners and Aichi submitted rebuttal 
briefs on April 12, 1999. The Department has conducted this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is stainless steel bar 
(SSB). For purposes of this review, the term ``stainless steel bar'' 
means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been 
either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise 
cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section

[[Page 36334]]

along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, 
ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or 
other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned 
or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or 
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have 
indentations, ribs, groves, or other deformations produced during the 
rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut-length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness or if 4.75 mm or more 
in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least 
twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any 
uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not 
conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes 
and sections.
    The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 
7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested 
parties to this administrative review are addressed below.
Comment 1: Level of Trade
    Aichi argues that the Department should find five different levels 
of trade for Aichi's home market. Aichi alleges that the Department 
found three levels of trade correctly--sales to trading companies, 
sales to distributors, and sales to end-users--but rejected the 
consignment/non-consignment distinction within the trading company and 
distributor levels of trade incorrectly. Aichi argues that, in 
rejecting this distinction, the Department did not appreciate that 
consignment is in itself a selling function that affects how Aichi 
markets its products.
    The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to find 
only three levels of trade for Aichi's home market sales as it did in 
the preliminary results. According to the petitioners, the verified 
record demonstrates that the Department's preliminary decision--that 
only three levels of trade exist--was accurate and is supported by the 
record in this review. The petitioners contend that a close examination 
of Aichi's arguments reveals that there is no support to segregate the 
distributor and trading-company levels of trade into further 
consignment and non-consignment subcategories, since Aichi holds the 
title until the merchandise is sold for both consignment and non-
consignment sales and Aichi receives payment for the goods only after 
they are sold to the final customer in both cases.
    Department's Position: We do not find that consignment is in itself 
a selling function. The ``consignment'' relationship is not necessarily 
a distinct selling function and, even if it were a distinct selling 
function, such activities alone may not establish a separate level of 
trade. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews, 63 FR 48184, 48186 (Sept. 9, 1998) (``there was not a 
significant difference in selling functions between sales made through 
consignment agents and marketing agents, and as such we have made no 
level of trade distinction''); see also Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Germany, 64 FR 92, 97 (Jan. 4, 1999) (``channels of distribution do not 
qualify as separate levels of trade when the selling functions 
performed * * * are sufficiently similar''); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
55 FR 12696 (Apr. 5, 1990) (``aside from claiming that flowers are sold 
to two different types of customers, i.e., retailers and consignment 
wholesalers in the two markets, the respondent did not provide any 
evidence indicating that the difference in prices is attributable to 
different levels of trade''); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Costa Rica, 52 FR 6852 
(March 5, 1987) (``we have made no level of trade adjustment. The 
respondent did not demonstrate that expenses incurred in selling to 
retailers * * * would not have also been incurred in sales to 
[consignment] wholesalers''). Thus, the mere existence of a consignment 
relationship does not necessarily establish a distinct level of trade. 
There must be sufficient differences in selling functions performed 
between the consignment accounts and non-consignment accounts.
    Based on our analysis of information on the record of this review, 
we determine, as we did in our preliminary analysis, that there are no 
differences with respect to selling functions between consignment and 
non-consignment sales. Specifically, there are no differences between 
consignment and non-consignment sales with respect to strategic and 
economic planning, market research, computer, legal, accounting, audit, 
business systems development assistance, personnel assistance, 
engineering services, research and development (R&D) technical 
programs, advertising, procurement and sourcing, sales calls/assistance 
and post-sale warehousing. As stated in the preliminary results, the 
distinction between consignment and non-consignment sales is that, in 
consignment-sales situations, Aichi permits the customer to take 
possession of the product without requiring that the customer pay for 
the product until the customer sells the merchandise to its downstream 
customer. This distinction, however, does not relate to the nature of 
the selling functions performed. Furthermore, Aichi has not presented 
evidence establishing any price differences between consignment and 
non-consignment sales.
    Selling functions performed with respect to trading companies 
included strategic and economic planning, market research, computer, 
legal and business-systems development, engineering services and post-
sale warehousing. In addition to these functions, other functions 
performed for sales to end-users included R&D technical programs, 
advertising, and sales calls/assistance. Distributors were also offered 
personnel training and manpower assistance in addition to the services 
offered to trading companies and end-users. Based on these differences, 
we found that the three types of home market customers constituted 
three different levels of trade.
    We found that Aichi made export price (EP) sales of various models 
of merchandise through unaffiliated trading companies, a channel of 
distribution similar to the home market channel involving sales to 
trading companies. As with sales through the trading-company channel of 
distribution in the home market, Aichi performed only a few selling 
functions when selling merchandise to trading companies that exported 
the merchandise to the United States. Thus, we found that the level of 
trade for this U.S. channel of distribution was the same as the level 
of trade for the home

[[Page 36335]]

market trading-company channel of distribution. Based on the 
information on the record, the Department determines that only three 
levels of trade exist in the home market. For a detailed discussion of 
the Department's position on Aichi's levels of trade, see the 
preliminary results, 64 FR at 10446.
Comment 2: Research and Development Costs
    Aichi disagrees with the Department's inclusion of non-SSB-related 
R&D costs in the general and administrative expenses for the 
calculation of Aichi's cost of production. Aichi argues that the record 
shows that it maintains R&D costs by cost center and is thus able to 
distinguish the products for which it incurred R&D expenses. Aichi 
urges that, if a respondent records its R&D expenses on a product-
specific basis and there is no evidence that this R&D may benefit the 
production of subject merchandise, under Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 893 F. Supp. 21 (CIT 1995), aff'd, 117 F.3d 1386 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997), the Department must allocate such expenses according to the 
respondent's records.
    The petitioners agree with the Department's calculation of Aichi's 
cost of production in the preliminary results. The petitioners assert 
that the simple fact that Aichi records its R&D expenses by cost center 
is not convincing evidence that there are true product-specific R&D 
expenses. They contend that Aichi's R&D expenses provide an overall 
benefit to all products, including the subject merchandise. 
Furthermore, the petitioners observe, Aichi's products share a single 
manufacturing process. Finally, the petitioners state that the record 
indicates that Aichi itself has merged subject and non-subject products 
in its R&D activities.
    Department's Position: Based on our analysis of the information on 
the record, it is appropriate to allocate the R&D costs in question 
across Aichi's total cost of production. As discussed below, where 
evidence on the record suggests that costs associated with R&D projects 
serve to benefit subject merchandise, the Department has included such 
costs, regardless of whether the company's accounting system allocates 
those costs exclusively to non-subject merchandise. Thus, the existence 
of product-specific accounting records does not necessarily preclude a 
finding of cross-fertilization. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (``SRAMs'') from the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8934, 8939 
(Feb. 23, 1998) (``separate accounting * * * does not necessarily mean 
that cross-fertilization of scientific ideas does not occur''), and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors (``SRAMs'') from Taiwan, 63 FR 
8909, 8925 (Feb. 23, 1998), where the Department found that, although 
respondent maintained product-specific R&D accounting records, 
allocation of all R&D across all products was appropriate, ``given that 
scientific ideas developed in one semiconductor area can be and have 
been utilized in the development of other semiconductor products.''
    In order to substantiate its claim that certain R&D costs do not 
benefit subject merchandise, Aichi provided a list of R&D projects that 
it claims relate only to non-subject merchandise. Additionally, Aichi 
provided a breakdown of R&D costs by department. However, as detailed 
in the analyst's memorandum to file regarding R&D expenses (containing 
business proprietary information), dated June 23, 1999, Aichi has not 
submitted a breakdown of costs by project. Thus, as a preliminary 
matter, we are unable to determine the specific costs for each project 
to segregate project-specific costs. Therefore, even if we were to 
determine that some projects do not benefit the production of subject 
merchandise, we would not be able to segregate and exclude those 
project-specific costs.
    Furthermore, based upon evidence in the record we have identified 
projects where R&D from one type of product could benefit another type 
of product. See the June 23, 1999, memorandum to file regarding R&D 
expenses. As such, because the record shows that at least some of the 
claimed projects may influence the production of subject merchandise 
and because we are unable to segregate the remaining projects, we have 
continued to include all R&D expenses in the cost of production.
Comment 3: Model-Match Error
    Aichi argues that the Department should correct a clerical error in 
the model-match section of the calculations. Aichi asserts that, 
instead of matching first to contemporaneous sales, the Department 
first matched cost deviation (i.e., matching to identical and similar 
physical characteristics) and level of trade (i.e., matching to sales 
with similar functions) of the home market. As a result, Aichi 
contends, the identical or most similar home market model in the most 
contemporaneous month did not always match to each U.S. sale. Aichi 
argues that the Department should correct this error to comply with its 
well-established practice of matching contemporaneous sales as a higher 
matching priority than level of trade or cost deviation.
    The petitioners argue that the Department conducted its model-match 
exercise correctly and that Aichi's suggested approach is not in 
accordance with the Department's long-standing practice. Citing 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and the United 
Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
(AFBs), 62 FR 2081, 2128 (Jan. 15, 1997), and Stainless Wire Rods from 
France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
47874, 47879 (Sept. 11, 1996), the petitioners argue that the 
appropriate model-match hierarchy is cost deviation first, level of 
trade second, and contemporaneity last.
    Department's Position: We did not make a clerical error in our 
model-match exercise. Contrary to Aichi's assertion, pursuant to 
section 771(16) of the Act, it has been the Department's practice to 
compare the subject merchandise sold to the United States first to 
products with identical physical characteristics sold in the exporting-
country market. See, e.g., AFBs, 62 FR at 2128 (``[a]fter selecting the 
most comparable product match according to the statute, we attempt to 
find contemporaneous sales of that product at the same level of trade, 
if possible''). When products sold to the United States do not have 
identical matches in the foreign market, the statute directs us to use 
similar merchandise which meets the requirements set forth under 
section 771(16)(B) of the Act. For the current review, when determining 
appropriate product comparisons for U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales 
to contemporaneous home market sales of the comparison model that were 
physically ``most similar'' and which passed the twenty-percent 
difference-in-merchandise test. We use the results of the model-match 
exercise to find the ``most similar'' home market sale within our 90/60 
day contemporaneity guideline. After disregarding below-cost sales, we 
may not find a contemporaneous sale of an identical or similar product. 
In such situations, we compare the U.S. sale to constructed value. This 
methodology is consistent with Department practice. See, e.g., Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 56515, 56520 (November 1, 
1996). Aichi's suggestion could lead us to selecting comparison sales 
which occurred in the same month as the U.S.

[[Page 36336]]

sale but which are less similar than other sales within the 90/60 day 
contemporaneity guideline. This would not be consistent with the 
statute's direction to find the best physical comparison in the home 
market.
Comment 4: Model-Matching Criteria, Type
    The petitioners argue that the Department should disregard the 
distinction Aichi made between hot-rolled SSB and hot-forged SSB within 
the first element of the model-match criteria, type. They contend that 
hot-forged products do not reflect a unique physical difference of the 
finished product. Therefore, they contend, both hot-rolled and hot-
forged products should be considered to be hot-finished SSB as 
identified in the Department's questionnaire. In addition, the 
petitioners assert, the choice of alternative production processes and 
different costs is not reason enough for the establishment of different 
physical characteristics to use in selecting comparable products. In 
order to correct the respondent's inappropriate segregation of products 
by type of finish, the petitioners request that the Department 
consolidate hot-finished and hot-forged products and recalculate 
various costs affected by Aichi's segregation.
    Aichi contends that the rolled/forged distinction warrants the 
identification of separate products for model-matching purposes. Aichi 
states that it uses the forging process to produce SSB when the 
dimensions or grades requested by the customer do not permit use of the 
rolling process. Therefore, Aichi argues, forging results in different 
physical characteristics. Aichi argues further that the cost-of-
production information it submitted to the Department proves that cost 
differences exist between items produced using these two processes. For 
these reasons, Aichi requests that the Department compare home market 
and U.S. sales using all of the physical criteria Aichi identified in 
its response.
    Department's Position: We find that it is appropriate to reflect 
the rolled/forged distinction of the products in our model-match 
methodology. In accordance with sections 771(16)(A) and (B) of the Act, 
we attempt to match the subject merchandise with products that are 
identical or similar in physical characteristics and that are 
approximately equal in commercial value. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 14865, 14872 (March 
29, 1999) (``mooney viscosity'' is an appropriate matching criterion 
because ``it is an essential product characteristic that defines the 
grade'' and ``there are cost and price differences between th[e] two 
grades * * *''); Extruded Rubber Thread from Malysia: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 62547, 62558 (Nov. 24, 
1997) (the Department found ``color'' to be an appropriate model-match 
criterion because the Department had used that criterion consistently 
in the investigation and following reviews and because color could 
``materially affect cost and be important to the customer and the use 
of the product''); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996) (the 
Department found ``wheat quality'' to be an appropriate matching 
criterion because there were differences in physical characteristics 
and because the cost was materially more for the segregated product).
    Evidence on the record of this review demonstrates that the forging 
process results in meaningful differences in physical characteristics. 
In addition, certain cost differences exist between products 
manufactured using the rolling and forging process. Therefore, we have 
used Aichi's information on the forging process in our model-match 
methodology because it ensures that we make the best match.
Comment 5: Model-Matching Criteria, Shape
    The petitioners contend that the Department should disregard 
Aichi's additional sub-codes for shape and consolidate the shape sub-
codes accordingly for model-matching purposes. According to the 
petitioners, the Department's practice is to develop additional sub-
coding for model-matching purposes only if there are physical 
differences, pricing differences as a result of physical differences, 
and market reactions to the physical differences. The petitioners 
contend that Aichi's sub-codes for shape do not meet this standard. In 
addition, the petitioners assert that Aichi does not distinguish 
between the shape differences that it submitted in its questionnaire 
response in the information that it maintains internally (e.g., price-
extras list) and disseminates externally (e.g., Aichi product 
brochures). According to the petitioners, Aichi did not substantiate 
that additional sub-codes are required within the shape criteria. They 
request that the Department consolidate the shapes, as appropriate, and 
recalculate the various weighted-average costs to reflect the 
consolidation.
    Aichi argues that the distinction between various shapes of flat 
bar in the response is justified and that the petitioners are confused 
about Aichi's codes. Aichi asserts that the relevant shape codes are 
those listed in the column ``ShapeH'' on page 5 of its Exhibit 2, 
Section B response. Aichi also states that, although it collapsed the 
square-bar products, the flat-bar distinctions it used are appropriate 
since the flat-bar products' physical characteristics differ, price 
differences are evident from the home market sales list, customers 
request different products, and Aichi has issued special brochures 
advertising some of these products. Therefore, Aichi contends, record 
evidence demonstrates that the flat-bar shape distinctions Aichi 
identified and segregated for model-matching purposes are justified.
    Department's Position: It appears that the petitioners may have 
referred to the wrong variable in their analysis of the shape 
distinction. Notwithstanding this possibility, we disagree with Aichi 
that its additional segregation of products is warranted in matching 
models. As discussed in response to comment 4 above, the Department has 
discretion to select appropriate model-matching criteria which account 
for meaningful differences in physical characteristics, cost, and use. 
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996), Koyo 
Seiko v. United States, 66 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Final Results of 
Adm. Rev.) (the Department has the discretion to ``choose the manner in 
which ``such or similar merchandise'' shall be selected''), and Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Germany; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 65264, 65271 (Dec. 19, 
1995) (the Department has the discretion to choose ``such or similar'' 
merchandise).
    As such, it is also not necessary that the Department segregate 
every claimed difference in characteristics if those differences are 
not meaningful for matching purposes. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products From Germany, 60 FR at 65271 (``[b]asing its 
product matching criteria on commercially meaningful characteristics 
permits the Department to draw reasonable distinctions between products 
for matching purposes, without attempting to account for every possible 
difference inherent in certain classes or kinds of merchandise * * *. 
As such, the Department may define certain products as being 
``identical'' within the meaning of section 771(16)(A), even though 
they contain

[[Page 36337]]

minor differences * * *. Similarly, the Department need not account for 
every conceivable physical characteristic of a product in its 
hierarchy. Thus, as a range of products may be considered ``identical'' 
within the meaning of the statute''); Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value; Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, 55 
FR 29244 (July 18, 1990) (the Department determined that products 
within same ASTM standard would be deemed ``identical in physical 
characteristics to the merchandise sold in [the home market]''); 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 33041 (June 
17, 1998) (Final Results of Adm. Rev.) (pickling, oiling and varnishing 
were only ``packing treatments'' and did not ``transform the finished 
merchandise into a different product for purposes of merchandise 
comparison under 771(16)(A) and (B) of the Act'').
    With respect to Aichi's additional claimed shape distinction, upon 
reviewing the record, we find that the additional characteristics do 
not provide meaningful differences for matching purposes. Aichi's 
breakdown of flat bar segregates only minor differences in physical 
shape which do not affect our model-match comparison materially. See 
analyst's memorandum to file on the Issue of Model-Matching Criteria, 
Shape (containing business proprietary information), dated June 23, 
1999. As we explained in Circular Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from 
Mexico, where the finishing process does not ``transform the finished 
merchandise * * * for purposes of * * * [our] comparison,'' we 
generally will not distinguish such criteria (63 FR 33041 (June 17, 
1998)). Thus, we have not accepted Aichi's additional claimed sub-codes 
for shape.
Comment 6: Warehousing Expenses
    The petitioners argue that the Department should deduct home market 
warehousing expenses only for non-consignment and non-pre-sale-
warehoused sales. They allege that the Department confirmed at 
verification Aichi's statement in its response that warehousing 
expenses do not apply to warehousing costs incurred on products prior 
to sale or to consignment sales. The petitioners comment that, in the 
preliminary results, the Department indicated that it intended to 
adjust the warehousing expenses, but it did not apply the warehousing 
expenses adjustment correctly and instead deducted warehousing expenses 
from consignment sales inadvertently.
    Aichi argues that the Department should deduct warehousing expenses 
from all home market sales because, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(e)(2), the Department no longer makes the distinction between 
pre-sale and post-sale warehousing in granting this adjustment. The 
fact that warehousing occurred before sale date on consignment sales is 
irrelevant according to Aichi. Therefore, Aichi requests that the 
Department apply the warehousing adjustment to all home market sales.
    Department's Position: In our preliminary results we added 
warehousing expenses to movement expenses on consignment sales 
unintentionally although we intended to add warehousing expenses to 
movement expenses for non-consignment sales. However, we did not 
confirm at verification, as the petitioners contend, that the 
warehousing expenses do not apply to products warehoused prior to sale. 
At verification we confirmed that, as Aichi stated in its Section B 
questionnaire response, page 36, the warehousing-expense adjustment 
applies only to non-consignment transactions. See analysts' 
Verification Report dated Dec. 21, 1998, in Room B099 of the main 
Commerce building. Furthermore, Aichi states that it has reported 
information to distinguish between invoice numbers for consignment 
sales and invoice numbers for sales involving pre-sale warehousing. In 
its questionnaire response, Section B, page 12 (May 12, 1998), Aichi 
provided information which indicates clearly that pre-sale warehousing 
did not occur on any consignment sales. We examined the home market 
database and found this to be the case. In addition, in Section A of 
its response, page 29, the respondent stated that it did not incur 
post-sale warehousing expenses for consignment sales. Therefore, in our 
calculations we have added warehousing expenses to the build-up of 
movement expenses for all sales except consignment sales, as we 
intended to do in the preliminary results of review.
Comment 7: Miscellaneous Programming Error
    The petitioners contend that, in assigning exchange rates to all 
home market sales, the Department neglected to consolidate the home 
market dates of sale. It urges the Department to correct this error and 
provides a suggestion for doing so.
    Aichi argues that, contrary to the petitioners' argument, there is 
no error in the Department's application of exchange rates. Although 
the Department introduces the exchange-rate database early in the 
computer program, Aichi states that it is appropriate that the 
Department never merges the exchange-rate database with the home market 
database and merges it with the U.S. sales database at a later stage in 
the program.
    Department's Position: There was no error in our exchange-rate 
calculations. Since we do not merge the exchange-rate database with the 
home market database, no error occurs. Rather, we merge the exchange 
rates with the U.S. sales database at a later stage in the program. As 
a result, no change is necessary.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
a weighted-average margin of 6.62 percent for Aichi for the period 
February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998.
    The Customs Service will assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service. We have calculated an 
exporter/customer-specific assessment value for subject merchandise 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total entered value of sales examined.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirement shall be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of SSB from Japan, 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 rate for Aichi Steel 
Corporation will be 6.62 percent; (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed 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 or any 
previous reviews 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-deposit rate will continue 
to be 61.47 percent, the ``all-others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation (59 FR 66930, December 28, 1994).
    The 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

[[Page 36338]]

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 order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 25, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-17049 Filed 7-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P