# Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-31805

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** December 28, 1994

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-475-813]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair
Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy

Agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
Effective Date: December 28, 1994.
For Further Information Contact: Kate Johnson or Irene Darzenta,
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4929 or 482-6320,
respectively.

Final Determination

We determine that stainless steel bar (SSB) from Italy is not
being, nor is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). The estimated de minimis margins are shown in the
``Discontinuance of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Scope of Investigation

The merchandise covered by this investigation is SSB. For purposes
of this investigation, the term ''stainless steel bar'' means articles
of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-
rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentions, 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), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils,
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles
shapes and sections.
The SSB subject to this investigation is currently classifiable
under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005,
7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075 and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is July 1 to December 31, 1993.

Case History

Since publication of the notice of preliminary determination on
August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39736), the following events have occurred.
On August 5, 1994, Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. (Valbruna) submitted
its response to Section D of the Department's questionnaire. It
supplemented this response on October 3, 1994.
On August 9 and 10, 1994, Valbruna and petitioners, respectively,
requested the opportunity to participate in a hearing, if held. None
was held.
Also, on August 10, 1994, Valbruna alleged that the Department made
certain ministerial errors in its preliminary margin calculations. On
August 11, 1994, petitioners submitted comments and rebuttal regarding
these ministerial errors. With respect to these allegations, on
September 13, 1994, we published a notice of amended preliminary
determination correcting the ministerial errors in the preliminary
margin calculations (59 FR 46961).
On August 12, 1994, Foroni S.p.A. (Foroni) tentatively requested a
hearing in this investigation. It withdrew its request on October 26,
1994.
Verification of Valbruna's and Foroni's responses took place in
August and October, 1994.
Case and rebuttal briefs were submitted on November 17, and 23,
1994, respectively.
At the Department's request, Valbruna and Foroni submitted revised
computer tapes correcting certain minor clerical errors found at
verification on November 22 and 30, 1994, respectively.

Product Comparisons

We have determined that all products covered by this investigation
constitute a single category of such or similar merchandise. We made
fair value comparisons on this basis. In accordance with the
Department's standard methodology, we first compared identical
merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the
home market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise
comparisons on the basis of the criteria defined in Appendix V to the
antidumping questionnaire, on file in Room B-099 of the main building
of the Department of Commerce.
Consistent with our preliminary determination, we altered the order
of the SSB grades specified within the grade criteria of Appendix V to
account for certain other SSB grades which Foroni sold during the POI,
but which were not taken into account in Appendix V. We also reversed
the order of the size and shape criteria in Appendix V.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of SSB from Italy to the United States
were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States price
(``USP'') to the foreign market value (``FMB''), as specified in the
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this
notice. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.58, we made comparisons at the
same level of trade, where possible.
We made revisions to both respondents' reported data, where
appropriate, based on verification findings.

United States Price

Foroni

All of Foroni's U.S. sales to the first unrelated purchaser took
place after importation into the United States. Therefore, we based USP
on exporter's sales prices (ESP), in accordance with section 772(c) of
the Act. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we calculated
ESP based on FOB warehouse and FOB port prices to unrelated customers
in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for
foreign brokerage, ocean freight (including foreign inland freight and
loading/unloading charges), U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland
freight, U.S. import duties (including harbor maintenance fees and
merchandise processing fees), and export processing fees. For those
sales of subject merchandise with FOB U.S. port sales terms, we made no
deduction for the U.S. inland freight charges reported in respondent's
U.S. sales listing.
We also deducted credit expenses, warranty expenses, product
liability premiums, and commissions paid to an employee, in accordance
with section 772(e)(2) of the Act. We recalculated credit expenses to
account for updated shipment and payment information which we reviewed
at verification. For sales with missing shipment and payment dates, we
calculated credit using the average credit days outstanding for all
other sales in the U.S. databases. We also deducted U.S. indirect
selling expenses, including pre-sale warehousing costs incurred in the
United States, advertising, and inventory carrying costs. We
recalculated certain indirect selling expenses, including advertising
and pre-sale warehousing expenses, in accordance with verification
findings.
In addition, we made no adjustment for U.S. packing expenses
because Foroni claimed, and we verified, that the subject merchandise
is not packed for shipment to the customer.
We also made an adjustment to USP for the value-added tax (VAT)
paid on the comparison sales in Italy in accordance with our practice,
pursuant to the Court of International Trade's (CIT) decision in
Federal-Mogul Corp. and The Torrington Co. v. United States, Slip Op.
93-194 (CIT October 7, 1993). (See Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Calcium Aluminate Cement, Cement Clinker and Flux from
France. 59 FR 14136, March 25, 1994).

Valbruna

For Valbruna, we based USP on both ESP and purchase price (PP), in
accordance with section 772 of the Act, because Valbruna made sales
both before and after importation into the United States. We calculated
both PP and ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers. In
accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act, for both PP and ESP
sales we made deductions, where appropriate, for ocean freight
(including foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, marine
insurance and foreign brokerage and handling), U.S. import duties, U.S.
merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees, U.S. inland
freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and containerization expenses
(including drayage, stripping, and storage expenses). We added freight
income (i.e., freight charges paid by the customer but not included in
the gross price) to both ESP and PP sales.
For ESP sales only, we further deducted credit expenses, in
accordance with section 772(e)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we deleted
the affected invoice from the database. We also deducted indirect
selling expenses incurred in Italy on sales to the United States, as
well as indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States, and
inventory carrying costs. We recalculated indirect selling expenses
incurred in the United States to reflect verification findings. With
regard to the reported warranty expenses applicable to one U.S. sales
invoice, we made no adjustment because we determined that these
expenses were not characteristic of ``warranty'' expenses; rather, they
reflected a return to merchandise.
Finally, we made an adjustment to USP for the VAT paid on the
comparison sales in Italy in accordance with our practice, as described
above for Foroni.

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of SSB in
the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, we
compared the volume of home market sales of SSB to the volume of third
country sales of SSB in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the
Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that both respondents had
viable home markets with respect to sales of SSB during the POI.

Foroni

We calculated FMV based on ex-factory prices charged to unrelated
customers in the home market. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a)(2), we
deducted credit expenses. We also deducted home market indirect selling
expenses capped by the sum of U.S. commissions and indirect selling
expenses (including inventory carrying costs), in accordance with 19
C.F.R. 353.56(b).
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in the
physical characteristics of the merchandise (difmer), in accordance
with section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act. We recalculated difmers to take
into account quality control expenses, which we verified were related
to production.
We adjusted for VAT in accordance with out practice for those home
market sales for which we verified that VAT applied. (See the ``United
States Price'' section of this notice.)
In addition, we made no adjustment for U.S. packing expenses
because Foroni claimed, and we verified, that the subject merchandise
is not packed for shipment to the customer.

Valbruna

We calculated FMV based on packed prices charged to related and
unrelated customers in the home market. We included arm's-length sales
to related customers, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.45. We excluded from
our analysis sales of secondary merchandise, which we verified were not
made in the ordinary course of trade.
We deducted cash discounts. We added freight income (i.e., freight
charges paid by the customer but not included in the gross price) to
both ESP and PP sales.
In light of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (CAFC)
decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland
Cement V. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Department
no longer can deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to
its inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Instead,
we will adjust for those expenses under the circumstances-of-sale
provision of 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a) and the ESP offset provision of 19
C.F.R. 353.56(b)(2), as appropriate. Accordingly, in the present case,
we deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the
circumstances-of-sale provision of 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a). This adjustment
included home market inland freight (including inland insurance) from
respondent's factory or service centers to its home market customers.
We adjusted for pre-sale movement charges in the ESP offset.
For comparison to ESP sales, we also deducted credit expenses and
home market commissions from FMV. We considered pre-sale warehousing
expenses incurred by Valbruna's service centers and inventory carrying
costs related to pre-sale warehousing at these service centers to be
direct selling expenses (see Comment 10 in the ``Interested Party
Comments'' section of this notice). Accordingly, we deducted these
expenses. We then deducted home market indirect selling expenses
(including pre-sale movement charges) capped by the sum of U.S.
indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs.
For comparison to PP sales, we made a circumstance-of-sale
adjustment for differences in credit expenses, pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
353.56(a)(2). We also deducted home market commissions from FMV and
added to FMV the U.S. indirect selling expenses capped by the amount of
home market commissions.
Furthermore, we made no adjustment for the claimed imputed VAT
expenses (see Comment 4 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of
this notice).
For both ESP and PP sales, we deducted home market packing costs
and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of
the Act.
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for difmers, in accordance
with section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act.
We adjusted the VAT in accordance with our practice for those home
market sales for which we verified that VAT applied. (See the ``United
States Price'' section of this notice, above.)

Cost of Production

Petitioners alleged that Valbruna made home market sales during the
POI at prices below the cost of production (COP). Based on petitioners'
allegation, and in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we
concluded that we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that
sales were made below COP. Thus, we initiated an investigation to
determine whether Valbruna made home market sales of subject
merchandise at prices below its COP.
In order to determine whether home market prices were below COP
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, we performed a
product-specific cost test, in which we examined whether each home
market product sold during the POI was priced below the COP of that
product. We calculated COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of
materials, fabrication, general expenses and packing costs, in
accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.51(c). (See, e.g., Final Determination of
Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from Korea (59 FR 58826;
November 15, 1994)) (Saccharin from Korea). We compared the COP for
each product to the home market price, net of movement expenses and
discounts.
We relied on submitted COP data except in the following instances.
We recalculated cost of manufacturing (COM) to exclude the change in
inventory adjustment claimed by respondent (see Comment 14 in the
``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice). We also
recalculated general and administrative and interest expenses based on
the adjusted COM.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we also examined
whether Valbruna's home market sales were made below COP in substantial
quantities over an extended period of time, and whether such sales were
made at prices that would permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
To satisfy the requirement of section 773(b)(1) of the Act that
below cost sales be disregarded only if made in substantial quantities,
the following methodology was used: For each product where less than
ten percent, by quantity, of the home market sales made during the POI
were made at prices below the COP, we included all sales of that model
in the computation of FMV. For each product where ten percent or more,
but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales made during the POI
were priced below COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those
home market sales which were priced below COP, provided that the below
cost sales of that product were made over an extended period of time.
Where we found that more than 90 percent of the respondent's sales of a
particular product were at prices below the COP and were made over an
extended period of time, we disregarded all sales of that product and
calculated FMV based on constructed value (CV), in accordance with
section 773(b) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to
determine whether below-cost sales had been made over an extended
period of time, we compared the number of months in which below-cost
sales occurred for each product to the number of months in the POI in
which that product was sold. If a product was sold in three or more
months of the POI, we did not exclude below-cost sales unless there
were below-cost sales in at least three months during the POI. When we
found that sales of a product only occurred in one or two months, the
number of months in which the sales occurred constituted the extended
period of time; i.e., where sales of a product were made in only two
months, the extended period of time was two months, where sales of a
product were made in only one month, the extended period of time was
one month. (See Saccharin from Korea and Preliminary Results and
Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Tapered
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, from Japan (58 FR 69336, 69338, December 10,
1993)).
Valbruna provided no indication that the disregarded sales were at
prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time and in the normal course of trade. (See 19 U.S.C.
1677b(b)(2)).

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 C.F.R. 353.60.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we conducted verification
of the information provided by Foroni and Valbruna by using standard
verification procedures, including the examination of relevant sales,
cost and financial records, and selection of original source
documentation.

Interested Party Comments

Foroni

Comment 1:
Foroni argues that its failure to report a relatively small portion
of U.S. sales was unintentional and does not warrant the application of
adverse BIA. It contends that given the Department's thorough review of
these sales at verification, this error does not cast any doubt on the
reliability of Foroni's overall response. Foroni states that the
Department verified that the gross prices indicated on these invoices
were comparable to those observed for reported sales of the same
products. Furthermore, Foroni asserts that its underreporting of these
sales resulted in the overestimation of U.S. selling expenses and,
hence, an exaggerated dumping margin.
Foroni believes that if the Department must substitute information
for these sales, it should base such information on the overall
weighted-average margin calculated for Foroni. At worst, Foroni
believes the Department should use the highest margin found for any
U.S. sale. Foroni argues that if other information or BIA is applied in
these circumstances it should be based on either of the above-mentioned
approaches, particularly where the petition contained no information or
allegations regarding Foroni.
Petitioners assert that in calculating final dumping margins, the
Department should make certain adverse inferences based on Foroni's
failure to report all sales. Petitioners argue that, with regard to the
statement in the verification report concerning the gross prices of
these omitted sales, gross prices are not used in the dumping analysis.
Petitioners state that only after deductions to U.S. price are made and
the identical or most similar home market comparison sale is selected
can a dumping margin be calculated. Furthermore, according to
petitioners, because of the number of adjustments to USP and FMV,
transaction margins can and do vary widely. Petitioner sales believe
that the omission of a portion of U.S. sales could have a dramatic
effect on Foroni's dumping margin. Petitioners argue that the
Department should assign the highest calculated non-aberrational margin
to these unreported sales.

DOC Position

During our sales reconciliation at verification, company officials
explained that all sales records generated prior to the point of
invoicing are manually maintained, and that in order to compile a
listing of U.S. sales made during the POI based on the reported date of
sale methodology (i.e., purchase order date), company officials were
required to search their invoice files for all invoices generated
during and after the POI pursuant to purchase orders issued within the
POI.
To ensure that Foroni had accurately reported all sales to the
Department including those that may have been invoiced after the POI
pursuant to purchase orders within the POI, we conducted a manual
search of the company's 1994 invoiced file. During this exercise, the
Department discovered certain invoices related to subject merchandise
ordered within the POI which had not been reported in the U.S. sales
listing. We established the total unreported quantity and value. Upon
close examination, the verifiers concluded that the gross prices
indicated on these invoices were comparable to those for reported sales
of the same products.
When questioned, company officials stated that they were previously
unaware of this apparent omission. The officials speculated that they
had misplaced certain purchase orders in the warehouse (at the time
respondent prepared its response these orders had not been filled). The
officials further explained that, for example, with regard to one
misplaced purchase order, which accounted for the majority of the
unreported sales quantity, it had taken between five and eight months
to fill the order. Once the purchase order was filled, however, the
relevant invoices issued were filed in the company's 1994 invoice book,
in accordance with the company's normal business practice.
Consequently, our audit of the company's 1994 invoice book revealed
these unreported sales.
Given the unique circumstances noted above, we determine that
application of an adverse BIA rate to the subject sales is unwarranted.
Although the Department was under no obligation to accept or review
these sales during verification, in this case the verifiers reviewed
the invoices for these sales and concluded that the prices for these
sales were similar to those for reported sales of the same products. In
light of the circumstances surrounding the omission, the limited number
of transactions involved, and the overall accuracy of Foroni's
response, the Department determines that it is reasonable to fill this
gap with a neutral surrogate. See Replacement Parts for Self-Propelled
Bituminous Paying Equipment from Canada; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 58 FR 15481, 15482 (March
23, 1993). Accordingly, we have assigned Foroni's overall weighted-
average calculated margin to these unreported sales.
Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the Department should reject
Foroni's assignment of unique grade codes and control numbers to sales
of 316LUG and 316LN (because they are most similar to 316L, which is
the product sold in the United States), and should account for any
differences in the products through a difmer adjustment as opposed to a
change in control number. According to petitioners, although Foroni
argues that the chemical composition of these grades is different than
for 316L, chemical composition is not one of the six principal matching
criteria in Appendix V of the Department's questionnaire. Accordingly,
petitioners assert that Foroni should not be permitted to change the
Department's matching hierarchy at such a late point in the proceeding.
Foroni requests that, for the final determination, the Department
assign a unique grade code to the three unique products previously
misidentified by Foroni. Foroni contends that its failure to assign
unique grade codes to home market sales of grades 25.22.2, 316LUG, and
316LN was an inadvertent error.
Foroni argues that, contrary to petitioners' contention, the
chemical composition of each grade of SSB is precisely what
differentiates it from any other grade. Foroni further argues that it
is not in any way attempting to alter the Department's matching
criteria, but rather to comply with them. Respondent states that
petitioners' claim that grades 315LUG and 316LN should not have unique
grade codes because these sales are most similar to sales of 316L is
irrelevant because U.S. sales of 316L can be compared to sales of
identical merchandise in Italy. Foroni states that it did not sell
grades 316LUG or 316LN in the U.S. market during the POI. Finally,
Foroni claims that the Department reviewed these product identification
errors and verified the information provided by Foroni.
DOC Position: We agree with respondent and have corrected the
misidentified grade codes in the revised home market sales listing
provided by respondent on November 30, 1994. We reviewed the
information provided by Foroni regarding the different chemical
compositions and material costs of each product prior to, as well as
during, verification and determined that grades 316LUG and 316LN are in
fact chemically different from grade 316L. Based on our review of the
chemical compositions and material costs as stated above, we determined
that these products are not the most similar to grade 316L sold in the
United States.
Furthermore, we disagree with petitioners' contention that Foroni
is attempting to alter the matching hierarchy. Grade, which takes into
account chemical composition, is in fact one of the matching criteria
in Appendix V of the questionnaire.
Comment 3: Petitioners argue that the Department should not accept
the updated shipment, payment and quantity information collected at
verification, which represents information for nine percent of the
total U.S. transactions, because this information was submitted
subsequent to the Department's deadline for submission of factual
information. Petitioners believe that in filling in these missing
dates, the Department should make certain adverse assumptions. For
example, petitioners argue that the Department should assume that the
payment date is the date of the final determination for purposes of
calculating credit.
Foroni argues that certain minor clerical errors, as well as
verified updated information, should be substituted in Foroni's sales
data prior to the final determination. Foroni states that, in any
event, the Department has requested that Foroni submit a revised sales
listing on computer disk to include this data.
DOC Position: We agree with respondent and have allowed it to
revise its U.S. sales listing to reflect the actual shipment/payment
dates and quantity data for the subject U.S. transactions where the
information had previously been missing or estimated. Respondent
presented the updated information at issue in the context of minor
clerical errors found in preparation for verification and the accuracy
of this information was verified.

Valbruna

Comment 1: Petitioners believe the home market sales for which
Valbruna reported limited data (``File 2'' sales) should be included in
the Department's final analysis. Valbruna requested that these sales be
excluded from the analysis based on its representations that the sales
would not be ``similar'' because the difmer exceeds 20 percent.
Petitioners note that the Department required Valbruna to provide
worksheets showing a difmer in excess of 20 percent for all these sales
and that respondent did not provide the worksheets.
Petitioners also compare the first four product characteristics for
File 2 sales to the home market sales that Valbruna did report as
comparable merchandise to SSB sold in the United States (``File 1''
sales). According to petitioners, this comparison shows that several
products are identical (based on the first four matching criteria) to
subject merchandise reported by Valbruna. Accordingly, petitioners
contend that File 2 sales should be included in the Department's
analysis because certain products in this file are in fact identical to
sales reported in File 1.
Respondent counters with the following arguments. First, at
verification Valbruna demonstrated that there were no sales in File 2
within the first five identical or most similar matches for Valbruna's
reported U.S. sales. Second, since the File 2 sales would never match
to a U.S. sale based on product characteristics, there was no need to
provide worksheets showing that the size of the difmer exceeds 20
percent. Third, petitioners' analysis of the File 1 and File 2 is
flawed because the analysis takes into account only four of the six
matching criteria that Valbruna reported and which the Department used
in its preliminary determination.
DOC Position: We verified the fact that these sales would not be
used for matching purposes. Therefore, consistent with our preliminary
determination, we have continued to disregard the sales in File 2 for
purposes of our margin calculation.
With regard to petitioners' argument that Valbruna failed to
provide worksheets showing difmers in excess of 20 percent for sales in
File 2, our letter of April 1, 1994, to Valbruna stated that we would
require worksheets for any sales not reported solely because of the
size of the difmer (as opposed to those that did not match to a U.S.
sale based on product characteristics). As respondent states, and as we
verified, because the sales in File 2 would never match to U.S. sales
based on the six product characteristics specified in Appendix V of the
questionnaire issued in this case, there was no need for respondent to
provide worksheets. Finally, concerning petitioners' argument that a
comparison of File 2 sales to U.S. sales shows several products with
identical matches, we agree with respondent that this argument is
incorrect because petitioners based their analysis on only the first
four product characteristics as opposed to the six point
characteristics that the Department required for matching purposes in
Appendix V of the questionnaire. As explained above, when all of the
matching characteristics are considered, the sales in question would
not be used for matching purposes.
Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the Department should revise its
dumping calculations to account for home market sales that are exempt
from VAT. Petitioners state that VAT was not collected on a portion of
the sales reported in Valbruna's sales listing. Petitioners note,
however, that the Department increased the price on all U.S. sales to
account for the VAT paid on comparison sales in Italy. Furthermore,
petitioners contend that Valbruna is inconsistent in its reporting of
customers that were exempt from VAT. Petitioners request that the
Department:
Adjust the U.S. price for the VAT only if the VAT was paid
on the comparison sales in Italy;
Adjust the U.S. price only to the extent that the VAT is
included in weighted-average FMV; or
Treat all home market sales to ``export-oriented''
companies as tax-exclusive sales and do not adjust the price for any
U.S. sales compared to such home market sales.
Respondent maintains that petitioners' argument is based on the
incorrect inference that VAT-exempt sales were incorrectly reported.
Respondent further maintains that it was not inconsistent in its
reporting of customers that were exempt from VAT because the exemption
is only allowed up to a specified ceiling. According to Valbruna,
customers can elect to use or not use their exemption on specific
sales; therefore, it is not unusual for a customer to pay VAT on some
sales and not on others. Accordingly, respondent believes that
petitioners' requests should be denied.
DOC Position: Prior to verification, respondent revised its home
market sales listing to account for VAT-exempt sales based on its
discovery of this information while preparing for verification. During
verfication we examined sales to which VAT applied as well as VAT-
exempt sales and determined that respondent correctly reported this
information. Accordingly, we have adjusted for VAT on home market sales
to which it applies and have made an adjustment to the USP only if the
VAT was paid on comparison home market sales.
Comment 3: Petitioners state that the Department should deduct cash
discounts on home market sales before calculating adjustments for home
market commissions, credit, direct selling expenses, inventory carrying
charges and imputed VAT. Petitioners claim that the Department noted in
its home market verification report that cash discounts were not
considered in these calculations.
Respondent states that, pursuant to the Department's request, it
submitted a revised computer tape on November 22, 1994, in which it
appropriately accounted for cash discounts in calculating the
adjustments listed above.
DOC Position: We agree with both parties. We used respondent's
revised sales listing, which properly accounts for cash discounts in
calculating the above-referenced adjustments, for purposes of the final
margin calculations.
Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department should adjust FMV
for the imputed cost or income associated with the timing difference
between respondent's payment of the VAT and receipt of the VAT payment
from the customer. Respondent argues taht the imputed VAT cost or
income is a bona fide adjustment in accordance with the circumstance of
sale provisions of the antidumping statute. Respondent states that
there is no discernible difference between the applicability of these
provisions to credit expense incurred on payment of sales and the
applicability of these provisions to credit expense incurred on VAT
payments.
Additionally, respondent states that the Department verified the
income or expense incurred by Valbruna for financing its customers' VAT
payments. Therefore, according to Valbruna, petitioners' claim that the
opportunity cost was not verified is incorrect unless petitioners do
not consider these amounts to be opportunity costs. According to
respondent, petitioners' argument that imputed VAT cost or income
should be based on the net VAT paid is irrelevant because Valbruna is
virtually exempt from paying VAT taxes on raw materials and services
purchased in connection with the production of merchandise.
Petitioners contend that the Department did not verify whether
there is an opportunity cost associated with Valbruna's VAT payments to
the government. Petitioners also state that VAT law allows an offset to
the VAT payment due the government for VAT paid for raw materials and
services purchased in connection with production of merchandise.
Therefore, according to petitioners, the imputed VAT cost or income
claimed by Valbruna should be based on the net VAT paid and not the
total VAT on the sale. In addition, petitioners believe that Valbruna
should report a theoretical VAT opportunity cost for sales to the
United States if Valbruna claims imputed VAT costs for its Italian
sales.
Petitioners argue that, unless the Department calculates
opportunity costs for all associated charges, an adjustment for VAT
opportunity costs alone would be incomplete. Additionally, petitioners
maintain that allowing adjustments for some of these opportunity costs
but not for others would provide respondents with an opportunity to
manipulate dumping calculations by claiming only those opportunity
costs that would benefit a respondent.
DOC Position: We agree with petitioners and have not allowed this
adjustment, in accordance with the Department's policy outlined in the
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfur Dyes,
Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 3253 (January
8, 1993). In that case, the Department noted that ``virtually every
charge or expense associated with price-to-price comparisons is either
prepaid or paid for at some point after the cost is incurred.
Accordingly, for each pre- or post-service payment,there is also an
opportunity cost (or gain).
Thus, to allow the type of adjustment suggested by respondent would
imply that in the future the Department would be faced with the
impossible task of trying to determine the opportunity cost (or gain)
of every freight charge, rebate and selling expense for each sale
reported in a respondent's database.'' (See also Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Calcium Aluminate Cement, Clinker and
Flux from France, 59 FR 14136, 14146, March 25, 1994).
The wording of the Department's regulation providing for
circumstance of sale adjustments supports this interpretation. Section
353.56(a)(2) identifies the type of expenses or differences in
circumstances of sale which the Department normally adjusts for. These
include credit terms and similar expenses which a producer chooses to
incur or which become necessary due to the producer's business
activities. The regulations contain no indication that the Department
should consider granting an adjustment to account for a government
imposed tax such as the VAT, or for any other type of so-called
``opportunity cost.'' Similarly, the CIT has affirmed the Department's
rejection of the claim that a circumstance of sale adjustment is
warranted to offset the effect of accounts payable and imputed expenses
incurred between the seller and its suppliers. Independent Radiomic
Workers of America v. United States, Slip Op. 94-144 at 11 (CIT
September 16, 1994); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 839 F. Supp.
881, 885-86 (CIT 1993). Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, the
CIT relied upon the Court of Appeals' decision in Daewoo Electric Co.
v. United States, 6 F. 2d 1511, 1518-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993), to hold that
the Department is simply ``not required to reach the level of precision
in quantifying circumstance of sale adjustments which [the party]
believe[d] is required.'' Federal-Mogul, 839 F. Supp. at 886. The same
conclusion applies to the present investigation.
Comment 5: Petitioners maintain that Valbruna did not report all
ocean freight costs. Petitioners cite the Department's verification
report which states that ``one of Valbruna's two shipping companies
separately reports, as a different line item on the same invoice,
freight charges and document processing fees.'' Petitioners believe
that the document processing fees which have been separately reported
have not been accounted for in Valbruna's ocean freight costs and,
therefore, these fees should be deducted from USP for the affected
sales.
Valbruna officials claim that all ocean freight costs borne by
Valbruna have been accounted for. Respondent also states that the
Department explicitly verified ocean freight expenses and found no
discrepancies.
DOC Position: We agree with respondent. We have no reason to
believe that document processing fees were not properly accounted for
simply because they were sometimes separately reported. We verified
ocean freight expenses (including document processing fees) and found
no discrepancies. Therefore, we have deducted ocean freight charges as
reported.
Comment 6: Petitioners point out that the Department's home market
verification report states, ``We noted that bank expenses were not
included in the calculation of the U.S. interest rate. Moreover, the
methodology used to calculate the home market rate was different (from)
that used to calculate the U.S. rate.'' Petitioners add that Valbruna's
home market interest rate calculation includes ``non-interest'' loan
expenses while Valbruna did not include such expenses in its U.S.
interest rate calculation. Petitioners contend the Department should
revise Valbruna's home market interest rate calculation (and all
fields, such as credit, that employ the interest rate) by using the
actual rates charged by banks, exclusive of any ``bank expense''
deductions, and should ensure that the home market interest rate
calculation otherwise is consistent with the interest rate used for
U.S. sales.
Respondent maintains that it included bank expenses in its U.S.
interest rate calculation. Accordingly, respondent claims that its
methodology for calculating its home market interest rate did not
differ from the methodology used to calculate its U.S. interest rate.
DOC Position: We incorrectly noted in our verification report that
bank charges were not included in the calculation of the U.S. interest
rate. Therefore, petitioners' comments are moot. We used the home
market and U.S. interest rates as reported and verified in our
calculations.
Comment 7: Petitioners assert that Valbruna improperly reported
part of its credit expenses on PP sales by reporting as inventory
carrying costs the financing expenses for the period from the date of
shipment from Vicenza to the date of entry at the U.S. port.
Petitioners argue that the credit period for PP sales should begin on
the date the SSB was shipped from the plant in Italy and should include
time in transit to the U.S. port. Petitioners state that Valbruna's
failure to properly report credit expenses for its PP sales resulted in
an understatement of the circumstance of sale adjustment to FMV for
differences in credit expenses.
Respondent contends that it properly reported U.S. credit expenses
for PP sales. Valbruna explains that it finances PP sales for the time
the merchandise is on the water while Avesta Sheffield, Inc. (ASI),
which markets Valbruna's SSB products in the United States, finances
these sales from the date the merchandise is shipped from the U.S. port
to the date of receipt of payment. Valbruna explains that separate
interest rates were used to calculate the credit costs during each of
these shipping phases; therefore, credit expenses is reported under two
variables in the U.S. database.
DOC Position: We have considered both the reported credit expenses,
and the costs reported by respondent as inventory carrying costs for PP
sales, as credit expenses in accordance with our normal practice of
calculating the credit period from the time the merchandise leaves the
factory until it reaches the customer.
Furthermore, with regard to the Valbruna's use of separate interest
rates for each segment of this expense, we used the two U.S. rates as
reported because we verified that a portion of the credit period is
financed by Valbruna and the remainder is financed by ASI.
Comment 8: Petitioners argue that the Department should adjust
respondent's credit calculation to correct for inconsistencies in the
method respondent used to determine the U.S. and home market credit
periods. Petitioners note that the bank deposit date marks the end of
the credit period for U.S. sales while the date the funds were actually
credited to Valbruna's account marks the end of the credit period for
home market sales. Since finds in the home market are usually credited
to the account three days after the deposit date, petitioners believe
the Department should either add three days to the credit period for
all U.S. sales or deduct three days from the credit period for all home
market sales.
Respondent maintains the Department's verification reports show
that the U.S. and home market credit periods were determined using
consistent methods. Respondent notes that the Department's home market
verification report explicitly states that Valbruna reported the date
of receipt of payment as the date that funds were actually credited by
the bank into its account. Respondent further notes that in the U.S.
sales verification report the Department traced the reported date of
receipt of payment to the date funds were actually credited by the
bank. Thus, respondent believes the Department should reject
petitioners' argument.
DOC Position: We agree with respondent that the credit periods were
consistently reported. During the ESP as well as home market
verifications we examined payment documentation for numerous sales and
confirmed that in both markets respondent reported date of payment as
the date funds were actually credited to its account by the bank.
Therefore, we have used the reported and verified payment dates in both
the U.S. and home market credit calculations.
Comment 9: During our review of individual sales transactions
during the U.S. verification, we noted a reduction in sales price for
one transaction. Petitioners contend that if ASI allowed this price
reduction then it is likely that they allowed other price reductions.
Petitioners argue that the Department should reduce the price of other
sales, where appropriate, by the amount of the price reduction
discovered at verification. Furthermore, petitioners contend that there
may be similar price reductions because the above-mentioned price
reduction was discovered from a review of only a few sales. (For
further amplification of petitioners' position see proprietary
Concurrence Memorandum dated December 16, 1994).
Valbruna maintains that ASI does not offer any such reductions in
price to its U.S. customers. Respondent explains that ASI reviewed its
sales records for such reductions in price and, to the best of its
knowledge, it allowed no other price reductions during the POI.
Respondent also maintains that the Department examined numerous sales
transactions and found no trace of any other price reductions.
Respondent notes that it has revised its U.S. sales listing to properly
account for this price reduction. (for further amplification of
respondent's position see proprietary Concurrence Memorandum dated
December 16, 1994).
DOC Position: Based on our review of numerous sales at
verification, we have no reason to believe that Valbruna offered such
price reductions to other customers. At verification we reviewed
respondent's cash posting list and noted that other such price
reductions were for nonsubject merchandise. Accordingly, we believe
that the situation as described above, and in the proprietary record,
is unique and does not reflect a general policy of granting price
reductions on U.S. sales. Moreover, this price reduction has been
accounted for in Valbruna's sales listing.
Comment 10: Respondent maintains that home market pre-sale
warehousing and inventory carrying costs are directly related to sales
of the subject merchandise. Respondent notes that the Department
treated all pre-sale expenses associated with Valbruna's home market
service centers as indirect selling expenses in the preliminary
determination because Valbruma did not adequately demonstrate that such
expenses are directly attributable to particular sales of the subject
merchandise. Respondent argues that the Department's findings at
verification now provide it with sufficient justification to determine
that Valbruna's presale expenses associated with home market service
centers are directly related to home market sales. In addition,
respondent cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From
the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6207 (January 27, 1993) (Lead and Bismuth) as
well as the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan, 56 FR
16300 (April 22, 1991) (PET Film) to support its argument.
Petitioners argue that the cases cited by respondent do not support
Valbruna's claim. Petitioners maintain that Valbruna calculated its
pre-sale warehousing expenses in the same manner as a respondent in the
PET Film case whose claim for direct warehousing expenses was rejected
by the Department. In addition, petitioners note that in PET Film and
Lead and Bismuth the Department stated that a requirement for allowing
pre-sale warehousing expense as a direct expense was that the stock in
question was only available for sales to those specific customers,
which is not the case for Valbruna.
Finally, petitioners request that the Department treat pre-sale
expenses incurred for Valbruna's U.S. sales as direct selling expenses
if the Department determines that Valbrunna's home market pre-sale
expenses are direct selling expenses. Petitioners argue for parallel
treatment because Valbruna manufacturers SSB for its ESP sales to the
customers' exact specifications and, like the regional warehouses in
the home market, the SSB that is inventoried by ASI is merchandise that
is restricted to servicing only those customers located in an assigned
geographic region.
DOC Position: For purposes of the final determination, we have
treated Valbrun's pre-sale warehousing/service center warehousing costs
as direct expenses. We believe that the facts in this case most closely
resemble those in Lead and Bismuth which stated that the respondent:

accepts requests from some home market customers to maintain in
inventory a certain amount of product manufactured to that
customer's specifications. Then, when the customer needs the steel,
it issues a specific purchase order for delivery out of this
customer-specific stock. Customers can thereby obtain immediate
delivery, rather than wait for the normal monthly rolling cycle.

In PET Film, also the Department accepted the respondent's
contention that its pre-sale warehousing expenses were directly related
to its home market sales since the Department verified that the
expenses were incurred and reported on the basis of specific products
sold to specific customers during the POI.
At vertification we reviewed customer purchase orders and Valbruna
order confirmations which stipulated that Valbruna was required to keep
on hand a specified amount of subject merchandise with certain
specifications for particular customers at particular service centers.
The record contains no indication that Valbruna sold this merchandise
to customers other than the ones for which the particular merchandise
was held in inventory. In fact, company officials stated that the
merchandise is usually so specialized that Valbruna would be unable to
sell it to other customers. We also observed during the plant tour
merchandise with ``open order'' tags reflecting open orders against a
customer's supply forecast for which Valbruna was required to maintain
specific inventory levels at its service centers. Furthermore, we
observed that Valbruna's accounting system tracks additional stock
going to a warehouse; it lists the quantity, but not the price, and
states the merchandise is destined for a specific customer.
This approach is consistent with the Department's determination in
other cases, such as Brass Sheet and Strip from West German; Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 56 FR 60087, 60090
(1991), which the CIT recently upheld in Hussey Copper, Ltd. v. United
States, 834 F. Supp. 413, 421 (CIT 1993). There, the Department
declined to treat expenses associated with pre-sale inventory (``buffer
stock'') as direct expenses. Based upon those facts, the court agreed,
noting in addition that information on the record indicated that
respondent withdrew ``the material for shipment to customers other than
the ones who generally purchase material out of those warehouses.''
Hussey Copper, 834 F. Supp. at 421. See also LMI-La Metalli
Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 455, 457 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
With respect to petitioners' latter argument, ASI's warehousing
practices do not resemble Valbruna's service center warehousing
practices. ASI's customers' purchase orders do not stipulate that ASI
must keep a certain amount of merchandise available for particular
customers. Although SSB that is shipped by Valbruna and inventoried by
ASI may be restricted to servicing only those customers located in an
assigned geographic region, it is not customer-specific, as is the
merchandise stocked at Valbruna's service centers in Italy. In
addition, ASI not only warehouse Valbruna-related products, but also
sells non-subject merchandise, including Avesta Sheffield's standard
and special stainless steel products such as steel plates, sheets,
strips, wire and welded pipe and tubing. Therefore, ASI's warehousing
expenses and corresponding inventory carrying costs cannot be directly
tied to specific sales of the subject merchandise.
Comment 11: Valbruna argues that in the event its final dumping
margin is affirmative, that margin would be due solely to the use of
quarterly exchange rates. Valbruna argues that the Department is
required to use daily exchange rates whenever a dumping margin would be
created by the Department's use of quarterly exchange rates. Therefore,
Valbruna argues that the Department must use daily exchange rates in
this case. Valbruna cites Luciano Pisoni Fabbrica Accessori v. United
States, (Luciano Pisoni) 640 F. Supp. 255 (CIT 1986), in an apparent
attempt to argue that no demonstration need be made that the exchange
rates fluctuated during the POI in order to invoke this rule.
Petitioners argue that exchange rate fluctuations must be
``temporary'' to warrant the use of daily exchange rates (See Final
Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper
from Finland, 56 FR 56363 (November 4, 1991), and Valbruna has not
offered any evidence that there were temporary exchange rate
fluctuations during the POI.
DOC Position: We disagree with Valbruna and have continued to use
quarterly exchange rates, in accordance with the Department's
regulations and as warranted by the facts of this case. Pursuant to
section 363.60 of the Department's regulations, we rely upon the
quarterly exchange rates as published by the Federal Reserve Board.
Section 353.60(b) does provide for a special rule under which during an
investigation, the Department may rely upon daily rates if the price of
the merchandise is affected by ``temporary exchange fluctuations.'' The
Department has defined temporary exchange rate fluctuations as
occurring when the daily rate varies from the quarterly average rate by
more than five percent. However, we do not interpret the special rule
outlined in 19 C.F.R. 353.60(b) as envisioning the treatment of an
entire POI as a temporary fluctuation. See, e.g., Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Portable Electric Typewriters
from Singapore, 58 FR 43334 43338 (1993); Groundwood Paper.
In this case, Valbruna has not provided any evidence on the record
to demonstrate that the exchange rates fluctuated in the manner
contemplated by the Department's regulations. Accordingly, it is
appropriate to reject Valbruna's claim on this basis. Indeed, Valbruna
did not raise the issue until submitting its case brief. Moreover, we
do not agree with Valbruna's interpretation of the CIT's decision in
Luciano Pisoni. In this decision, the CIT highlighted the fact that the
respondent in that investigation had made only ten relevant home market
sales during the POI. Luciano Pisoni, 640 F. Supp, at 260. The court
stressed that based upon the facts in that case, it would have been
unfair to use quarterly exchange rates. As such, because Luciano Pisoni
can be distinguished from the present investigation on this basis, we
have not addressed any other aspect of the CIT's reasoning in Luciano
Pisoni.
Comment 12: Respondent requests that, pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
353.20(c), if the final determination is above de minimis, the
Department should transmit the output from its margin program to the
U.S. International Trade Commission to alert the Commission (ITC) to
the facts that (1) the amount of sales reflecting transaction margins
is minuscule, and (2) the transaction margins, where they exist,
reflect minimal amounts.
DOC Position: Because Valbruna's final dumping margin is de
minimis, this issue is moot.
Comment 13: Petitioners argue that Valbruna incorrectly reported
the weighted-average COP based on costs incurred during the POI.
Rather, petitioners contend that the Department should adjust
Valbruna's reported data to reflect the actual costs incurred for sales
made during the POI. Petitioners assert that the Section D
questionnaire ``covers cost of production information for the
merchandise sold in the home market/third country.'' Petitioners assert
that the appropriate reporting period for cost would be the
corresponding production months before the POI. Petitioners state that
raw material prices were higher in the period prior to the POI.
Respondent argues that it properly reported costs to reflect the
actual cost for sales during the POI. Valbruna reported that, for its
home market sales, production takes place a number of months before the
product is sold. Respondent asserts that petitioners' analysis is
erroneous, because it relies solely on dollar denominated costs of
stainless steel scrap.
DOC Position: The Department agrees with respondent. Section D of
the questionnaire clearly requests weighted-average production data
based on costs incurred during the POI. The Department has departed
from this general policy only when unique circumstances arise, such as
when there was no production during the POI. Furthermore, companies,
frequently hold inventory for a period of time between production and
shipment and raw materials are held for a period of time between
purchase and production. An average inventory holding period or length
of time between order and production are only estimates. Sales are
sometimes made from existing stock or may be produced to order, or even
a combination of both.
Petitioners raised the issue for the first time in the pre-
verification comments--too late in the investigation for the Department
to perform the appropriate analysis to determine whether a change in
the cost data reporting period is warranted. Furthermore, if the
Department was to accept petitioners' argument, the CV data would be
based on a different accounting period than the COP data, effectively
doubling the burden on all parties. Accordingly, absent strong evidence
to the contrary, the Department assumes that the cost structure
prevailing during the POI is representative and can be sued to
calculate COP.
Comment 14: Petitioners argue that the Department should reject
Valbruna's adjustment for the change in inventory value. Petitioners
assert that the inventory adjustment claim is not consistent with the
inventory policy stated in Valbruna's financial statements.
Furthermore, the calculations obtained by the Department during
verification show that the claim has no bearing on the actual COP for
the SSB sold during the POI. The analysis does not represent an
adjustment to the COP; it merely represents a comparison of the cost of
materials at the beginning of the POI and the end of the POI. The cost
verification report states that Valbruna's management cost accounting
system calculates material costs on a current basis and excludes the
effect of beginning and ending inventory.
Respondent argues that it properly accounted for changes in
inventory. Respondent states that the cost system accumulates material
costs on a current cost basis, and that the financial accounting system
calculates material costs on a historical cost basis. The financial
accounting system takes into account changes in inventory, unlike the
cost accounting system. According to Valbruna, although petitioners
complain that Valbruna inaccurately valued the change in inventory
adjustment, if Valbruna would have used average quantities in the POI,
rather than quantities at the end of the POI, the resulting adjustment
would have been more favorable to Valbruna, as demonstrated at
verification.
DOC Position: The Department agrees with petitioners. Although the
cost methodology used by Valbruna calculates the current production
costs and fails to include the difference in price between the
beginning and ending inventories and the average POI price, the
adjustment is incorrect for two reasons. First, because the beginning
and ending finished goods inventory was included in the calculation,
the adjustment theoretically converts the cost of manufacturing, which
is what should be reported, into cost of goods sold. Secondly, Valbruan
uses the last-in-first-out inventory method for financial statement
purposes which results in something similar to current costing.
Therefore, because the methodology followed by Valbruna, absent the
inventory adjustment, closely reflects the methodologies used for
financial statement purposes, we disallowed the adjustment.

Discontinuance of Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 735(c)(2)(A) of the Act, because the
margins are de minis, we are directing the Customs Service to
discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of SSB from
Italy, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after August 4, 1994. Accordingly, all bonds should be released
and estimated antidumping duties deposited should be refunded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l..................................... 0.14
Foroni S.p.A.................................................. 0.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) in this investigation of their
responsibility covering the return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.34(d).
Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(d)) and 19 C.F.R. 353.20(a)(4).

Dated: December 19, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-31805 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-31805. Public record. Not legal advice.