Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Finland: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-405-802]

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Finland: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

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

SUMMARY: On July 18, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Finland. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR),

February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we have changed the results from

those presented in the preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Decker or Robin Gray, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)

482-3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 18, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 36776) the preliminary results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate

from Finland (58 FR 44165, August 19, 1993). The Department has now

completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute and to the

Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of This Review

The products covered by this administrative review constitute one

``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain cut-to-length carbon steel

plate. These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill

plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed

box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250

millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in

coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither

clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished,

or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with

metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and

of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000,

7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000,

7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,

and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular

cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the

rolling process (i.e., products which have been ``worked after

rolling'')--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

The POR is February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994. This review

covers entries

[[Page 2793]]

of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate by Rautaruukki Oy

(Rautaruukki).

Consumption Tax Methodology

In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v.

United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, the Department has changed its

treatment of home market consumption taxes. Where merchandise exported

to the United States is exempt from the consumption tax, the Department

will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged on

the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology

that the Department adopted following the decision of the Federal

Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and

which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The

Court of International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in

Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and the

Department acquiesced in the CIT's decision. The Department then

followed the CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the

tax to be added to U.S. price by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by

the foreign market tax rate; the Department made adjustments to this

amount so that the tax adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax

dumping assessment.

The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed

that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held

that the statute did not preclude Commerce from using the ``Zenith

footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping assessments

(i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or amount of

home market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit

recognized that certain international agreements of the United States,

in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the

Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral

dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT

with instructions to direct Commerce to determine which tax methodology

it will employ.

The Department has determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4''

methodology should be used. First, as the Department has explained in

numerous administrative determinations and court filings over the past

decade, and as the Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of

the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required

that dumping assessments be tax-neutral. This requirement continues

under the new Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Second, the URAA explicitly amended the

antidumping law to remove consumption taxes from the home market price

and to eliminate the addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that no

consumption tax is included in the price in either market. The

Statement of Administrative Action (p. 159) explicitly states that this

change was intended to result in tax neutrality.

While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different

from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA

law required that the tax be added to United States price rather than

subtracted from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty

assessments. In sum, the Department has elected to treat consumption

taxes in a manner consistent with its longstanding policy of tax-

neutrality and with the GATT.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received case and rebuttal briefs from

Rautaruukki (the respondent) and petitioners. Petitioners requested a

public hearing but subsequently withdrew their request for a hearing.

Therefore, no hearing was held.

Comment 1: Petitioners argue that best information available (BIA)

must be used for Finnsteel's costs. According to petitioners,

Rautaruukki admitted that Finnsteel, its U.S. selling subsidiary, was

involved in the U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Petitioners claim

that nonetheless Rautaruukki failed to report any of Finnsteel's costs

on sales of subject merchandise. Although Rautaruukki subsequently

claimed that Finnsteel is not actively involved in the sales to the

U.S. of the subject merchandise, petitioners note Rautaruukki could not

substantiate its claim at verification. Petitioners argue that the

Department failed to include Finnsteel's costs in calculating the

preliminary results. Petitioners contend that expenses were incurred by

Finnsteel as a direct result of specific sales. Finnsteel would not

perform such activities absent specific sales of subject merchandise.

Petitioners argue that the expenses could have been tied to specific

sales--if Rautaruukki and Finnsteel had kept adequate records.

Rautaruukki should have separated and reported Finnsteel's direct

expenses for these services. Since it failed to do so, the Department

cannot determine which of Finnsteel's costs are direct. Since at least

some of Finnsteel's costs were direct selling expenses, the Department

must assign BIA to those unreported expenses. The Department should

follow its standard practice and assume all of Finnsteel's expenses

were direct expenses. Since Finnsteel's selling expenses were either

not reported or not reported separately, the Department should use the

reported indirect selling expense as BIA for direct selling expenses.

Respondent counters that there is no evidence on the record that

Finnsteel is actively involved in the sales of the subject merchandise

in this administrative review. Rautaruukki explained in its response

that its U.S. sales during the POR were made directly from

Rautaruukki's Raahe Steel Works to the unrelated customer. Respondent

notes the verification report states that Rautaruukki reported that it

handled all of the transactions and all activity related to the sale of

subject merchandise from Finland. Respondent also notes that the

Department also found that all documentation examined at verification

only listed Rautaruukki and the U.S. customer. Also, the unrelated U.S.

customer submitted a sworn affidavit confirming that it purchased the

subject merchandise directly from Rautaruukki during the POR.

Respondent notes that although Finnsteel acted as a ``communications

link'' for sales of subject merchandise during the POR, Finnsteel's

role did not rise to the level of active participation in the sales

process to warrant treating the U.S. sales as exporter's sales price

(ESP) transactions. Respondent argues that the record in this

administrative review clearly demonstrates that Finnsteel acted only as

a communications link with the unrelated customer. Therefore, the U.S.

sales in this administrative review were purchase price, and no further

adjustment is warranted.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent. Respondent

reported that normally transactions are handled through Finnsteel;

however, sales of subject merchandise made to the U.S. during the POR

were exclusively handled by Rautaruukki. At verification, we found no

evidence of Finnsteel's involvement in the sales of subject merchandise

during the POR. All documents examined supported the conclusion that

Finnsteel did not participate in these transactions. Sales were made

directly from Rautaruukki to the U.S. customer. Because of the lack of

evidence of Finnsteel's involvement, we cannot assume Finnsteel

incurred costs on the sales of subject merchandise to the United States

during the POR. Therefore, the Department is

[[Page 2794]]

not making a sales adjustment for Finnsteel's costs in these final

results.

Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the Department must correct two

errors in the margin calculation program. Due to one of the errors, the

Department's sales below cost test for the preliminary results used a

cost of manufacture (COM) that was only a fraction of the true COM. One

line read ``TOTCOM2 = FOREX = TOTCOM1'', while it should have read

``TOTCOM2 = FOREX + TOTCOM1''. The second error occurred in the

calculation of home market selling expenses for use in cost (SELLCOP).

Petitioners contend the Department failed to include certain expenses,

which were reported in the other expense field, in the calculation of

SELLCOP.

Respondent argues that the Department's margin calculation program

is correct. The Department gave interested parties a chance to comment

on the proposed programming language in October 1994. Petitioners

submitted comments in that same month. The petitioners' attempt to

present new comments regarding the Department's computer programming

language is untimely and should be rejected on that basis. Moreover,

the Department's margin calculation program is correct and needs no

adjustments.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The

programming language that was released for comments in October 1994 was

preliminary and was not company specific. Both of the errors that the

petitioners have claimed are related to company specific programming.

In these final results, we have changed the program to read ``TOTCOM2 =

FOREX + TOTCOM1''. This error resulted in incorrect cost test results.

However, the Department's May 18, 1995, analysis memo and the Federal

Register notice of the preliminary results in this administrative

review did not reflect the incorrect cost results. After correcting the

errors, the Department did in fact find sales below cost for

Rautaruukki in this administrative review. Therefore, the discussion of

sales below cost found in the preliminary notice and the May 18, 1995

analysis memo is consistent with the corrected, final cost test

results. Finally, while we have not allowed a direct sales adjustment

for the other expense field as discussed in the preliminary results, we

have included this other expense field in the calculation of SELLCOP

for these final results because these are costs incurred.

Comment 3: Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki incorrectly reported

its general and administrative expenses (G&A). The Department has a

long-standing practice of requiring G&A expenses to be reported as a

percentage of cost of sales. Also, the G&A factor is normally

calculated using G&A recorded in the company's audited financial

statements for the year that most closely corresponds to the POR (see

Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand, 60 FR 22557, 22560-61 (May 8, 1995)).

Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki did not use the regular methodology

accepted by the Department. It based G&A on 1993 data and data from

eight months of 1994, and it calculated a per ton G&A amount.

Petitioners maintain this is erroneous in two respects. First, it did

not use data from the audited financial statements (the 1994 data was

from an interim financial statement which was not audited). The 1994

data constitutes the type of part-year data the Department does not use

because G&A expenses are incurred sporadically throughout the fiscal

year or are based on estimates that are adjusted to actual at year-end.

Second, the calculation is a per ton G&A amount, rather than a factor

that is a percentage of cost, as required by the questionnaire and

Department practice. The Department should recalculate the G&A expense

using Rautaruukki's 1993 audited financial statements and other

verified 1993 information.

Respondent argues that it correctly reported G&A expenses and that

the cost verification report states that the Department verified all

appropriate expenses for Raahe were included in G&A and that the

appropriate methodologies were applied. Furthermore, respondent claims

the Department found no discrepancies between the Group profit and loss

report and the reported consolidated financial statements. Respondent

notes in support of its argument for using an annual G&A factor,

petitioners reference cases which are antidumping investigations and

not administrative reviews. Respondent contends that petitioners

reliance on these investigations is misplaced when applied to this

administrative review. In an investigation where sales span a six-month

period, the Department generally looks to a full-year period in

computing G&A, because such a period encompasses operating results over

a longer time span than the period of investigation and typically

reports the results of at least one business cycle. In this

administrative review, the POR covers an eighteen month period, and

Rautaruukki provided annual and interim financial reports which are

prepared in the ordinary course of business. Respondent claims these

reports cover the entirety of the POR; therefore, they represent the

most complete and accurate information available, and they exceed the

standard of Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. It is our

standard practice to base G&A on an amount derived from annual audited

financial statements and to calculate it as a percentage of cost rather

than a per ton amount. See Final Determination of LTFV: Certain Hot-

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,

and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada, 58 FR 37099

(July 9, 1993)(Comment #43). The fact that this is an administrative

review, rather than an investigation, has no relevance. The 1994 data

used by Rautaruukki is still partial year data based on unaudited

financial statements. We do not use partial year data because G&A

expenses are often incurred sporadically throughout the year and are

often accrued based on estimates until they are adjusted to actual at

year-end. It is also our standard practice to calculate G&A based on a

percentage of cost, rather than a per ton amount because G&A expenses

are more closely associated with costs than with weight. Id. Therefore,

we have recalculated G&A for Rautaruukki as a percentage of cost using

only 1993 data from Rautaruukki's audited financial statements.

Regarding Rautaruukki's argument that the Department verified their G&A

expense, the Department's verification confirmed that all appropriate

expenses were included in the reported G&A. The verification report

statements that the allocation methodology was verified only indicated

that the figures and methodology reported by Rautaruukki accurately

traced to their books and records. This allocation methodology is not

that traditionally utilized by the Department in allocating G&A.

Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the interest expense factor was

calculated using the same methodology used for the G&A factor, and thus

suffers from the same flaws as the G&A factor. Additionally the

unaudited 1994 amount used in the interest expense calculation suffers

from an additional flaw--it is incorrect because Rautaruukki

erroneously deducted short-term interest that it paid. Instead,

petitioners argue the Department should take Rautaruukki's 1993

consolidated interest expense less dividend income, divided by total

cost of goods sold less selling expenses. Petitioners claim this is a

conservative interest expense factor highly favorable to Rautaruukki

because it assumes all interest income is short-

[[Page 2795]]

term, which the Department did not verify, and only Rautaruukki's G&A

(rather than consolidated G&A, which is not on the record) is deducted,

which results in a larger denominator and thus a lower factor.

Respondent argues that it correctly reported its interest expenses.

For the reasons stated in Comment three above, Rautaruukki correctly

reported its interest expenses by providing the Department with the

most complete and accurate information available. Additionally,

petitioners' interest expense factor calculation is flawed. The net

financial expense figure is grossly overstated because petitioners'

figure includes currency exchange differences as interest expenses.

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

G&A expenses, it is our standard practice to base interest expense on

an amount derived from audited consolidated annual financial statements

and to calculate interest expense as a percentage of cost See e.g.

Preliminary Determination of Sales at LTFV: Grain-Oriented Electrical

Steel from Italy, 59 FR 5991 (1994). Furthermore, the choice of

allocation methodologies is left to the Department's discretion. See

PPG Industries v. United States 746 F. Supp. 119 (CIT 1990). The 1994

data used by Rautaruukki is partial year data based on unaudited

financial statements. Therefore, we have recalculated interest expense

for Rautaruukki using only 1993 data.

We also agree with respondent in part that the petitioners' figure

is overstated because it contains currency exchange differences as

interest expense. To calculate interest expense for the final results,

we have used the interest expense examined at verification, which is

based on the consolidated financial statements, divided by consolidated

cost of sales taken directly from the consolidated financial statements

in the annual report.

Comment 5: Respondent argues that the Department erred in

collapsing home market control numbers (CONNUMHs) IO6X and TA6X and

thereby made incorrect product matches. The questionnaire established a

hierarchy of product characteristics that the Department would use in

identifying individual plate products. Each unique combination of these

characteristics is treated as a distinct product. The Department

discovered instances where multiple control numbers were being assigned

to the same set of product characteristics. The Department collapsed

CONNUMHs IO6X and TA6X, which it understood had identical product

characteristics. These were matched to the U.S. sales of CONNUMU IO6X.

In doing so, the Department mistakenly matched sales of beveled plate

to sales of plate which had not undergone the further manufacturing

process required to produce beveled plate. In terms of quality, the two

product control numbers are identical. CONNUMs starting with IO through

LL represent basic cut-to-length plates which are not painted, and

CONNUMs starting with RA through UX represent plates with a beveled

edge. Beveled plate is produced only after an additional manufacturing

process, which is performed on a separate production line. It incurs

additional costs which must be taken into consideration in

Rautaruukki's pricing decisions. These additional costs are reflected

in Rautaruukki's home market database. In collapsing these control

numbers, respondent argues the Department incorrectly collapsed two

products with different product characteristics. In so doing,

respondent claims the Department incorrectly compared sales of beveled

plate in the home market with sales of normal plate in the U.S. market.

Petitioners counter that the Department correctly collapsed

CONNUMHs IO6X and TA6X. Nowhere in its brief does Rautaruukki identify

the product characteristics which it believes are different for the two

CONNUMHs. This is because there are no product characteristics that are

different. According to petitioners a review of the products in IO6X

and TA6X shows that they are identical for the eight physical

characteristics identified by the questionnaire. By separating the

products in CONNUMHs IO6X and TA6X, Rautaruukki introduced into a

primary place in the hierarchy a product characteristic--beveling--that

was not selected by the Department. Petitioners argue such unilateral

modification of the Department's hierarchy should not be permitted.

When the Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment

on the model match hierarchy in August 1994, Rautaruukki submitted

comments. Those comments did not contain a single reference to

beveling. In fact, no interested parties identified beveling as a

physical characteristic that ought to be included in the plate

hierarchy. Petitioners contend Rautaruukki had ample opportunity to

suggest any modifications it believed to be necessary and suggest

Rautaruukki simply ignored the Department's hierarchy and created its

own. In doing so, petitioners argue Rautaruukki attempted to usurp the

Department's statutory duty to determine what constitutes identical

merchandise.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. On August 12,

1994, the Department solicited comments on the proposed model matching

criteria. On August 26, 1994, Rautaruukki filed comments. However,

Rautaruukki's comments did not propose beveling as a relevant

characteristic to use in product matching. Furthermore, in its

questionnaire response and supplemental response Rautaruukki failed to

establish the relevance of beveling as a product matching criteria.

Therefore, the Department has no basis upon which to differentiate

beveled plate from non-beveled plate for matching and price comparison

purposes. The Department has broad discretion to devise the methodology

for determining the model match methodology as confirmed by the Courts

in Torrington Co. v. United States, 881 F. Supp. 622, 635 (CIT 1995)

and Smith-Corona Group v. United States, 713 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir.

1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1022 (1984). Furthermore, beveled plate

does not possess physical characteristics which make it unique from

non-beveled plate with regard to applications and uses. We have

therefore continued to collapse IO6X and TA6X.

Comment 6: Respondent argues the Department should compare U.S.

sales to a trading company to home market sales to end-users. In its

preliminary results, the Department reclassified the levels of trade in

the home market database by collapsing sales to and sales through

wholesalers into a single lot. It matched this collapsed level of trade

with the level of trade reported in the U.S. market (sales to a trading

company). Respondent claims the Department should have compared U.S.

sales to home market sales to end-users for the following reasons:

Rautaruukki has a closer relationship with the wholesalers/distributors

in the home market; the home market wholesalers/distributors have a

common inventory system whereas for U.S. sales, Rautaruukki does not

know the ultimate customer in the United States, and therefore no

common inventory system can exist; the home market wholesalers/

distributors hold and fill orders from inventory unlike either the U.S.

customer or the home market end-user; home market wholesalers/

distributors are eligible for certain rebates, for which the U.S.

customer and home market end-users are not; respondent argues the sales

verification report states that since there is no inventory for

purchase price sales to the U.S., the customer level of trade for the

two markets should be

[[Page 2796]]

different; since respondent claims it does not know the ultimate

customer, it considers its U.S. customer as an end-user; and plate with

identical CONNUMs were sold both to the U.S. customer and to end-users

in the home market.

The respondent further argues that in an antidumping investigation,

the Department normally calculates foreign market value (FMV) and U.S.

price (USP) based on the same commercial level of trade. The Department

normally asks if the levels of trade reported by the respondent are in

fact distinct and discernable, based on the respondent's explanation of

their functions. Respondent notes that while the Department often

matches according to customer type (see Stainless Steel Hollow Products

from Sweden, 58 FR 69,332), this is not always the case (see

Antifriction Bearings from France, 58 FR 39,768). In the instant case,

the respondent argues that the U.S. customer is the functional

equivalent to an end-user in the home market because: (1) Rautaruukki

does not know the ultimate customer in the U.S. market; (2) the same

product is sold to home market end-users and to the U.S. customer; (3)

neither the home market end-users nor the U.S. customer qualify for the

rebate; and (4) the home market end-users and the U.S. customer do not

hold inventory or share a common inventory system. In Stainless Steel

Bar from Spain (59 FR 66931), the Department accepted level of trade

classifications based upon when the customer wanted delivery. These

were distinguished by which party bore the costs and risks of

maintaining a finished goods inventory. In the instant administrative

review, respondent argues that sales to the United States should be

compared with sales to home market end-users because, unlike

wholesales/distributors in the home market, neither bears the cost of

maintaining inventory.

Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki's complaints are without merit.

The criteria for determining level of trade comparability are the

extent to which the customers: (1) perform equivalent functions in

their respective markets, and/or (2) are positioned in equivalent

positions in the chain of distribution from the manufacturer to the

ultimate customer (see Disposable Pocket Lighters from Thailand, 60 FR

14263, 14264 (March 16, 1995)). By these criteria, petitioners maintain

there is clearly a close correspondence between the U.S. trading

company and the home market wholesalers/distributors--both are

Rautaruukki's first unrelated customer in a particular market, and both

sell directly to the ultimate customer. In both cases, petitioners note

that Rautaruukki invoices the distributor, which then in turn

separately invoices its own customer (the end-user). The nearly

congruent function and position of the U.S. trading company and the

home market wholesalers/distributors are illustrated in Rautaruukki's

own distribution channel flow charts for the two markets. They are

virtually carbon copies of each other, and at one point, the U.S.

trading company is referred to as a distributor. Given the verified

facts, petitioners maintain the Department was correct in its decision,

which was in accordance with its long-standing practice and regulations

that require the FMV/USP comparisons to be made at the same or most

comparable level of trade.

Petitioners further argue that it is the respondent's burden to

show there are discernable functions that would make its proposed

matching level a better choice than the Department's choice. Of the

four points raised by the respondent in making their argument, the

first three do not relate in any way to the functions performed by the

buyer and, therefore are irrelevant to the determination of level of

trade. The fact that Rautaruukki does not know its distributor's end-

user customers in the United States says nothing about the

distributor's functions, or those of home market end-users. Even if the

point were relevant, Rautaruukki also does not know the end-user

purchaser on many of its sales to home market distributors. There is no

precedent for the payment of rebates being relevant to the functions of

a customer or its position in the chain of distribution. The fact that

plate with the same CONNUMs was sold to both the U.S. customer and to

end-users in the home market is in no way indicative of the functions

performed by any customer. Moreover, sales of identical merchandise

were also made to distributors in the home market.

Petitioners continue that this reduces Rautaruukki's argument to

the claim that home market end-users and the U.S. customer do not hold

inventory or share a common inventory system. Even if true, this claim

alone would not be a basis to reverse the Department's decision. In any

event, the facts on the record do not support Rautaruukki's assertion

that the U.S. buyer does not hold inventory. There is no reason for the

Department to reverse its decision.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The

Department's practice in finding similar levels of trade in each market

requires a comparison of customers in each of the markets to determine

whether they perform equivalent functions in their respective markets,

and/or are in equivalent positions in the chain of distribution from

the manufacturer to the ultimate customer. See Antifriction Bearings

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et

al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial

Termination of Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900, 10940-41 (February 28, 1995)

(Issue 9, Comment 3). For Rautaruukki, the U.S. trading company and the

home market wholesalers/distributors function at similar levels of

trade. They are the first unrelated customer and both sell directly to

the ultimate customer. For both markets, Rautaruukki's distributor

invoices the end-user, while Rautaruukki invoices the distributor. The

respondent did not demonstrate any functions, which differentiate the

level of trade for wholesalers/distributors in the home market and the

trading company in the U.S., to illustrate an alternate level of trade

is necessary. The first three factors cited by the respondent are not

elements normally considered by the Department in determining level of

trade. Nor does the respondent provide any compelling reason why the

Department should consider those factors in this instance. The

respondent's first issue, that Rautaruukki does not know the U.S.

trading company's end-user customers, does not illustrate the functions

of the U.S. trading company or the home market end-users. In fact,

Rautaruukki also claims it does not know the end-user purchasers on

many of its sales to home market distributors yet Rautaruukki argues

that these sales would be at a different level of trade. With regard to

the third point, the Department does not consider either rebates or the

fact that the same products are sold to home market end-users and to

the U.S. customer as relevant to the functions of a customer or its

position in the chain of distribution. As for the fourth point, while

the U.S. customer may not have a common inventory system, there is

nothing on the record to indicate that the U.S. customer does not hold

any inventory. Therefore, we are continuing to match U.S. sales to the

trading company with home market sales to/through wholesalers/

distributors.

Comment 7: The respondent argues that it correctly reported rebates

which were successfully verified by the Department. However, in the

preliminary results, the Department denied Rautaruukki's reported

rebate to

[[Page 2797]]

certain home market wholesalers/distributors because Rautaruukki's

computer tape reported these rebates to a different number of home

market wholesalers/distributors than were identified in the narrative

response. Respondent argues that part of this discrepancy is explained

by the fact that certain companies merged. Respondent also argues that

although certain home market wholesalers/distributors were not

specifically identified in the narrative response, Rautaruukki did

submit the relevant information in the home market sales database.

Accordingly respondent argues the Department should allow the

adjustment.

The petitioners argue that the denial of these rebates was correct.

Petitioners note that the Department verified the number of companies

that received this rebate as reported in the narrative response, not as

reported in the home market sales tape. Accordingly, petitioners

maintain Rautaruukki's argument adds nothing new to this issue--their

brief cites to no evidence on the record that one of the companies

received the rebate, and Rautaruukki admits that it never specifically

identified another company in its narrative response. Therefore,

petitioners argue the Department should continue to exclude the rebate

amounts on sales to certain companies in the final results.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent that the Department

should allow all rebates. Although Rautaruukki did not specifically

address all rebates in its narrative, they did report all the rebates

in their database. After further examination of the verification

exhibits, we have determined that all rebates were accurately reported

and verified by the Department and that all these parties did receive

the rebates as reported.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have determined that no margin exists

for Rautaruukki Oy for the period February 4, 1993, through July 31,

1994.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between United States price and foreign market value may

vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all

shipments of plate from Finland entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed company will be the rate for that firm as stated above; (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 this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the

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

the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)

if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this

review, the cash rate will be 32.25 percent. This is the ``all others''

rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Finland, 58 FR 37122 (July 9, 1993). These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results

of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 353.26 of the Department's regulations to

file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's

presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's

regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials

or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure

to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22

of the Department's regulations.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-1456 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P