[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49150-49159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 
Review

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


[[Page 49151]]


SUMMARY: On May 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce published in the 
Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review 
and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel 
concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey. The administrative review covers 
one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United 
States, Ekinciler. The new shipper review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, ICDAS. The 
periods of review are October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998, in the 
administrative review, and October 10, 1996, through July 31, 1998, in 
the new shipper review.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. We have considered the comments received in these 
final results and have changed the results from those presented in the 
preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1776 
or (202) 482-0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the 1996-
1998 administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from 
Turkey (64 FR 24578). The Department has now completed these 
administrative reviews, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Reviews

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

Periods of Review

    The period of review (POR) is October 10, 1996, through March 31, 
1998, for Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. 
(collectively ``Ekinciler'') and October 10, 1996, through July 31, 
1998, for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (ICDAS).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Level of Trade and Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade as export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP). The NV level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on 
CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level of 
trade is also the level of the starting-price sales, which are usually 
from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the 
level of the constructed sales from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).
    Neither Ekinciler nor ICDAS claimed that it made home market sales 
at more than one level of trade. Based on the information on the 
record, no level of trade adjustment was warranted for either company. 
For a detailed explanation of this analysis, see the memorandum 
entitled ``Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars from Turkey,'' dated April 30, 1999 (``the concurrence 
memorandum'').
    Regarding Ekinciler, in order to determine whether NV was 
established at a level of trade which constituted a more advanced stage 
of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP, we compared the 
selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed 
with respect to CEP transactions, which exclude those functions related 
to economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act. We found that Ekinciler performed 
essentially the same selling functions in its sales offices in Turkey 
for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, Ekinciler's sales in 
Turkey were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and distribution 
than the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents an F.O.B. 
foreign port price after the deduction of expenses associated with U.S. 
selling activities. Because we find that no difference in level of 
trade exists between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset to 
Ekinciler. For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum noted 
above.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the CEP or EP, as 
appropriate, to the NV. Because Turkey's economy experienced high 
inflation during the POR (over 70 percent), we limited, as is 
Department practice, our comparisons to home market sales made during 
the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred and did not apply the 
``90/60'' contemporaneity rule (see, e.g., Notice of Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 63 FR 35191 (June 29, 
1998) (affirming Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from 
Turkey, 63 FR 6155, 6158 (Feb. 6, 1998)); and Certain Porcelain-on-
Steel

[[Page 49152]]

Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (Aug. 7, 1997)). This methodology minimizes 
the extent to which calculated dumping margins are overstated or 
understated due solely to price inflation that occurred in the 
intervening time period between the U.S. and home market sales.
    We first attempted to compare products sold in the U.S. and home 
markets that were identical with respect to the following hierarchical 
characteristics: grade, size, ASTM specification, and form. Where there 
were no home market sales of merchandise that were identical in these 
respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. 
products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market 
based on the hierarchy of characteristics listed above.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

    For all U.S. sales by Ekinciler, we used CEP, in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act. For all U.S. sales by ICDAS, we used EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.

A. Ekinciler

    We based CEP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States. We made deductions from CEP for discounts, as 
appropriate. We also made deductions for foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, inspection fees, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
customs duties, discharge expenses (offset by despatch revenue), 
wharfage expenses, sorting expenses, truck loading expenses, U.S. 
warehousing expenses and insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. 
inland insurance, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We based the amount of foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses on the amount that Ekinciler paid to an affiliated 
party, because we determined that these expenses were at arm's length. 
For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
Exporters' Association fees, bank charges, credit expenses, U.S. 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We recalculated U.S. 
credit expenses using the weighted average of the U.S. interest rates 
reported in Ekinciler's response. This average rate was based on the 
actual borrowing experience of Ekinciler's affiliated parties for their 
U.S.-dollar-denominated loans. See Comment 4.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Ekinciler and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

B. ICDAS

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, ocean freight expenses, inspection fees, and loading charges, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    Both respondents made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in the 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to 
ensure that, on average, they were made at arm's-length prices, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To conduct this test, we compared 
the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net 
of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where 
prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of 
the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales were 
made at arm's length (see 19 CFR 351.403(c) and the preamble to the 
Department's regulations (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27355 (May 19, 1997)). Accordingly, 
for Ekinciler, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to 
the affiliated party that were made at arm's length. Regarding ICDAS, 
we did not include in our analysis any sales made to affiliated parties 
because they failed the arm's-length test. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.403(d), we based our analysis on the downstream sales of the 
affiliates to their unaffiliated customers. See the memorandum entitled 
``Arms-Length Test Performed in the Antidumping Duty Administrative New 
Shipper Review on Rebar from Turkey'' from Irina Itkin to the File, 
dated September 16, 1998.

A. Ekinciler

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ekinciler had made home 
market sales at prices below their cost of production (COP) in this 
(the first) review because the Department had disregarded sales below 
the COP for this company in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9740 (Mar. 4, 1997) (Rebar 
from Turkey). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether Ekinciler made home market sales during the POR at 
prices below their respective COPs.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of Ekinciler's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act. We relied on Ekinciler's information as submitted, except in the 
specific instances discussed below.
    (1) We considered Ekinciler to be the manufacturer of all rebar 
which was rolled by unaffiliated subcontractors because we find that 
Ekinciler controlled the production of this merchandise. This is 
consistent with our treatment of Ekinciler's subcontracted production 
in the LTFV investigation. See the memorandum entitled ``Antidumping 
Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
(Rebar) from Turkey--Determination of Who Is the Producer for Rebar 
Rolled by Unaffiliated Subcontractors'' from James Maeder to Louis 
Apple, dated April 30, 1999. See also Stainless Steel Flanges From 
India; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
58 FR 68853 (Dec. 29, 1993); and
    (2) We revised the calculation of depreciation expenses related to 
the revaluation of fixed assets in order to use the index published by 
the Turkish Ministry of Finance. See World Accounting, Orsini, Gould, 
McAllister, & Parikh, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1998, page TRK-30.

[[Page 49153]]

    As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced 
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the 
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, 
we requested that Ekinciler submit the product-specific costs of 
manufacturing (COM) incurred during each month of the POR. We 
calculated a POR-average COM for each product after indexing the 
reported monthly costs during the POR to an equivalent currency level 
using the Turkish Wholesale Price Index from the International 
Financial Statistics published by the International Monetary Fund. We 
then restated the POR-average COMs in the currency values of each 
respective month.
    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices 
of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the 
Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below 
the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges and selling 
expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 
773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Ekinciler's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Ekinciler's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that 
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for 
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where 
all sales of a specific product were at prices below the COP, we 
disregarded all sales of that product.
    In all cases, we found that comparison products existed for which 
there were sales at prices above the COP. Accordingly, we based NV on 
ex-factory, ex-warehouse or delivered prices to home market customers. 
We excluded from our analysis home market re-sales by Ekinciler of 
merchandise produced by unaffiliated companies. Where appropriate, we 
added an amount for interest revenue received from home market 
customers for delayed payment of invoices. Also where appropriate, we 
made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, 
inland insurance, and off-site warehousing expenses, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We deducted home market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of 
the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the 
POR, as described above.

B. ICDAS

    We based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated customers. We 
made deductions for inland freight expenses (offset by freight 
revenue), where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home 
market credit expenses (offset by interest revenue), where appropriate, 
and adding U.S. credit expenses, bank charges, and Exporters' 
Association fees. We recalculated home market credit expenses using the 
interest rates observed at verification. We included bank charges 
related to short-term loans in our recalculation. See Comment 14.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago, 63 FR 
9177, 9181 (Feb. 24, 1998) (Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago). See 
Comment 13.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received case briefs from Florida Steel Corp. 
and New Jersey Steel Corp. (the petitioners) and from both respondents. 
We also received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and Ekinciler.

A. Ekinciler

    Comment 1: Bank Charges Associated with Intra-Company Transfers. 
During the POR, Ekinciler sold rebar to its U.S. affiliate, Ferromin, 
which in turn resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. 
Ekinciler incurred certain bank charges related to the payment of the 
transfer price by Ferromin, and it reported these bank charges in a 
separate field in its U.S. sales listing. For purposes of the 
preliminary results, the Department treated these bank charges as CEP 
selling expenses and deducted them from CEP. Ekinciler argues that this 
treatment was incorrect, because the charges in question were 
associated with the payment between affiliated parties. As these 
transactions were incurred in Turkey and not directly linked to the 
sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser, Ekinciler asserts that they 
are indirect expenses which should not be deducted from CEP.
    Ekinciler maintains that the Department is prohibited from making 
adjustments for expenses between affiliated parties under its 
regulations. Specifically, Ekinciler cites 19 CFR 351.402(b), which 
directs the Department to make no adjustment to the U.S. selling price 
for expenses that are related solely to the sale to an affiliated 
importer in the United States. Ekinciler notes that, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.402(b), the Department's practice is not to make such 
adjustments. As support for this position, Ekinciler cites Porcelain-
On-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 26934 (May 18, 1999) (Mexican Cookware), 
where the Department stated that indirect selling expenses incurred in 
the home market relating to the sale to the affiliated purchaser are 
not deducted from CEP.
    In any event, Ekinciler asserts that it is the Department's 
practice to consider any credit-related expenses associated with 
transfers between affiliates as

[[Page 49154]]

indirect selling expenses. As support for this position, Ekinciler 
cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 42942, 42949 
(Sept. 17, 1992), which states:

    These [bank charges] result from intra-company transfers which 
occurred before the sale to the first unrelated party, and are not 
directly tied to individual sales to unrelated customers. The 
Department considers such expenses to be indirect selling expenses. 
See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Color Television Receivers from Korea, 55 FR 26225 (July 27, 1990).

Ekinciler also cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Color Television Receivers from Taiwan, 49 FR 7628 (Mar. 1, 
1984), where the Department found that interest expenses between 
affiliated parties should be treated as indirect selling expenses 
because they are intra-company expenses not directly related to sales 
to unrelated U.S. buyers.
    According to the petitioners, the bank charges in question are 
direct selling expenses because they: (1) Are associated with the sale 
to the first unaffiliated customer; and (2) can be directly tied to the 
sale of the rebar in question. The petitioners assert that, under 19 
CFR 351.402(b), the relevant factor in determining whether an expense 
should be treated as part of the CEP deduction is where the economic 
activity associated with the expense occurs. The petitioners assert 
that, in this case, the relevant activity--the sale--occurred in the 
United States after importation. Therefore, the petitioners contend 
that the Department should deduct these expenses from CEP, or, barring 
that, the Department should treat them as a circumstance-of-sale 
adjustment to NV.
    DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler. Contrary to the petitioners' 
assertions, the bank charges in question are not associated with a sale 
to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Rather, they relate 
solely to transactions between Ekinciler and its affiliated U.S. 
reseller. Moreover, because they cannot be tied directly to a sale to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser, they are indirect selling expenses.
    The Department's regulations provide explicit guidance on the 
treatment of such expenses. Specifically, 19 CFR 351.402(b) states:

    In establishing constructed export price under section 772(d) of 
the Act, the Secretary will make adjustments for expenses associated 
with economic activities in the United States that relate to the 
sale to an unaffiliated purchaser, no matter where or when paid. The 
Secretary will not make an adjustment for any expense that is 
related solely to the sale to an affiliated importer in the United 
States, although the Secretary may make an adjustment to normal 
value for such expenses under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

This regulation is further explained in the preamble, which states:

    The purpose of these changes is to distinguish between selling 
expenses incurred on the sale to the unaffiliated customer, which 
may be deducted under 772(d), and those associated with the sale to 
the affiliated customer in the United States, which may not be 
deducted. In addition, the phrase ``no matter where or when paid'' 
is intended to indicate that if commercial activities occur in the 
United States and relate to the sale to an unaffiliated purchaser, 
expenses associated with those activities will be deducted from CEP 
even if, for example, the foreign parent of the affiliated U.S. 
importer pays those expenses. Finally, the reference to adjustments 
normal value reflects our agreement with the comment that the 
Secretary may adjust for direct selling expenses (as well as assumed 
expenses) associated with the sale to the affiliated importer under 
the circumstance of sale provision * * *

62 FR at 27351.
    We explained our current practice in this area in a recent decision 
in Mexican Cookware. Specifically, we stated:

    The Department's current practice, as indicated by the preamble 
to the Department's new regulations, is to deduct indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the home market from the CEP calculation only 
if they relate to sales to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. We do not deduct from the CEP calculation indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the home market relating to the sale to the 
affiliated purchaser.

64 FR at 26942-43.
    Consequently, in accordance with the Department's regulations and 
current practice, we have made no adjustment for the bank charges in 
question for purposes of the final results.
    Comment 2: Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Turkey. The 
petitioners contend that the Department should require Ekinciler to 
report all indirect selling expenses incurred in Turkey to sell rebar 
in the United States. According to the petitioners, it is implausible 
that Ekinciler incurred no Turkish indirect selling expenses related to 
U.S. sales.
    Ekinciler notes that, under its regulations and practice, the 
Department makes no adjustment for foreign indirect selling expenses. 
See 19 CFR 351.402(b) and Mexican Cookware. Therefore, Ekinciler 
asserts that, if the Department were to include these expenses in its 
calculations, it would do so only in the calculation of CEP profit. 
Ekinciler notes that this would result in the reduction of CEP profit, 
which would be to Ekinciler's advantage.
    DOC Position. We disagree with the petitioners. As Ekinciler 
correctly notes, the expenses in question would be used only in the 
calculation of CEP profit because, in accordance with the Department's 
regulations, indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market 
relating to the sale to the affiliated purchaser are not deducted from 
the CEP calculation. See 19 CFR 351.402(b) and Mexican Cookware. 
Therefore, even if Ekinciler had incurred indirect selling expenses in 
Turkey related to U.S. sales, it was conservative for Ekinciler not to 
report these expenses. Accordingly, we have not requested any 
additional information from Ekinciler, nor have we based the amount of 
these expenses on facts available.
    Comment 3: Pre-Sale Freight and Warehousing Expenses. According to 
the petitioners, the Department should deduct from NV neither any 
freight expenses incurred on the transportation of merchandise from the 
factory to Ekinciler's home market distribution warehouse nor the 
warehousing expenses themselves. The petitioners contend that these 
expenses should be treated as general expenses because they were 
incurred prior to the sale to the first unaffiliated customer.
    According to Ekinciler, its transportation and warehousing expenses 
are incurred after the intra-corporate sale of the rebar to the 
respondent's affiliated trading company and are subsumed in the price 
to the unaffiliated customer. Ekinciler notes that both the Act and the 
regulations allow these types of adjustments. Ekinciler cites the 
preamble to the regulations at 62 FR 27410, which states that the 
Department is to deduct from NV all movement and related expenses 
incurred after the merchandise left the place of production.
    DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler. Section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of 
the Act directs the Department to reduce NV by the amount of any 
expenses incident to bringing the foreign like product from the 
original place of shipment (i.e., the production facility) to the place 
of delivery. Moreover, under 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2), the Department 
considers warehousing expenses incurred after the foreign like product 
leaves the production facility to be movement expenses. Consequently, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.401(e)(2), we have continued to treat the freight and warehousing 
expenses in question as movement charges and deducted them

[[Page 49155]]

from NV for purposes of the final results.
    Comment 4: Credit Expenses. For purposes of the preliminary 
results, the Department based the U.S. interest rate on the weighted 
average of the interest rates paid by Ekdemir (i.e., the Ekinciler 
Group's rebar producer) and Ekdis (i.e., the Ekinciler Group's 
international trading company) on their U.S.-dollar-denominated loans. 
According to the petitioners, the Department should base the U.S. 
interest rate only on the rates paid by Ekdemir because this rate is 
the most reflective of Ekinciler's weighted-average short-term 
borrowing experience in the currency of the transaction. The 
petitioners contend that the Department should disregard Ekdis' U.S.-
dollar borrowings because Ekdis was not directly involved in making 
sales to the United States. The petitioners further argue that the 
Department should recalculate Ekdemir's U.S. interest rate using 365 
days, rather than 360, in order to make this calculation consistent 
with the calculation of the credit period.
    Ekinciler agrees that the Department should not base the U.S. 
interest rate on the weighted average of Ekdemir's and Ekdis' U.S.-
dollar borrowings. However, Ekinciler argues that the Department should 
use the average short-term dollar lending rates calculated by the 
Federal Reserve, because Ekinciler's U.S. subsidiary, Ferromin, had no 
borrowings during the POR. Ekinciler asserts that this rate is 
appropriate because the U.S. subsidiary was the party which would have 
been required to finance the U.S. sales from the date of shipment from 
the U.S. warehouse until the date of payment by the U.S. customer. 
Ekinciler maintains that using the Federal Reserve rate would be 
consistent with Department practice. To demonstrate this, Ekinciler 
cites Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 12725, 12742 (Mar. 16, 
1998) (Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada), where the Department 
based the U.S. interest rate on Federal Reserve data for EP sales, even 
though the respondent's U.S. subsidiary had actual U.S. dollar 
borrowings.
    Nonetheless, Ekinciler argues that, should the Department decide to 
use its U.S.-dollar borrowings in Turkey, it would be inappropriate to 
use only one of the two group companies' borrowing rates. Ekinciler 
cites Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 15772, 15779 
(Apr. 9, 1996), where the Department stated that calculating interest 
expense based on a company's consolidated financial statements is 
appropriate because the cost of capital is fungible.
    Finally, Ekinciler maintains that the Department did, in fact, use 
365 days in the calculation of U.S. credit. Therefore, Ekinciler 
asserts that no further change is necessary.
    DOC Position. We disagree with the petitioners and with Ekinciler, 
in part, regarding the appropriate interest rate to use in the U.S. 
credit calculations. As we stated in Import Administration Policy 
Bulletin 98-2 (Feb. 23, 1998):

    For the purposes of calculating imputed credit expenses, we will 
use a short-term interest rate tied to the currency in which the 
sales are denominated. We will base this interest rate on the 
respondent's weighted-average short-term borrowing experience in the 
currency of the transaction... In cases where a respondent has no 
short-term currency borrowings in the currency of the transaction, 
we will use publicly available information to establish a short-term 
interest rate applicable to the currency of the transaction.

Contrary to Ekinciler's assertions, this bulletin does not indicate 
that the source of the U.S. dollar-denominated short-term interest rate 
must be a bank located in the United States. Rather, this bulletin 
shows a clear preference for the actual borrowing experience of the 
respondent.
    In this case, there were three parties who were involved in the 
sale of rebar to the United States. Since the U.S. subsidiary most 
directly involved in selling the subject merchandise had no U.S. dollar 
borrowings, and because we have a preference for using actual 
experience where possible, we have continued to use the average of the 
rates paid by the other parties involved in making the sale, rather 
than the Federal Reserve rate. We disagree with the petitioners' 
contention that we should base the U.S. interest rate solely on the 
experience of Ekdemir, because Ekdis was also involved in the sale of 
the subject merchandise.
    Moreover, we find that the situation in Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Canada is factually distinguishable from the circumstances in this 
case. In that case, unlike here, neither the respondent nor any 
affiliated party involved directly or indirectly with the sale of the 
subject merchandise had any borrowings in U.S. dollars (although in 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada the U.S. subsidiary had 
borrowings in U.S. dollars, it was not involved in the sale of subject 
merchandise). Thus, because the respondent had no actual U.S.-dollar-
denominated borrowings in that case, we determined that the use of the 
Federal Reserve rate was appropriate. In contrast, the respondent in 
this case does have actual U.S. dollar-denominated borrowings, and we 
relied on these borrowings to determine the U.S. interest rate.
    Regarding the calculation of the interest rate, we agree with the 
petitioners. We find that Ekinciler's methodology understates the 
annual interest rate, because Ekinciler misstated the portion of the 
year to which the interest expense applied. Consequently, we have 
recalculated the U.S. interest rate for purposes of the final results.
    Comment 5: Packing Expenses According to the petitioners, the 
Department should base the amount of Ekinciler's packing expenses on 
facts available, because Ekinciler's response contains contradictory 
statements which cannot be reconciled. Specifically, the petitioners 
assert that Ekinciler made the following statements: (1) The reason the 
packing material costs differ significantly from month to month is due 
to changes in material prices and to varying packing requirements 
depending upon the market in which the product is sold; and (2) packing 
materials used for U.S. and Turkish sales are very similar, and, 
consequently, the costs are nearly identical. Moreover, the petitioners 
contend that Ekinciler failed to index its packing figures, and it also 
did not include any expenses for packing labor or overhead in its 
calculations.
    Ekinciler argues that the Department should accept its packing 
expenses as reported. Ekinciler maintains that the statements 
identified by the petitioners are not contradictory because the 
differences in packing requirements referenced above relate to third 
country markets, rather than to the U.S. or home market. Ekinciler 
asserts that the packing requirements for U.S. and home market sales 
are virtually identical. Furthermore, Ekinciler notes that, contrary to 
the petitioners' assertions, it accounted for the effects of inflation 
in its packing calculations because it reported current costs for its 
packing materials in accordance with standard Department practice. 
Finally, regarding packing labor and overhead, Ekinciler notes that it 
was not possible to segregate these costs from other labor and overhead 
costs its accounting system. Nonetheless, Ekinciler contends that its 
inability to report these expenses separately does not affect the 
margin calculations because these expenses are: (1) extremely small; 
(2) virtually the

[[Page 49156]]

same for the U.S. and home markets; and (3) captured in the reported 
COM.
    DOC Position. Ekinciler consistently described its packing expenses 
in its response and correctly based the expenses reported on its 
current cost of materials (i.e., the price of materials in the same 
month as production). Moreover, we note that, while Ekinciler did not 
index these costs itself, these costs were indexed in the computer 
program used to calculate Ekinciler's margin for purposes of the 
preliminary results.
    Regarding labor and overhead, we find that, because the packing 
process is essentially the same for the U.S. and home markets, there 
would be no material difference in the amount of labor and overhead 
allocated to the U.S. and home markets. Consequently, we have continued 
to rely on the packing data reported by Ekinciler for purposes of the 
final results.
    Comment 6: Offset to Materials Costs. Ekinciler claimed an offset 
to the materials costs reported in its response for certain materials 
recovered during the production process (e.g., billet ends and slag). 
According to the petitioners, Ekinciler understated the value of billet 
ends because it valued them at the average shredded scrap purchase 
price for the month in which they were created. The petitioners contend 
that this approach is only valid if the billet ends are also used in 
that month. According to the petitioners, the Department should use 
facts available to account for this error.
    In addition, the petitioners contend that the Department should 
disallow Ekinciler's offset for slag. According to the petitioners, 
slag cannot be reused in an arc furnace and is typically sold for use 
in roadbeds and airport runways.
    Finally, the petitioners contend that Ekinciler improperly valued 
other scrap which was recovered during the production process. 
According to the petitioners, the proper value is not the weighted 
average of the domestic scrap purchases during the same month, but 
rather the weighted average of Ekinciler's total scrap purchases within 
the same month.
    Ekinciler contends that the petitioners' argument regarding billet 
ends is moot because billet ends are recycled daily. Nonetheless, 
Ekinciler argues that the value of scrap used as an offset should be 
valued when the scrap is generated, not when it is used. Ekinciler 
further notes that, had it understated the value of billet ends as the 
petitioners assert, the result would have been to overstate (not 
understate) costs, because the offset would have been too low.
    Moreover, Ekinciler asserts that the Department should also accept 
its reported offset for slag. Ekinciler asserts that it is irrelevant 
whether the slag is used internally by Ekdemir or sold to outside 
purchasers for use in roadbeds. According to Ekinciler, because the 
petitioners admit that slag has value, there is no question that 
Ekinciler properly reported a value for the scrap that it recovered.
    Finally, Ekinciler asserts that it provided a detailed description 
of the various types of scrap and the means that it used to value them 
in its supplemental questionnaire response. Ekinciler further asserts 
that it based its reported scrap recovery on the company's monthly 
records maintained in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, 
Ekinciler asserts that the petitioners' comments should be disregarded.
    DOC Position. Ekinciler's methodology for valuing scrap recovered 
during the production process is reasonable. Specifically, Ekinciler 
valued each month's recovered scrap at the average of the purchase 
prices for scrap during the month. (See pages 21 and 22 of its March 
16, 1999, supplemental response.) We do not agree with the petitioners 
that Ekinciler valued certain types of recovered scrap at the weighted 
average of the monthly domestic scrap purchases. This is the method by 
which Ekinciler valued recovered scrap in its accounting system, not 
the method by which it reported the value of such scrap to the 
Department. Consequently, we have accepted Ekinciler's data as 
reported.
    Comment 7: Revaluation of Raw Materials Inventories. According to 
the petitioners, Ekinciler's failure to revalue its monthly raw 
materials inventories misstated the company's costs by failing to take 
into account the impact of inflation.
    Ekinciler contends that it reported the usage of raw materials at 
the current monthly acquisition prices, as instructed in the 
questionnaire. According to Ekinciler, because the petitioners 
submitted no evidence to the contrary, the Department should disregard 
the petitioners' unfounded assertion.
    DOC Position. In cases involving significant inflation, it is the 
Department's practice to require respondents to value raw materials 
using the purchase prices obtained in the month of production. See, 
e.g., Rebar from Turkey, Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from 
Turkey, 62 FR 51629, 51631(Oct. 2, 1997), and Ferrosilicon from Brazil; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 59407, 
59408 (Nov. 22, 1996). Because Ekinciler did so, we find that its costs 
appropriately account for the effects of inflation. Consequently, we 
have accepted these costs for purposes of the final results.
    Comment 8: Value of Billets Purchased from an Affiliated Company. 
The petitioners allege that Ekinciler may have understated the value of 
certain billets purchased from an affiliated party in the home market. 
According to the petitioners, the Department cannot find that the 
transfer prices included a profit margin merely based on the fact that 
the price paid to the affiliate exceeded the price that the affiliate 
paid to its supplier. The petitioners note that the higher transfer 
prices may account for all, or part of, the inflation that occurred 
during the months between the affiliate's purchase and resale. The 
petitioners do not suggest a method by which the Department should 
adjust Ekinciler's billet costs.
    Ekinciler maintains that it properly valued the billets in 
question. Ekinciler notes that, in its questionnaire response, it 
provided invoices showing that the transfer prices paid to the 
affiliated party exceeded the affiliate's acquisition cost for the same 
billet, and that the lag time between the purchase and resale was only 
a few days. According to Ekinciler, not only is this entirely 
consistent with the Department's practice, but it was not challenged by 
the petitioners prior to the briefing stage. Consequently, Ekinciler 
contends that the Department should accept its billet costs as 
reported.
    DOC Position. In determining whether a transaction occurred at an 
arm's-length price, the Department compares the transfer price between 
the affiliated parties and the market price between unaffiliated 
parties. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United 
Kingdom, 62 FR 2081, 2115 (Jan. 15, 1997).
    In its questionnaire response, Ekinciler was able to demonstrate 
adequately that the transfer price exceeded the affiliate's acquisition 
price, paid to an unaffiliated supplier, for reasons unrelated to 
inflation. Accordingly, we find that the transfer price is at arm's 
length, and we have used the transfer price to value the billet 
purchased from the affiliated party.
    Comment 9: Billet Production Costs. According to the petitioners, 
Ekinciler

[[Page 49157]]

inappropriately allocated fabrication costs in the melt shop using 
total tonnage produced each month. The petitioners contend that the 
Department should base Ekinciler's melt shop fabrication costs on facts 
available because these costs should have been allocated based on 
processing times. The petitioners provide no suggestions regarding the 
appropriate source of facts available.
    Ekinciler maintains that the Department should accept its costs as 
reported. According to Ekinciler, because there is only one product 
produced in the melt shop (i.e., billet), allocating total fabrication 
costs over total production tonnage is reasonable.
    DOC Position. Unlike in the rolling mill, production costs in the 
melt shop do not vary by processing times. Rather, these costs vary 
according to the number of tons produced. For example, the same amount 
of electricity is consumed to produce a billet used in the production 
of 14 mm rebar as for a billet used to make 32 mm rebar. Consequently, 
we find that allocating fabrication costs using production quantity is 
not only reasonable but appropriate, and we have continued to accept 
Ekinciler's costs as reported for purposes of the final results.
    Comment 10: Work-in-Process. According to the petitioners, 
Ekinciler failed to report work-in-process at the end of its accounting 
period. The petitioners assert that, although Ekinciler stated that 
there are no unfinished units at the end of the accounting period, this 
statement is contradicted by the fact that Ekinciler valued raw 
materials using the weighted-average purchase price from the previous 
month (adjusted for inflation) in cases where Ekinciler did not make 
any purchases in the month when production occurred.
    According to Ekinciler, it had no work-in-process at the end of the 
accounting period. Ekinciler asserts that steel mills do not close 
their accounting periods in mid-cast or in half-rolled bar, and that 
the production cycle is so short that the production process is 
completed by the end of the accounting period. Ekinciler further 
contends that the statements referenced by the petitioners are not 
contradictory because the petitioners confused several statements in 
Ekinciler's response. Specifically, Ekinciler notes that the 
petitioners appeared to confuse work-in-process (which was referenced 
in the statement regarding unfinished units) and raw materials (which 
was referenced in the statement regarding purchases). Accordingly, 
Ekinciler asserts that the Department should disregard the petitioners' 
comments.
    DOC Position. We find that Ekinciler consistently described its 
production process and valuation methodologies in its response. 
Moreover, we find that Ekinciler appropriately valued the cost of 
materials, because it based these costs on the company's purchases in 
each month of the POR. Contrary to the petitioners' implication, the 
Department's practice in cases involving high inflation is to base COP 
on the current production costs incurred during each month of the POR. 
See Rebar from Turkey, 62 FR at 9739 and Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 
30309, 30314 (June 14, 1996). For this reason, the valuation of work-
in-process is irrelevant to the dumping analysis in this case. 
Accordingly, we have based our final results on the data in Ekinciler's 
response.
    Comment 11: General and Administrative Expenses (G&A). The 
petitioners contend that Ekinciler improperly calculated G&A. 
Specifically, the petitioners maintain that Ekinciler divided the G&A 
of the group's rebar producer (i.e., Ekdemir) over the cost of sales of 
all companies in the Ekinciler group. In addition, the petitioners 
assert that Ekinciler improperly included Ekdemir's real estate taxes 
and factory administrative costs in G&A. According to the petitioners, 
these actions result in an allocation of rebar-related expenses to non-
subject merchandise.
    Ekinciler contends that it did, in fact, allocate G&A over 
Ekdemir's (and not Ekinciler's) cost of sales. According to Ekinciler, 
the petitioners misread the headings in Ekinciler's G&A worksheets. 
Ekinciler further contends that, contrary to the petitioners' 
assertion, it classified factory administrative labor as part of 
factory overhead. Regarding real estate taxes, Ekinciler asserts that 
Ekdemir's corporate administrative offices are located at its mill, 
and, therefore, these costs were properly reported as part of G&A. In 
any event, Ekinciler notes that the amount of these taxes represents 
less than 0.001 percent of Ekdemir's rolling mill costs, and, 
consequently, any reallocation between G&A and COM would result in a de 
minimis adjustment.
    DOC Position. We have continued to accept Ekinciler's G&A as 
reported for purposes of the final results. Ekinciler's G&A worksheets 
clearly show that Ekdemir's G&A were allocated over Ekdemir's cost of 
sales. See Exhibit 15 of the July 28, 1998, section A response and 
Exhibit 30 of the March 16, 1999, supplemental response. Moreover, 
Ekinciler's COM worksheets show that Ekinciler included supervisory 
labor (the largest component of factory administrative costs) as part 
of COM. See Exhibits 15 and 16 of the August 28, 1998, section D 
response and Exhibit 25 of the March 16, 1999, supplemental response.
    Regarding real estate taxes, while we agree with the petitioners 
that the portion of the tax related to the rebar production facility 
should have been included in fixed overhead (rather than G&A), we find 
that reallocating these taxes in this case would have no material 
impact on COM. According to section 777A(a)(2) of the Act, the 
Department may decline to take into account adjustments which are 
insignificant in relation to the price or value of the merchandise. 
Consequently, in accordance with section 777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.413, we have not included these taxes in fixed overhead.
    Comment 12: Financing Expenses. According to the petitioners, all 
interest expenses incurred by Ekinciler should be included in COM. The 
petitioners reason that the expenses incurred by Ekdemir and Ekdis 
(i.e., the group trading company) constitute a large portion of the 
interest expense reported by the Ekinciler Group for 1997 and in that 
regard resemble a foreign exchange expense incurred by Ekdemir and 
Ekdis in 1997. The petitioners speculate that these interest expenses 
relate to the acquisition of raw material outside Turkey and, thus, are 
associated with the purchase of raw materials. Moreover, the 
petitioners assert that Ekinciler failed to include gains and losses 
related to accounts payable transactions in COM, despite the 
Department's explicit instructions to do so. Therefore, the petitioners 
argue that the Department should also include all foreign exchange 
gains and losses in COM.
    In addition, the petitioners contend that the Department should 
disallow offsets to financing expenses for financing income and foreign 
exchange income because Ekinciler failed to show why the former offset 
was appropriate and the latter was earned by entities which have no 
relationship to rebar.
    Ekinciler contends that it properly included in COM all costs 
incurred on the purchase of materials, including bank fees and exchange 
losses on the purchase of materials. Ekinciler asserts that any other 
interest costs or exchange losses on payables are classified in the 
normal course of business as part of financing expenses and were 
treated as

[[Page 49158]]

such for purposes of Ekinciler's responses.
    Regarding the offset for short-term interest income, Ekinciler 
asserts that the Department's practice is to allow offsets to financing 
expenses for financial income earned on short-term investments of 
working capital. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the 
United Kingdom, 64 FR 30688, 30710 (June 8, 1999) (Sheet and Strip from 
the UK). Ekinciler asserts that it submitted substantial evidence that 
its financial income was earned on short-term uses of working capital. 
Therefore, Ekinciler asserts that its interest expense factor properly 
included an offset for this income.
    Regarding the offset for foreign exchange gains, Ekinciler asserts 
that the Department's long-standing treatment of financing expenses is 
to base the calculation of such expenses on the consolidated corporate 
entity, due to the fungible nature of financing. Ekinciler notes that, 
in accordance with this policy, the Department specifically instructed 
Ekinciler to base its financing expenses on the combined expenses of 
all companies in the Ekinciler Group. Accordingly, Ekinciler asserts 
that the petitioners are misguided in contending that exchange gains 
earned by other entities in the group are irrelevant.
    DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler that it is the Department's 
practice to classify interest expenses incurred by a company as 
financing expenses and to calculate the expenses on a consolidated 
basis. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan, 64 FR 
30574, 30592 (June 8, 1999). It is also the Department's practice to 
grant offsets to financing expenses when respondents are able to 
demonstrate that such offsets are related to short-term interest 
income. See, e.g., Sheet and Strip from the UK. Because Ekinciler 
calculated its financing expenses in accordance with the Department's 
practice, we have accepted it for purposes of the final results.
    Regarding the petitioners' allegation that Ekinciler improperly 
excluded exchange losses related to accounts payable transactions from 
COM, we find no evidence that this has occurred. Accordingly, we have 
made no adjustment to COM for exchange losses for purposes of the final 
results.

B. ICDAS

    Comment 13: Currency Conversion. The Federal Reserve Bank does not 
track or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Consequently, for 
purposes of the preliminary results, the Department made currency 
conversions using exchange rates published by the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service. ICDAS argues that the Department should use the 
exchange rates published by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey 
for purposes of the final results because these rates better reflect 
commercial reality in Turkey.
    ICDAS acknowledges that the Department generally uses the Dow Jones 
News/Retrieval Service rates in cases where Federal Reserve Bank rates 
are not available, including currency conversions in Turkish cases. 
However, ICDAS argues that the Department has the discretion to use a 
source other than the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service when the rates 
in question are not published by the Federal Reserve Bank, since 
neither section 773A of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.415 prescribes the 
precise source to be used in currency conversions.
    ICDAS asserts that the Department is not precluded from using the 
Central Bank rates, despite the fact that it did not raise this 
exchange rate issue in previous filings, since the rates consist of 
publicly available data which the Department may add to the record at 
any time during the proceeding. As support for this position, ICDAS 
cites the Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part: Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabyte or Above From the Republic 
of Korea, 62 FR 39809, 39810 (July 24, 1997) (DRAMS from Korea); 
Certain Cased Pencils From The People's Republic of China; Amended 
Final Results Of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR 36491, 
36492 (July 8, 1997) (Pencils from China); and Live Swine From Canada; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 
12243, 12250 (Mar. 16, 1994) (Live Swine from Canada).
    The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to use 
the rates published by the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service because it 
is a well-established, reliable source of commercially available 
exchange rates and ICDAS has provided no evidence to show that the 
Central Bank rates are more reflective of commercial reality. Moreover, 
the petitioners assert that the use of the Dow Jones News/Retrieval 
Service rates would be consistent with Department practice. As support 
for their position, the petitioners cite to Steel Wire Rod from 
Trinidad & Tobago, where the Department rejected the respondent's 
argument to use a source other than the Dow Jones News/Retrieval 
Service in the absence of rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
    The petitioners further argue that the Department is prohibited 
from using the Central Bank rates because they constitute new factual 
information. The petitioners maintain that ICDAS' reliance on the cases 
cited above is misplaced, because the facts in those cases are not 
analogous to the facts in the instant review. Specifically, the 
petitioners note that in DRAMS from Korea, the Department reviewed 
current market conditions at the time of the final results, which could 
not have been incorporated into the parties' filings prior to that 
time, while in Pencils from China the Department re-opened the 
administrative record to accept new factual information in conjunction 
with a remand, not a new shipper review. The petitioners assert that 
Live Swine from Canada makes clear that it is exceptional for the 
Department to accept new factual information after the date of the 
preliminary results of review.
    DOC Position. In our exchange rate model, it is the Department's 
normal practice to use exchange rates provided by the Federal Reserve 
Bank. When the Federal Reserve does not provide exchange rates, the 
Department uses exchange rates obtained from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service because this service is a well-established, reliable 
source of commercially available exchange rates. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 63 FR 68429 (Dec. 11, 1998) 
(affirming Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 63 
FR 42373 (Aug. 7, 1998)), Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago, Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 61 FR 69067 (Dec. 31, 
1996), and Rebar from Turkey. For this reason, we find that the 
exchange rates obtained from the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service are a 
reasonable alternative to those obtained from the Federal Reserve.
    In this case, although ICDAS has asserted that the Turkish Central 
Bank rates are more reflective of commercial reality in Turkey, it has 
provided no evidence to support this assertion. Consequently, we find 
that ICDAS has provided inadequate reasons for the Department to depart 
from its established practice of using the Dow Jones rates, and we have 
continued to

[[Page 49159]]

use these rates for purposes of the final results.
    Comment 14: Calculation of the Home Market Short-Term Interest 
Rate. For purposes of the preliminary results, the Department adjusted 
the calculation of ICDAS'' short-term home market interest rate to 
exclude bank commissions. ICDAS argues that the Department should 
include these bank commissions in the calculation of the home market 
short-term interest rate, because the commissions are part of the total 
cost of borrowing. In support of its position, ICDAS cites the 
following cases in which the Department included bank fees/charges in 
its calculation of the short-term borrowing rate: Certain Corrosion 
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in Part, 64 FR 2173, 
2178-79 (Jan. 13, 1999) (Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Canada); Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
781, 801 (Jan. 7, 1998) (Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Korea); and Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Large Power Transformers From Italy, 52 FR 46806, 46811 (Dec. 10, 1987) 
(LPTs from Italy).
    The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to 
exclude the bank commissions in question from the calculation of the 
home market short-term interest rate because there is no evidence on 
the record to indicate that these bank commissions were related to the 
loan in question or that they were part of the total costs to ICDAS of 
home market short-term borrowing.
    DOC Position. According to the information gathered at 
verification, the commissions in question are directly related to the 
amount that the bank charged ICDAS for borrowing money. See Exhibit 16 
to the ICDAS sales verification report. Therefore, because we find that 
these commissions are part of the total cost borrowing of ICDAS, we 
have revised our calculation of ICDAS' short-term home market borrowing 
rate to include bank commissions. See Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Canada; Cold Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Korea; and LPTs from Italy.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of comments received, we have revised our analysis and 
determine that the following margins exist for the respondents during 
the period October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998 (for Ekinciler), 
and October 10, 1996, through July 31, 1998 (for ICDAS):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin
              Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekinciler Holding A.S./Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S..........          0.30
ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S...........          9.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to 
the total entered value of those sales. These rates will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the 
POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs 
Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries 
for any importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 
than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results of these administrative and new 
shipper reviews, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
The cash deposit rate for the ICDAS will be the rate stated above, and 
the cash deposit rate for Ekinciler will be zero; (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 this review, or 
the 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) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the 
all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 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 the only 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(a)(3). See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures; Procedures for Imposting Sanction for Violation of a 
Protective Order, 63 FR 24391, 24402 (May 4, 1998). 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.
    These administrative and new shipper reviews are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: September 3, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23630 Filed 9-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P