Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

[[Page 38542]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-602]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On January 6, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of its 1990-1993

administrative reviews of brass sheet and strip from Germany. The

reviews cover exports of this merchandise to the United States by one

manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during the periods

March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, March 1, 1991 through February

29, 1992, and March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993. The reviews

indicate the existence of dumping margins for the 1990-91 and 1991-92

periods, and de minimis margins for the 1992-93 period.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we

have adjusted Wieland's margins for these final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,

Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 6, 1995, the Department published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 2076) the preliminary results of its 1990-91, 1991-92,

and 1992-93 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on

brass sheet and strip from Germany (52 FR 6997, March 6, 1987).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department has now completed these administrative reviews in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to

the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Reviews

Imports covered by these reviews are sales or entries of brass

sheet and strip, other than leaded and tinned brass sheet and strip,

from Germany. The chemical composition of the products under review is

currently defined in the Copper Development Association (C.D.A.) 200

Series or the Unified Numbering System (U.N.S.) C20000 series. These

reviews do not cover products the chemical compositions of which are

defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. The merchandise is currently

classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers

7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20. The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains

dispositive.

The review periods are:

March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991 (fourth review);

March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 (fifth review);

March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993 (sixth review).

The reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland.

Analysis of Comments Received

We received case and rebuttal briefs from Wieland and from the

petitioners, Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller Company, Outokumpu

American Brass, Revere Copper Products, Inc., International Association

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Union, Allied

Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO), Mechanics Educational Society

of America (Local 56), and the United Steelworkers of America. Unless

otherwise noted, the comments below pertain to all three reviews.

Model-Matching Methodology

Comment 1: Wieland disputes the Department's use of specific alloy

grades in matching U.S. to home market sales. Wieland would have the

Department use only two classes of alloys, above or below 75 percent

copper content, instead of using exact alloy grades. The respondent

states that the exact-alloy comparison method which we used in the

preliminary results is a change from the method used in the prior

review.

The respondent further alleges that the Department used the exact-

alloy method in order to conform the model-matching criteria with other

orders, and that in so doing the Department ignored record evidence

demonstrating that Wieland's U.S. sales cannot be ``appropriately

matched'' to home market sales of identical alloys. Wieland claims that

``using alloy groups * * * provides the most practical means of

achieving reasonable comparisons''.

Wieland claims that our approach is contrary to Department practice

in other cases involving brass sheet and strip, because the Department

failed, in these reviews, to determine the appropriate matching

criteria on the basis of the specific nature of Wieland's sales. The

respondent alleges that by relying on specific alloy grades rather than

using Wieland's two alloy groups, the Department ``fails to take

account of the nature of Wieland's sales''. Wieland does not make clear

how our approach neglects to take account of the nature of its sales,

but implies that its sales are made more often on the basis of whether

products are above or below 75 percent in copper content than on the

basis of exact alloys.

The respondent also asserts that, since certain other model-

matching criteria, namely gauge and width, are grouped by classes,

alloys should also be grouped.

The petitioners note in rebuttal that there is no industry standard

to distinguish alloys for high copper content (i.e., greater than 75

percent), that customers specify exact alloys in placing their orders,

that in all other antidumping proceedings involving brass sheet and

strip the Department has always made exact-alloy matches, and that

Wieland's alloy groupings disregard the Department's conclusion in an

earlier review that it should abandon the grouping methodology and

instead make matches on an exact-alloy basis. The petitioners further

assert that Wieland failed to establish that its home market sales,

when matched to U.S. sales on the basis of exact alloys, ought not to

be taken as representative of home market prices.

Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. We did not

employ the alloy-specific approach merely to conform to approaches used

in reviews of other brass sheet and strip orders, but in order to

follow section 771(16)(B) of the Act, which requires us to compare U.S.

sales to home market merchandise which is identical or, when not

identical, is ``like that (U.S.) merchandise in component material or

materials and in the purposes for which used,'' prior to resorting, if

necessary, to less similar merchandise as described in 771(16)(C)(i)-

(iii).

Wieland does not identify which U.S. sales, if any, are not

``appropriately'' matched to home market merchandise by our method, or

otherwise explain how its less specific standard would be more

appropriate. Nor does Wieland explain how its grouped alloy approach

[[Page 38543]]

would be ``the most practical means of achieving reasonable

comparisons'', other than by arguing that it would make the number of

home market sales used in sales comparisons ``sufficient''.

Regarding Wieland's claim that matching by alloy groups would more

appropriately reflect the nature of Wieland's sales, nothing in the

record supports this claim. On the contrary, according to Wieland, its

customers generally specify exact alloys in their orders. While its

customers may sometimes choose the lowest-cost combination of metals

within a narrow range, no information on the record suggests that

Wieland's customers use the standard of 75 percent copper content in

ordering merchandise.

In arguing that grouping alloys would be appropriate because

grouping is used for gauge and width ranges, Wieland glosses over the

distinction between the gauge and width measures on the one hand, and

alloy grades on the other. Gauge and width are both infinitely variable

and therefore must be divided into tiers to permit any comparisons.

Alloy grades, by contrast, are discretely defined proportions of

metals. Matching by specific alloys provides more precision than merely

differentiating between merchandise which contains above or below 75

percent copper.

The respondent's grouped-alloy approach would assign all home

market merchandise to one of two groupings, would compare each U.S.

sale to home market merchandise containing up to seven different

alloys, and would not necessarily result in comparisons of U.S. sales

to home market merchandise made of only the identical alloy, or of only

the single most similar alloy. The respondent's suggested groupings

could result in understated or overstated dumping margins, due to the

mix of home market models which would form the basis of foreign market

value (FMV). Matching by specific alloys, on the other hand, ensures

that we use the most similar merchandise possible to establish FMV in

our dumping calculations. Therefore, the Department has continued to

use the alloy-specific matching method.

Comment 2: The respondent complains that the Department's change in

model-matching methodology reduces the dumping analysis to ``little

more than a game of chance'' since, according to Wieland, the margin

depends far more on the chance occurrence that a home market customer

will place an order for an alloy identical to one sold in the United

States than on Wieland's general pricing policies for its U.S. and home

market sales. Where a single home market sale serves as the basis for

comparison, Wieland argues, the results of the U.S./home market price

comparison will depend completely on the date on which that home market

sale was made, or, more particularly, on the metal pricing date for the

metal component of the home market sale. Thus, Wieland argues,

differences between U.S. and home market prices are caused by

volatility in the market prices for copper, zinc, and tin, rather than

by Wieland's brass sheet and strip pricing strategies. Wieland suggests

that as an alternative the Department should use alloy groups for

model-matching purposes. Wieland points out that differences in alloy

costs could then be adjusted for with a sale-specific metal adjustment.

Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. Wieland's

``game of chance'' complaint is not supported by the facts of the case

or the methodology we used. This complaint hinges on Wieland's implicit

suggestion that individual home market sales, or pairs of sales,

somehow may not conform to its pricing policies. Wieland offers no

evidence on the record that any home market sale prices should be

excluded as unrepresentative. Wieland has not argued or demonstrated

that some of its home market sales are outside the ordinary course of

trade or are, for some other reason, inappropriate as the basis of FMV.

While Wieland has alleged that there is a danger that price

differences for identical merchandise comparisons might result from

changes in commodity prices of components, it has not demonstrated that

such price fluctuations should affect the model-match methodology.

In the statutory definition of such or similar merchandise (section

771(16) of the Act) there is a clear preference for matching U.S. sales

to home market merchandise which is manufactured by the same producer,

composed of the same materials, and approximately equal in value,

before resorting to comparisons to less similar merchandise. Our

approach reflects this preference; the respondent's approach would

ignore it. We are not permitted to ignore contemporaneous sales of

identical merchandise. Wieland's suggested approach simply does not

conform to the requirements of the antidumping law and regulations.

The risk of price differences caused by changes in the prices of

commodities used as components is not unique to this proceeding but is

inherent in price comparisons in many industries. That risk has not

heretofore served as justification for omitting comparisons of U.S.

sales to contemporaneous home market sales of identical or most similar

merchandise. Yet the respondent's approach would make comparisons to

identical or most similar merchandise impossible, by defining models so

broadly that all comparisons would potentially include similar

merchandise as well as identical merchandise (and would thus be subject

to adjustments for differences in alloy values under 19 CFR 353.57(b)).

But this grouped-alloy approach would not be warranted by the

regulations cited above or by the facts of this review; using exact

alloy comparisons, we were able to match a substantial portion of U.S.

sales to home market merchandise of identical alloys, and all the

remaining U.S. sales with home market merchandise containing one of the

three most similar alloys.

Comment 3: Wieland states that the Court of International Trade

(CIT), addressing the model-matching issue in remanding the final

results in the first administrative review, did not require the

Department to abandon the use of two alloy groups, but merely asked the

Department to articulate the reasons why it did not use the exact-alloy

method. See Hussey Copper Ltd., v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 413 (CIT

1993).

Department's Position: As explained in our response to Comment 2

above, the Department has concluded that the exact-alloy matching

methodology more closely follows the statute, which requires us to make

comparisons of identical merchandise, when this is possible, before

making comparisons with similar merchandise.

Comment 4: The petitioners request that the Department alter the

hierarchy of traits used in matching U.S. sales to home market sales.

In particular, the petitioners ask the Department to place alloy in the

third position, instead of the fifth position. According to the

petitioners, alloy was placed in the third position in certain other

brass sheet and strip cases, and alloy specifications are more

important to customers than gauge and width differences.

Department's Position: The petitioners argue that the model-match

methodology used in this review is a departure from the methodology

used in reviews of brass sheet and strip from other countries. In fact,

although there are many similarities in the methodologies used in the

various brass sheet and strip cases, they are not identical. Because

the facts of each case are distinct from those of other cases,

different hierarchies are applied to the criteria to define home market

sales of the most similar merchandise.

In these reviews, the Department used five criteria to define

models in order to

[[Page 38544]]

compare sales: form, coating, gauge, width, and alloy. For those U.S.

sales for which we did not find sales of identical home market

merchandise, we determined that the most similar home market

merchandise for comparison purposes was merchandise which was identical

in form, coating, gauge, and width, and similar in alloy content.

Therefore, we used specific programming instructions to search for

contemporaneous home market sales of merchandise which was identical

except for alloy. Thus, the only criterion for which we considered

differences was alloy, no matter what the order of the criteria as

listed in the program. Consequently, we do not agree with the

petitioners' suggestion that we change the ordering of the criteria in

a search for similar merchandise.

Concerning the question of whether alloy is more important to

customers than gauge and width specification, as the petitioners

allege, we note that Wieland states in its February 23, 1995 Rebuttal

Brief (p.3) that ``generally customers must have very precise gauges

and widths to serve their particular purpose and to use with their

particular equipment, and no gauge or width substitutes would be

acceptable''. Notwithstanding the petitioners' allegation, there is

nothing in the record of this review to confirm or support the

petitioners' suggestion that customers have less flexibility in alloy

than in gauge and width specifications, which typically have narrow

tolerances reflecting the customers' machining or assembly

requirements. Thus, the petitioners' assertion that alloy is more

important than gauge and width to the respondent's customers is without

foundation in the record of this review.

Therefore, we have determined for these final results to use the

model-matching methodology used for the preliminary results.

Differences in Average Order Size

Comment 5: Defending its claim for adjustments in price to reflect

the different average order sizes of its U.S. sales, Wieland contests

our preliminary finding that it has not demonstrated a relationship

between order size and price. In support of the claimed adjustment,

Wieland cites the price lists in its questionnaire responses, the

Department's verification report in the 1991-1992 administrative

review, section 773(a)(4)(A) of the Act, and the regulations (19 CFR

353.55).

In rebuttal, the petitioners point to the Department's disallowance

in the first review, as upheld by the CIT, concerning the same cost

adjustment claim for different order sizes. The petitioners also note

Wieland's failure to show that it met the regulatory requirement for

such an adjustment, i.e., that Wieland must show that it ``granted

quantity discounts of at least the same magnitude on 20 percent or more

of sales of such or similar merchandise * * *'' (19 CFR 353.55(b)(1)).

Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. The

regulations do not allow for adjustments to price based merely on

claimed differences in per-pound costs according to order size. The

adjustments allowed are only for differences in price or discounts for

different quantities produced. The regulations (19 CFR 353.55(b)(2))

provide for adjustments if ``the producer demonstrates * * * that the

discounts reflect savings specifically attributable to the production

of the different quantities.'' In its questionnaire response Wieland

complied in part, by showing the savings, in the form of differences in

per-kilogram costs for processing different order quantities. But

Wieland did not place on the record any evidence of quantity discounts

actually given, or information showing that prices were affected by

different production quantities. Indeed, Wieland's questionnaire

response states unequivocally: ``Wieland does not provide price-based

quantity discounts''.

The price list Wieland cites in this regard is not an adequate

basis for this claim since it is a matter of record that the

respondent's prices are negotiated ad hoc and do not necessarily follow

the price list. The 1991-1992 verification report, in which we noted

variations in prices for varying quantities in one particular contract,

is not dispositive; our inspection of a contract in a verification does

not signal our acceptance of a claimed adjustment to price. Wieland has

the burden, in each review, of showing how its actual prices varied

according to quantity, as required by 19 CFR 353.55.

Value-Added Tax

Comment 6: While conceding that the practice is consistent with

current Department policy on value-added tax (VAT), Wieland contests

the Department's application of a 14-percent VAT adjustment to both

U.S. and home market sales in this review, and requests that the

Department instead add the actual home market VAT amount to U.S. price.

Wieland alleges that the use of the VAT rate on sales in both markets

introduces a multiplier effect. Wieland urges the Department to instead

adopt its alternative solution, at least until this issue can be

resolved more definitively by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (CAFC), once an appeal is heard in the case of Federal Mogul

Corporation v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Department's Position: We disagree with Wieland. We adjusted U.S.

Price (USP) and FMV for VAT in accordance with our practice, pursuant

to the decision of the CIT in Federal-Mogul Corporation and the

Torrington Company v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856 (October 7, 1993)

(Federal-Mogul) and as outlined in Silicomanganese From Venezuela;

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 FR

31204, June 17, 1994, where we address the multiplier effect issue in

detail.

Commission Offset

Comment 7: The petitioners argue that the Department should offset

home market commissions for purchase price (PP) sales.

Department's Position: We agree and have made an offset to FMV for

PP sales based on U.S. indirect selling expenses, limited to the amount

of commissions that were deducted from home market price.

Interest Rates Used in Credit Expenses

Comment 8: In the 1990-1991 review period, neither Wieland nor its

U.S. affiliate borrowed funds in the United States. To calculate the

imputed credit expense on its ESP sales in that period, Wieland used a

U.S. bank deposit interest rate. The petitioners argue that the

Department should correct for Wieland's use of deposit interest rates,

and replace them with home market borrowing rates. The petitioners cite

the Department's position in Final Determination of Sales at less than

Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Belgium 56 FR 56359 (November

11, 1991) (Groundwood Paper), that a respondent must show that it had

actual borrowings in the United States before the Department imputes

credit expenses based upon U.S. rates.

To calculate the imputed credit expense on its PP sales in the

1990-1991 period, Wieland originally used its home market borrowing

rates. However, in its February 13, 1995 rebuttal brief, Wieland asks

the Department to ``correct this mistake'' and to replace the home

market rates which it used for PP sales with the U.S. deposit rate

which it used for ESP sales, because Department policy now requires

that a U.S. interest rate be used to calculate imputed credit expense

on U.S. sales.

For the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 review periods, Wieland did have

borrowings in the United States, and

[[Page 38545]]

used Wieland-America's average short-term borrowing rate during the

review period as the basis for calculating imputed credit expenses for

both PP and ESP sales. For both of these reviews, the petitioners argue

that Wieland-Werke's home market borrowing rate should be used as the

basis for all U.S. credit expenses. The petitioners argue that Wieland-

Werke extended the credit and incurred the expense to finance the

receivables. The petitioners also note that in the 1992-1993 period of

review, Wieland discontinued invoicing its customers through Wieland-

America and instead billed its unrelated U.S. customers directly.

The respondent argues that the Department correctly measured the

cost of financing sales made in dollars by applying a dollar interest

rate, citing Department policy in the Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 6980, 6998

(1995) (Comment 21) (Roses). Wieland also notes that in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Class 150 Stainless

Steel Threaded Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (59 FR 38432 (July 28, 1994)

(Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe)), the Department stated that it ``is

required to use the lowest rate at which the respondent has borrowed or

to which the respondent has access.''

Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners and concur

with the respondent that it is reasonable to use dollar-denominated

borrowing rates in these reviews. The respondent is correct in arguing

that the interest rate used for credit expenses should match the

currency in which the sales are denominated, as stated in Roses.

On the question of whether the parent's or the U.S. subsidiary's

dollar-denominated borrowing rate should be applied, where a company

had access, directly or through its U.S. affiliate, to two different

dollar-denominated rates, the lower of the two rates is presumed to

have been used. See, for example, Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe, where

the Department calculated imputed credit for PP sales using the lower

of two U.S. interest rates available to the respondent. See also Notice

of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

France, 58 FR 37125 (1993) (Comment 30), in which the Department states

that it does not concern itself with determining which of the corporate

entities related to the respondent actually incurs the cost of

financing.

In this case, during the 1990-1991 POR neither the German parent

nor the U.S. subsidiary had borrowings in U.S. dollars, and in the

1991-1992 and 1992-1993 PORs, we are aware of only the U.S. subsidiary

having U.S. borrowings. Therefore, for the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993

administrative reviews, we have used the U.S. subsidiary's interest

rate for borrowings in U.S. dollars.

Concerning Wieland's calculation of U.S. credit expenses in the

1990-1991 review period and Wieland's request that we use deposit rates

rather than borrowing rates, (1) as noted above in Class 150 Stainless

Steel Pipe, we use actual borrowing rates or, if no borrowing occurred,

borrowing rates to which the firm had access, either directly or

through its U.S. affiliate; (2) it is our practice to use lending

rates, as opposed to investment return or deposit rates, in calculating

credit expenses (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Angle From

Japan 60 FR 16608, March 31, 1995 (Comment 7)).

As for the petitioner's reference to the Department's position in

Groundwood Paper, our decision in Groundwood Paper has been superseded

by more recent proceedings (see Final Determinations of Sales at Less

than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, 58 FR 37122, July 8, 1993). As stated

later in Roses, in cases where there are no borrowings in the currency

of the sales made, as in Wieland's 1990-1991 review period, the

Department may use external information about the cost of borrowing in

a particular currency. Since Wieland did not supply the U.S. borrowing

rates to which it had access during the 1990-1991 review period, we

have used the U.S. prime rate to calculate Wieland's imputed U.S.

credit expenses for this period.

Use of Alloy CDA250

Comment 9: The petitioners state that in the fifth review (1991-

1992) the Department should include home market sales with alloy grade

CDA250 in its dumping analysis, in order to ensure that each U.S. sale

is compared to the home market sales with the closest alloy composition

for product matches in which an identical alloy match is not available.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have

included these sales in our analysis for these final results.

Clerical and Programming Errors

Comment 10: Wieland states, and the petitioners agree, that the

Department's computer program fails to reflect all possible matches

between U.S. and home market sales.

Department's Position: We concur and have amended the programs by

adding programming which ensures that all U.S. sales are correctly

matched to home market sales.

Comment 11: The respondent points out that adjustments for

different alloys were not converted to pounds.

Department's Position: We agree with the respondent and have

converted the adjustments for different alloys to pounds.

Comment 12: The petitioners state that the Department failed to

deduct commissions or direct and indirect selling expenses in its VAT

tax adjustment when it calculated the net U.S. price for ESP sales.

Department's Position: We agree in part with the petitioners. Since

in the preliminary results we did not adjust U.S. commissions and

indirect expenses for VAT, we have done so in these final results.

Clerical Errors Alleged in the Fourth Review Only

Comment 13: The petitioners state that the Department failed to

adjust FMV for the differences in metal costs whenever U.S. sales were

matched to a home market sale of merchandise with a different alloy.

Petitioners state that the Department should increase both the

adjustment for different alloys and the adjustment for other

differences in merchandise to account for the VAT.

Department's Position: In the preliminary results, when matches

were based on merchandise made of different alloys, we did adjust FMV

for differences in alloys. However, we inadvertently failed to increase

the adjustments for differences in merchandise and differences in

alloys by the VAT rate. We have corrected this oversight for these

final results.

Comment 14: The petitioners state that the Department compared VAT-

inclusive U.S. prices to constructed values (CV) which had not been

increased by the VAT rate.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners; we do not add

VAT to CV, but in the preliminary results we inadvertently compared

VAT-inclusive U.S. prices to CV. We have corrected the computer

programming language by removing VAT from the U.S. prices which would

be compared to CV. However, since CV was not used in these final

results, this point is moot.

[[Page 38546]]

Comment 15: The petitioners state that in its test for sales below

cost in the home market, the Department neglected to subtract after-

sale rebates and freight charges. The petitioners further state that in

calculating total cost, the Department neglected to include home market

packing expenses.

Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners. After-sale

rebates, home market packing expenses, and freight are included in

reported costs, and are therefore also included in price for the

purpose of the cost test.

Comment 16: The petitioners state that the Department failed to add

U.S. packing expenses to CV.

Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners; U.S.

packing expenses were included in CV for the preliminary results.

However, since CV was not used in these final results, this point is

moot. Clerical Errors Alleged in the Fifth and Sixth Reviews

Comment 17: The petitioners state the Department double-counted

after-sale rebates by including them in both direct and indirect

selling expenses.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners, and have

amended the final results to remove after-sale rebates from home market

indirect selling expenses.

Comment 18: The petitioners state that in the 1992-1993 review, the

Department failed to include inventory carrying costs in the

calculation of U.S. indirect selling expenses.

Department's Position: We agree and have added inventory carrying

costs to indirect selling expenses for ESP sales.

Comment 19: Petitioner states that the Department should increase

both the adjustment for different alloys and the adjustment for other

differences in merchandise to account for the VAT.

Department's Position: We inadvertently failed to increase the

adjustments for differences in merchandise and differences in alloys by

the VAT rate. We have corrected this oversight for these final results.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine

that the following margins exist for Wieland:

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter Period margin

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

Wieland-Werke AG.......................... 3/1/90-2/28/91 2.04

3/1/91-2/28/92 2.36

3/1/92-2/28/93 0.46

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

Individual differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the

above percentages. The Department shall instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate all appropriate entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for Wieland will be zero, since the rate

published in the final results of review for the 1993-1994 period is de

minimis;

(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed

above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific

rate published for the most recent period;

(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established

for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered

in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 8.87%, the ``all others'' rate established in the

LTFV investigation.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during the review periods. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of

the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction. These administrative reviews and this notice are in

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and

19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: July 11, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-18397 Filed 7-26-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P