[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3155-3159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1656]



[[Page 3155]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-829]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Bar From Italy

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an antidumping duty 
investigation of stainless steel bar from Italy. We determine that 
stainless steel bar from Italy is being, or is likely to be, sold in 
the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 
735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. On August 2, 2001, the 
Department of Commerce published its preliminary determination of sales 
at less than fair value of stainless steel bar from Italy. Based on the 
results of verification and our analysis of the comments received, we 
have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, this final 
determination differs from the preliminary determination. The final 
weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section 
entitled ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation.'' 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarrod Goldfeder, Melani Miller, or 
Anthony Grasso, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0189, (202) 482-0116, or (202) 482-3853, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Case History

    Since the publication of the preliminary determination in this 
investigation (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless 
Steel Bar From Italy, 66 FR 40214 (August 2, 2001) (``Preliminary 
Determination'')), the following events have occurred:
    In August through September 2001, we conducted verifications of the 
questionnaire responses submitted by Acciaierie Valbruna Srl/Acciaierie 
Bolzano S.p.A. (``Valbruna''), Acciaiera Foroni SpA (``Foroni''), 
Trafilerie Bedini, Srl (``Bedini''), and Rodacciai S.p.A. 
(``Rodacciai'') (collectively, ``the respondents''). We issued 
verification reports in October and November 2001. See ``Verification'' 
section of this notice for further discussion.
    The petitioners and respondents filed case and rebuttal briefs, 
respectively, on November 21 and November 28, 2001. A public hearing 
was held at the request of the petitioners on December 5, 2001.
    Although the deadline for this determination was originally 
December 17, 2001, in order to accommodate certain verifications that 
were delayed because of the events of September 11, 2001, the 
Department tolled the final determination deadline in this and the 
concurrent stainless steel bar investigations until January 15, 2002.

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the term ``stainless steel 
bar'' includes 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 along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of 
circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, 
octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-
finished stainless steel bars 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, 
grooves, 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), products that have been cut from stainless 
steel sheet, strip or plate, 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 stainless steel bar subject to this investigation is currently 
classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
    Prior to the preliminary determinations in these investigations, 
the respondents in this and the companion SSB investigations filed 
comments seeking to exclude certain products from the scope of these 
investigations. The specific products identified in their exclusion 
requests were: stainless steel tool steel, welding wire, special-
quality oil field equipment steel (SQOFES), and special profile wire.
    In the preliminary determinations, we concluded that all of these 
products, except for special profile wire, are within the scope of 
these investigations. Specifically, regarding stainless steel tool 
steel, welding wire, and SQOFES, after considering the respondents' 
comments and the petitioners' objections to the exclusion requests, we 
preliminarily determined that the scope is not overly broad. Therefore, 
stainless steel tool steel, welding wire, and SQOFES are within the 
scope of these SSB investigations. In addition, we preliminarily 
determined that SQOFES does not constitute a separate class or kind of 
merchandise from SSB. Regarding special profile wire, we preliminarily 
determined that this product does not fall within the scope as it is 
written because its cross section is in the shape of a concave polygon. 
Therefore, we did not include special profile wire in these 
investigations. (For details, see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach and 
Louis Apple from the Stainless Steel Bar Team, dated July 26, 2001, 
entitled ``Scope Exclusion Requests,'' and the Memorandum to Louis 
Apple from the Stainless Steel Bar Team, dated July 26, 2001, entitled 
``Whether Special Profile Wire Product is Included in the Scope of the 
Investigation.'')
    Finally, we note that in the concurrent countervailing duty 
investigation of stainless steel bar from Italy, the Department 
preliminarily determined that hot-rolled stainless steel bar is within 
the scope of these investigations. (See Preliminary Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing 
Duty Determination with

[[Page 3156]]

Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 
66 FR 30414 (June 6, 2001).)
    With the exception of one respondent in the Germany investigation 
which filed comments on the Department's preliminary scope decision 
with respect to SQOFES with which the Department disagrees and has 
addressed in the January 15, 2002, Decision Memorandum in that case, no 
other parties filed comments on our preliminary scope decisions. 
Furthermore, no additional information has otherwise come to our 
attention to warrant a change in our preliminary decisions. Therefore, 
we have made no changes for purposes of the final determinations.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') for this investigation is 
October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000.

Use of Facts Available

    As explained in the Preliminary Determination, we based Cogne's 
antidumping duty rate on adverse facts available, in accordance with 
section 776 of the Act.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the [Department] under this title, (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in 
the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, 
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified 
as provided in section 782(i), the [Department] shall, subject to 
section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.'' Use of facts available is 
warranted in this case because Cogne failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences 
may be used when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. Cogne decided not to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. On this basis the Department determined that it failed 
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in this 
investigation. Thus, the Department has determined that, in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is 
warranted and has assigned Cogne an antidumping rate based on adverse 
inferences.
    In accordance with our standard practice, we determine the margin 
used as adverse facts available by selecting the higher of (1) the 
highest margin stated in the notice of initiation, or (2) the highest 
margin calculated for any respondent. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter 
Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan 
and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and 
Pressure Pipe From Japan and the Republic of South Africa, 64 FR 69718, 
69722 (December 14, 1999), followed in Notice of Final Determinations 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and 
Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan and Certain 
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure 
Pipe From Japan and the Republic of South Africa, 65 FR 25907 (May 4, 
2000); and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea and Germany, 63 FR 
10826, 10847 (March 5, 1998), followed in Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea 
and Germany, 63 FR 40433 (July 29, 1998).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts 
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, 
H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 (1994) (``SAA''), states that ``corroborate'' 
means to determine that the information used has probative value. See 
SAA at 870.
    In this case, when analyzing the petition for purposes of the 
initiation, the Department reviewed all of the data upon which the 
petitioners relied in calculating the estimated dumping margins and 
determined that the margins in the petition were appropriately 
calculated and supported by adequate evidence in accordance with the 
statutory requirements for initiation. In order to corroborate the 
petition margins for purposes of using them as adverse facts available, 
we re-examined the price and cost information provided in the petition 
in light of information developed during the investigation. For further 
details, see the Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland, ``Preliminary 
Determination of Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Corroboration 
Memorandum,'' dated July 26, 2001.
    As we noted in the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with 
Section 776(c) of the Act, we were able to partially corroborate the 
information in the petition using information from independent sources 
that were reasonably at our disposal. Using this information, we were 
able to corroborate the price-to-price margin calculations in the 
petition, but were unable to fully corroborate the constructed value 
margin calculations in the petition. We have re-examined the evidence 
on the record of this investigation and continue to find that we are 
unable to corroborate the constructed value margin calculations. As a 
result, we are continuing to assign Cogne the highest price-to-price 
margin rate contained in the petition, 33.00 percent, for purposes of 
the final determination. See Comment 17 of the January 15, 2002 
Decision Memorandum.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from Italy to the 
United States were made at less than fair value, we compared export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to normal value 
(``NV''). Our calculations followed the methodologies described in the 
Preliminary Determination, except as noted below and in each individual 
respondent's calculation memorandum, dated January 15, 2002, which is 
on file in the Import Administration's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), 
Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For certain sales to the United States, we used EP as defined in 
section 772(a) of the Act. For the remaining sales to the United 
States, we used CEP as defined in section 772(b) of the Act. We 
calculated EP and CEP based on the same methodologies described in the 
Preliminary Determination, with the following exceptions:

Bedini

    Based on information provided by Bedini since the Preliminary 
Determination, we revised Bedini's calculations to include its updated 
and verified further manufacturing costs. We also corrected several 
clerical errors related to Bedini's reported expense fields based on 
Bedini's CEP verification. We also revised the order of Bedini's 
product matching characteristics to follow the Department's 
instructions. Finally, we revised Bedini's U.S. control numbers so that 
they would reflect the size as

[[Page 3157]]

imported instead of the size as sold to the first unaffiliated U.S. 
customer. For a detailed description of all U.S. sales changes made to 
Bedini's margin calculations for the final determination, see Bedini 
Final Determination Calculation Memorandum.

Foroni

    Based on our findings at the CEP verification, we made revisions to 
Foroni's U.S. sales database to correct certain errors related to its 
reported advertising expenses, billing adjustments, indirect selling 
expenses, U.S. inventory carrying costs, U.S. duty rates and U.S. 
commissions. See Memorandum from Team to John Brinkmann, ``Final 
Determination Calculation Memorandum for Foroni S.p.A. and Foroni 
Metals of Texas' (``Foroni Final Determination Calculation 
Memorandum'') dated January 15, 2002 and Memorandum from Anthony Grasso 
to John Brinkmann, ``Verification of the Constructed Export Price Sales 
of Foroni S.p.A.''s U.S. Affiliate, Foroni Metals of Texas, in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Bar from Italy,'' 
dated October 23, 2001.

Rodacciai

    Based on information contained in an August 8, 2001 submissions and 
our findings at the CEP verification, we corrected several clerical 
errors to Rodacciai's CEP sales database, including the addition of 
several CEP sales that Rodacciai had inadvertently excluded from the 
U.S. database. See Rodacciai's August 8, 2001 submission and Rodacciai 
Final Determination Calculation Memorandum.
    Based on our findings at the CEP verification, we made several 
corrections to Rodacciai's reported size coding and revised Rodacciai's 
reported U.S. indirect selling expense ratio to include the 
depreciation incurred by Sovereign in the last three months of the POI.
    We have revised the treatment of Rodacciai's reported U.S. credit 
adjustment variables, which were reported as positive integers, by 
deducting these values from home market and U.S. gross prices, 
respectively, rather than adding them as we did in the Preliminary 
Determination.
    For purposes of calculating Rodacciai's U.S. credit expenses, we 
are adjusting the gross unit price for credit adjustments and any on-
invoice discounts. Further, we are using the last day of verification, 
August 17, 2001, as the date of payment for unpaid U.S. sales, and have 
recalculated U.S. credit expenses accordingly.

Valbruna

    Based on our findings at the CEP verification, we made several 
changes to Valbruna's reported CEP sales database. See Valbruna Final 
Determination Calculation Memornadum.
    (1) We increased the gross unit price on several observations for 
which an alloy surcharge was not included.
    (2) We applied a price reduction to all reported sales observations 
related to a particular U.S. sales invoice.
    (3) We have changed the U.S. rebate field to reflect the correct 
rebate percentage for 1999 sales.
    (4) We set the U.S. brokerage expense field to zero for all EP 
sales because all EP sales were made on a C&F basis where the U.S. 
customer takes responsibility for all duties and charges.
    (5) We decreased other transportation expenses for sales made out 
of the Houston warehouse.
    (6) We have revised Valbruna's U.S. sales database to treat certain 
cleaning costs incurred on one sale of subject merchandise as a 
warranty expense, and have made a corresponding reduction to indirect 
selling expenses in order to avoid double-counting this expense.
    (7) We have revised Valbruna's U.S. sales database to include 
certain costs incurred to cut the subject merchandise before it was 
placed into the consignment inventory for one of Valbruna's customers 
on all sales to this particular customer.
    (8) We have revised Valbruna's U.S. sales database to deduct the 
per-unit repacking expense from the reported sales price for all sales 
to one customer whose shipments were subject to U.S. repacking, but for 
whom there was not a separate line item on the sales invoices.
    (9) We adjusted the databases to reflect an increase in the U.S. 
indirect selling expenses ratio due to the inadvertent omission of 
certain warehousing expenses and short-term interest revenue, and 
revised the ratio such that ``Other Income'' items were not deducted 
from the total U.S. indirect selling expenses.

Normal Value

    We used the same methodology as that described in the Preliminary 
Determination to determine the cost of production (``COP''), whether 
comparison market sales were at prices below the COP, and the NV, with 
the following exceptions:

1. Cost of Production Analysis

Foroni
    As discussed in the memorandum from Robert Greger to Neal Halper, 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Final Determination,'' dated January 15, 2002 (``Final Accounting 
Calculation Memo--Foroni''), we adjusted Foroni's reported direct 
materials costs (``DIRMAT'') to account for two errors made in 
calculating its reported costs: (1) Foroni underestimated the nickel 
content of its stainless steel scrap inputs and (2) used an average 
rather than an actual exchange rate in converting its U.S. dollar 
purchases.
    Furthermore, as discussed in the Final Accounting Calculation 
Memo--Foroni, we also decreased the G&A expense ratio and increased the 
financial expense ratio.
Valbruna
    As discussed in the memorandum from Robert Greger to Neal Halper, 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Final Determination,'' dated January 15, 2002 (``Final Accounting 
Calculation Memo--Valbruna''), we increased the reported total cost of 
manufacturing (``TOTCOM'') to include an unreconciled difference 
between Valbruna's cost accounting system and the reported cost files, 
and to include the portion of depreciation on revalued asset amounts 
related to subject merchandise that were included in Valbruna's 
unconsolidated financial statements. Furthermore, we excluded 
Valbruna's claimed inventory charge adjustment from the calculation of 
the reported TOTCOM.
    Finally, as discussed in the Final Accounting Calculation Memo--
Valbruna, we increased the G&A ratio and decreased the financial 
expense ratio.

2. Calculation of NV

Bedini
    Based on Bedini's November 14 and November 29, 2001 submissions, we 
revised our calculations to include new home market sales Bedini found 
in preparation for its home market verification.
    Also, consistent with the Preliminary Determination, we have 
dropped from our calculation all home market sales of Ugine Savoie-
Imphy (Bedini's parent company and a respondent in the companion French 
proceeding) stainless steel wire rod that were subcontracted to Bedini 
as part of a tolling operation for processing into subject merchandise.

[[Page 3158]]

    For a detailed description of all home market changes made to 
Bedini's margin calculations for the final determination, see Bedini 
Final Determination Calculation Memorandum.
Foroni
    On August 3, 2001, Foroni submitted a value for the packing costs 
incurred on exports of subject merchandise from Italy to the United 
States. For the final determination we used this packing rate in place 
of the facts available rate applied in the Preliminary Determination 
and accordingly reduced fixed overhead by excluding the total packing 
expenses. See Final Accounting Calculation Memo--Foroni and Foroni 
Final Determination Calculation Memorandum.
Rodacciai
    Based on information contained in an August 8, 2001 submissions and 
our findings at the CEP verification, we corrected several clerical 
errors to Rodacciai's home market sales database. See Rodacciai's 
August 8, 2001 submission and Rodacciai Final Determination Calculation 
Memorandum.
    We have corrected a misreported customer relationship for one of 
Rodacciai's affiliated customers.
    We have revised the treatment of Rodacciai's reported home market 
credit adjustment variables, which were reported as positive integers, 
by deducting these values from home market and U.S. gross prices, 
respectively, rather than adding them as we did in the Preliminary 
Determination.
    For purposes of calculating Rodacciai's home market credit 
expenses, we are adjusting the gross unit price for credit adjustments 
and any on-invoice discounts.
    We corrected certain variable names used in the weight-averaging of 
Rodacciai's home market adjustment variables.
Valbruna
    We revised the home market indirect selling expense ratio to 
reflect a minor change to the final year-end trial balance.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act in the same manner as in the Preliminary Determination.

Verification

    In this investigation, and in the companion SSB investigations from 
Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Korea, verifications were 
scheduled for all responding companies during the period August through 
October 2001. Based on the security concerns and logistical 
difficulties brought about by the events of September 11, for some 
companies in these countries we were unable to fully complete our 
verifications as scheduled. However, for these companies, we did verify 
major portions of the company's questionnaire responses.
    While the statute at 782(i)(1) and the Department's regulations at 
351.307(b)(1)(i) direct the Department to verify all information relied 
upon in a final determination of an investigation, the Department's 
verification process is akin to an ``audit'' and that the Department 
has the discretion to determine the specific information it will 
examine in its audits. See PMC Specialties Group, Inc. v. United 
States, 20 C.I.T. 1130 (1996). The courts concur that verification is a 
spot check and is not intended to be an exhaustive examination of the 
respondent's records. See Mansato v. United States, 698 F.Supp. 275, 
281 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988). Furthermore, the courts have noted that 
Congress has given Commerce wide latitude in formulating its 
verification procedures. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1386, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    In these investigations, we believe that we have met the standard 
for having verified the information being used in this final 
determination, despite our inability to complete all of the 
verifications as originally scheduled. Although the amount of 
information verified was less than planned, the respondents did not 
control what was verified and what was not verified. It was the 
Department, not the companies, that established the original 
verification schedule and determined the order in which the segments 
would be verified. Moreover, each company was fully prepared to proceed 
with each segment of the original verification based upon the 
Department's schedule and could not have anticipated that the 
Department would perhaps not actually verify all segments. Finally, we 
note that all responding companies and the petitioners fully cooperated 
with the Department's post-September 11 efforts to conduct as many 
segments of verification as practicable.
    Based on the information verified, we are relying on the responses 
as submitted, subject to the minor corrections previously noted 
elsewhere in this notice and the Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the January 15, 2002, Decision 
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this 
notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised 
and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can 
find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation 
and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which 
is on file in the Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of 
the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/frnhome.htm. The paper copy and electronic version 
of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to continue to suspend 
liquidation of all imports of stainless steel bar from Italy, except 
for subject merchandise produced by Bedini (which has a de minimis 
weighted-average margin), that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after August 2, 2001, the date of 
publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. 
Furthermore, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we are 
directing Customs to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise by Valbruna (which had a de minimis weighted-average margin 
for the Preliminary Determination) that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. Customs shall require a cash deposit or 
the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the 
NV exceeds the EP or CEP, as appropriate, as indicated in the chart 
below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in 
effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acciaierie Valbruna Srl/Acciaierie Bolzano S.p.A...........         2.50
Acciaiera Foroni SpA.......................................         7.07
Trafilerie Bedini, Srl.....................................         1.70
Rodacciai S.p.A............................................         5.89
Cogne Acciai Speciali Srl..................................        33.00

[[Page 3159]]

 
All Others* **.............................................        3.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(d)(3), we have excluded rates calculated
  for voluntary respondents from the calculation of the all-others rate
  under section 735(c)(5) of the Act.
** Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A), we have excluded from the
  calculation of the all-others rate margins which are zero or de
  minimis, or determined entirely on facts available.

    For Bedini, because its estimated weighted-average final dumping 
margin is de minimis, we are directing Customs to terminate suspension 
of liquidation of Bedini's entries and refund all bonds and cash 
deposits posted on subject merchandise produced by Bedini.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, 
determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten 
material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that 
material injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order.
    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 or 
destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective 
order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and 
the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 15, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

    Comment 1: Treatment of Sales Above Normal Value.
    Comment 2: Commission Offset.
    Comment 3: Model Match Methodology.
    Comment 4: Differences in Bedini LOT and Bedini CEP Offset.
    Comment 5: Bedini HM Commission Expenses.
    Comment 6: Clerical Errors in the Calculation of Bedini U.S. 
Credit Expenses.
    Comment 7: Bedini Reconstruction of Identical CONNUMs.
    Comment 8: Collapsing the Sales Prices and Production Costs of 
Bedini and U-SI.
    Comment 9: Application of Adverse Facts Available for Bedini Due 
to Home Market Reporting Flaws.
    Comment 10: Bedini HM Billing Adjustments.
    Comment 11: Partial Adverse Facts Available for Unreported 
Bedini U.S. Sales.
    Comment 12: Revisions to the Calculation of Certain Bedini 
Expense Fields.
    Comment 13: Adverse Facts Available for All Bedini Expenses 
Reported on an Average, Not A Transaction-Specific, Basis.
    Comment 14: Methodology for Calculating Bedini's U.S. Credit 
Expenses.
    Comment 15: Adjustments to Bedini's Reported Costs to Reconcile 
With the General Ledger.
    Comment 16: Correction to Bedini's Verification Report.
    Comment 17: Application of Adverse Facts Available to Cogne.
    Comment 18: Use of Facts Available to Value Foroni's Packing 
Costs.
    Comment 19: Foroni's Advertising Expenses.
    Comment 20: Foroni's Calculation of Direct Materials.
    Comment 21: Exclusion of Foroni's Directors' Fees from the G&A 
Expense Ratio.
    Comment 22: Foroni's Short-Term Bond Interest Offset.
    Comment 23: Foreign Exchange Gains & Losses.
    Comment 24: Foroni's Yield Loss.
    Comment 25: Use of Rodacciai's Reported Data.
    Comment 26: Rodacciai's Reported Home Market Date of Sale.
    Comment 27: Additional Sales Submitted by Rodacciai.
    Comment 28: Rodacciai's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses.
    Comment 29: Rodacciai's U.S. Warehousing Expenses.
    Comment 30: Rodacciai's U.S. Sales with Missing Date of Payment.
    Comment 31: Rodacciai's G&A Expense Ratio.
    Comment 32: Rodacciai's Interest Expense Ratio.
    Comment 33: Recalculation of Certain Home Market Expenses 
Reported by Rodacciai.
    Comment 34: Rodacciai's Home Market Credit Adjustments.
    Comment 35: Corrections to and Based on Valbruna's CEP 
Verification Report.
    Comment 36: Valbruna's Opportunity Cost on VAT Rebates.
    Comment 37: Valbruna's Levels of Trade.
    Comment 38: Treatment of Valbruna's Consignment Holding Period.
    Comment 39: Valbruna's U.S. Brokerage Expenses.
    Comment 40: Valbruna's U.S. Warranty Expenses.
    Comment 41: Valbruna's Unreported Price Adjustment.
    Comment 42: Valbruna's U.S. Repacking Expenses.
    Comment 43: Use of Actual Prices Paid by Valbruna's Customers.
    Comment 44: Valbruna's U.S. Indirect Selling Expense Ratio.
    Comment 45: Valbruna's Home Market Inventory Carrying Costs.
    Comment 46: Valbruna's G&A Expense Ratio.
    Comment 47: Valbruna's Financial Expense Ratio.
    Comment 48: Inclusion of Depreciation Expense in Valbruna's 
Reported Manufacturing Costs.
    Comment 49: Valbruna's Claimed Inventory Adjustment.
    Comment 50: Treatment of Unreconciled Differences in Valbruna's 
Cost of Manufacture.
    Comment 51: Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses on Accounts 
Payable.
    Comment 52: Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses on Financing.

[FR Doc. 02-1656 Filed 1-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P