Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Australia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-803]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Australia; 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

Review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 16, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products from Australia. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States

and the period 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: March 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Bolling or Jean Kemp, 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 August 16, 1995, the Department published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 42507) the preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products from Australia (58 FR 44161, 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 corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products. These products include flat-rolled carbon steel

products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with

corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-,

nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in

addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in

successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or

greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures

at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75

millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and

measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the

HTS under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000,

7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060,

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000,

7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000,

7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000,

7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000,

7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. 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

bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded are flat-rolled steel

products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium

oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium and

chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted, varnished

or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to

the metallic coating. Also excluded are clad products in straight

lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width

which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the

thickness. Also excluded are certain clad stainless flat-rolled

products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel

flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness

that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

[[Page 14050]]

product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The period of

review (POR) is February 4, 1993 through July 31, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received comments and rebuttal comments from

both parties, The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd. (BHP) and

petitioners. At the request of BHP and petitioners a hearing was held

on October 5, 1995.

Comment 1: Respondent states that the Department erred in

preliminarily denying BHP its ``constructive'' quantity discount.

Respondent argues that, because the Department verified that BHP

granted quantity discounts on more than 20 percent of its home market

sales, under section 353.55(b)(1) of the Department's regulations it

follows inescapably that ``the discounts granted were of at least the

same magnitude.''

Respondent illustrated how this result must follow. Assuming

respondent granted discounts of 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent and

25 percent on 4 out of 10 sales, then discounts were granted on 40% of

the total sales, and respondent asserts that the discounts granted were

of at least the same magnitude as the minimum discount because each

discount was of at least 10 percent. Respondent argues further that

even though it only provided the average quantity discount, as opposed

to the actual quantity discount given on each sale at issue, this so-

called ``constructive'' quantity discount was arrived at by using

actual figures, i.e., by dividing the total value of discounts by the

number of tonnage that received an actual discount. For any sale which

received less than the average discount, or no discount, a value up to

the ``constructive'' discount was reported. Moreover, the respondent

contends that because the Department verified each of the

``constructive'' quantity discounts associated with the pre-selected

and surprise sales at verification by using the actual public and

internal price lists and checking actual quantity discounts granted,

this is sufficient to justify the reliability of the average discount

constructed by BHP.

Respondent states that granting the ``constructive'' quantity

discount need not establish a wholesale-type precedent since BHP's

factual information is unique. Therefore, based upon the facts of

record, it is entitled to its ``constructive'' quantity discount

adjustment pursuant to section 353.55(b)(1) of the Department's

regulations.

Petitioners argue that BHP has not demonstrated a basis for

granting the quantity discount under the Department's regulations.

Petitioners take issue with BHP's assertion that discounts are of at

least the same magnitude as the smallest discount amount granted on any

sale because the smallest discount amount is not the amount reported as

the constructive quantity discount. Petitioners state that the actual

discounts given, or extras charged by, respondent were not of the same

magnitude as the reported ``constructive'' quantity discount. Moreover,

petitioners point out that at verification BHP made no attempt to

demonstrate that its actual quantity discounts were of the same

magnitude as the reported ``constructive'' quantity discount. In

addition, petitioners state that a respondent must also establish that

it granted discounts to home market customers on a uniform basis, and

that the evidence confirms that quantity discounts were not charged on

a uniform basis, rather they varied based on quantity purchased,

product type, and whether the product was painted.

Department's Position: We disagree with respondent. To be eligible

for a quantity-based discount, a respondent must demonstrate a clear

and direct correlation between price differences and quantities sold.

(See e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 53 FR 23,431, 33

(1988). Pursuant to 353.55(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, in

order to receive this adjustment a respondent must establish that it

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

more of its home market sales of such or similar merchandise. That is

to say that the discount amounts submitted must be at least as large as

the discounts granted on 20 percent or more of all home market sales of

such or similar merchandise. If this test is met the Department applies

a discount adjustment equal to the minimum discount given.

Regardless of the fact that the Department verified that BHP had

granted quantity discounts on more than 20 percent of its home market

sales, because BHP only provided the Department with an average

discount amount, which it applied across the board to all home market

sales it claimed received a quantity-based discount, the Department has

no way of determining which of the actual discounts granted were at

least as large as the average discount claimed by BHP.

The hypothetical example proffered by BHP illustrates its

misreading of 353.55(b)(1). BHP points to the smallest discount of 10

percent in the hypothetical example and concludes that because the

other discounts in the example were all higher, it must follow that its

average ``constructed'' discount amount will always be of at least the

same magnitude as the minimum discount. However, it is not the minimum

discount that we are concerned with. In BHP's example the average

discount, which is 17.5 percent, while at least as large as 10 and 15

percent, is not of the same magnitude as 20 and 25 percent. By

definition, the average discount can never be at least as large as

those discounts which are higher than the average.

While the Department can agree with BHP's argument that quantity

discounts granted on more than 20 percent of its home market sales must

be of at least the same magnitude as the minimum discount granted, we

cannot determine what that minimum discount was from the

``constructed'' average submitted by BHP. Therefore, we cannot

establish the proper amount of the claimed adjustment. Lastly, as

petitioners correctly point out, the Department also requires that a

respondent establish that it gave discounts on a uniform basis which

were available to substantially all home market customers, which BHP

failed to demonstrate. Therefore, the Department will disallow the

adjustment for the purposes of the final results.

Comment 2: Respondent argues that for its preliminary results, the

Department omitted certain home market sales of its prime merchandise.

Respondent explains that it reported all of its prime sales (by

PRIMEH='1' and by PRIMEH='3'), as well as its non-prime sales, which

included seconds and downgraded merchandise (by PRIMEH='2').

However, the respondent notes that the Department included in the

home market database only prime 1 sales (``WHERE PRIMEH='1'') and

omitted prime 3 sales (``WHERE PRIMEH='3''). Respondent claims that the

reason it reported some of its prime as PRIMEH='3' was in response to a

Department request that overruns be separately reported, but respondent

asserts that in its normal course of business it does not distinguish

between its prime product and prime overruns. Respondent claims that

prime overruns are sold in the home market as prime surplus stock, and

that standard customer agreements grant an option to buy both prime and

prime surplus. Consequently, respondent argues that

[[Page 14051]]

the record establishes that products designated as PRIMEH='1' and

PRIMEH='3' are prime products, and that the Department should correct

the program to include sales of the latter even though they are

overruns.

Petitioners argue that the Department correctly excluded overrun

sales from the foreign market value calculation. Petitioners assert

that it is Department practice to exclude overrun sales that are

outside the ordinary course of trade. Petitioners contend that looking

at the factors that the Department uses to determine whether overruns

are sold in the ordinary course of business, sales of BHP's overruns

are outside the ordinary course of trade. Petitioners argue that record

evidence of differences in prices, profit margins, sales quantities,

and sales practices between prime and overruns, all support their claim

that these sales are outside the ordinary course of trade.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent. It is the

Department's established practice to include home market sales of such

or similar merchandise unless it can be established that such sales

were not made in the ordinary course of trade. (See e.g., Final

Determination of Stainless Steel Angle From Japan, 60 FR 16608, 16614-

15 (1995)). Section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act and section 353.46(a) of

the Department's regulations provide that foreign market value shall be

based on the price at which or similar merchandise is sold in the

exporting country in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption.

Section 771(15) of the Act defines ordinary course of trade as

conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the

exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade

with respect to merchandise of the same class or kind. (See, also

section 353.46(b))

In looking at overruns in making this determination the Department

typically examines several factors taken together, with no one factor

dispositive. (See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and

Tubes From India, 56 FR 64753, 64755 (1991)). In this case, we

examined: (a) whether the home market sales in question did, if fact,

consist of production overruns; (b) whether differences in physical

characteristics or different product uses existed between overruns and

ordinary production; (c) whether the number of buyers of overruns in

the home market and the sales volume and quantity (tonnage) of overruns

were similar or dissimilar as compared to prime merchandise; and (d)

whether the price and profit differentials between sales of overruns

and ordinary production were dissimilar. In considering these factors

as a whole, we found that sales of overrun corrosion-resistant steel

were made in the ordinary course of trade.

Evidence indicates that home market sales of Prime3 were sales of

overruns. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that there

were any differences in product characteristics between prime

merchandise and overruns. BHP's standard customer agreements provided

an option to purchase either prime merchandise or overruns, which BHP

label's as prime surplus, as they arise on their surplus stock list.

(See Verification Exhibit BHP-9(b)) There is nothing in the record to

indicate that overruns have different physical characteristics than

prime merchandise or are used for different purposes. Record evidence

establishes that the cost of producing prime and the cost of producing

overruns is the same, and standard customer agreements do not

distinguish between physical characteristics or product uses.

Also, the record reflects that there was a high number of buyers of

overruns in relation to the number of buyers of prime merchandise sales

and, in most instances, they were the same purchasers. In addition, in

relation to the total quantity and volume of home market sales of prime

merchandise, overruns accounted for a not insignificant percentage.

With regard to pricing differences between prime merchandise and

overruns, the record demonstrates that there were a variety of pricing

differences. Several sales of overruns were at prices many times higher

than prices for prime merchandise, several were sold at a substantial

percentage of the price of prime merchandise, and some were sold at a

small percentage of the price of prime. Record evidence indicates that

the average profit margin on overruns was not insignificant, although

the average profit margin on prime merchandise was much greater. All

these factors when looked at in totality lead us to conclude that sales

of `PRIMEH=3' were sold in the ordinary course of trade, and we will

for the final results include home market sales of overruns.

Comment 3: Respondent asserts that notwithstanding the paucity of

sales found to be below cost, it provided the Department with

information that demonstrates that it will recover costs on these few

below cost sales within a reasonable period of time.

Respondent asserts that under the law and the Department's practice

it is entitled to a finding of cost recovery. Respondent notes that the

Court of International Trade (CIT) has stated that ``[t]he issue * * *

is not whether the record supports the conclusion that [the respondent]

would be able to recover its costs at the prices charged during the

investigatory period within a reasonable period of time in the normal

course of trade, but whether there is substantial evidence on the

record supporting Commerce's determination that [the respondent] could

not recover its costs at these prices in such time period.'' NSK Ltd.

v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 115 (CIT 1992) (quoting Toho Titanium

Co. v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 1019, 1022 (CIT 1987)). Respondent

further asserts that the CIT has stated that the Department must

support its cost recovery conclusion with supporting calculations or

analytical explanations, ``using either the data already collected or,

if necessary, by collecting further data'' that cost recovery will not

occur within a reasonable period time. See Toho, 670 F. Supp. at 1022.

Respondent states that it is aware that, in past cases, parties

alleging cost recovery have not provided the Department with adequate

data, but respondent argues that it provided detailed evidence of

declining production costs and efficiency gains when it submitted

information about APEX, a cost reduction program it undertook with the

assistance of McKinsey Consultants and charts demonstrating cost

reductions achieved over successive six month periods during the POR.

This, coupled with the fact that so few sales were found by the

Department to be below cost, respondent asserts is sufficient to shift

the burden on the Department to demonstrate with substantial evidence

that cost recovery did not occur.

Petitioners argue that respondent has the burden of proof to

demonstrate that it will recover the costs of below cost sales within a

reasonable period of time, a burden respondent has failed to meet.

Petitioners argue that respondent failed to demonstrate that it could

recover its costs at the model-specific below cost prices. Petitioners

assert that respondent is required to demonstrate how any reduction in

the future cost of production for the products sold below cost would

translate into recovery of costs on those products for prior periods.

(NSK Ltd. v. United States Slip-OP. 95-138 (CIT 1995)) Petitioners

assert that while the determination of what constitutes a reasonable

period of time is the Department's, respondent was also unable to

identify and justify the period of time within which costs could be

recovered and demonstrate that this was a reasonable period of time for

cost recovery.

[[Page 14052]]

Department's Position: Section 773(b) of the Act provides that the

Department will determine whether sales are made at less than the cost

of producing the subject merchandise. If sales made below cost are not

at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period

of time in the normal course of trade, such sales shall be disregarded

in determining FMV. What must be demonstrated is that the prices which

are below cost during the POR are at a level such that those prices

would permit not only sufficient revenue to cover future costs, but

also exceed future costs to a degree which permits recovery of past

losses. (See, e.g., Granular Polyethelrafluoroethylene Resin From

Japan, 58 FR 50343, 50346 (1993); Timken Co. V. United States, 673 F.

Supp. 495, 516-17 (CIT 1987)) (Court holding that the term ``prices''

in section 773(b) refers only to prices of below cost sales and not to

prices of above cost sales).

One situation recognized by Congress which might permit recovery of

losses on below cost sales within a reasonable period of time is an

industry, such as the airline industry, which incurs large research and

development costs that cannot be immediately recovered by sales. (See

S. Rep. No. 1298, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 173 (1974), reprinted in 1974

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 7188, 7310; Toho Tinanium Co. v. United

States, 670 F. Supp. 1091, 1021 (CIT 1987). The Department's practice

also recognizes that extremely high production costs associated with an

extraordinary event not required for the continuous production of the

merchandise may be recoverable by future sales at the same prices

within a reasonable period of time. (See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking

Ware From Mexico, 58 FR 32095, 32102 (1993)). The evidence placed on

the record by respondent does not support any such finding.

BHP did submit evidence of the results of certain cost-cutting

measures undertaken by the company during the POR which demonstrates

that total operating costs did decline in that period. BHP points to

this cost reduction as proof that it would be able to offset losses

from below cost sales made during the POR using revenues from

profitable, lower-cost sales made within a reasonable period of time

thereafter. That is, if the company's cost of production declines in

the future below the prices of below cost sales made during the POR,

then those same sales prices may, in the future, allow recoupment of

all costs and past losses.

Much of the information we relied on in analyzing respondent's

claims is proprietary. (See Memo to the File, Cost Recovery

(proprietary version) (February 28, 1996)). Although we found a general

reduction in BHP's total operating costs, as well as a general increase

in productivity and production volume, during the POR, the cost

reductions and productivity/ production increases were not sustained

and, in several instances, actually began to reverse direction during

the POR. This, together with our finding that the prices of the below-

cost sales during the POR were below average POR costs, leads us to

conclude that the information provided by respondent regarding its cost

reduction programs during the POR does not support it contention that

the company's below-cost sales were at prices that would allow recovery

of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, from a

review of the record evidence, we conclude that BHP's below cost sales

must be disregarded in calculating FMV.

Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department should use BHP's

reported interest rate to calculate inventory carrying costs and credit

expenses. Respondent asserts that the intra-corporate interest rate it

provided at verification is the Australian equivalent of the U.S. prime

rate, and that the Federal Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin

(Bulletin) provided at verification reflects the short-term commercial

interest rates (Large Business), which correspond to respondent's

internal interest rates. Respondent notes that the Department in its

analysis memorandum found ``[t]hese rates were not substantially

different from the related-party rates reported by BHP, however, it is

not clear whether these rates represent short- or long-term rates.''

Respondent asserts that the rates listed under the Large Business

column of the Bulletin are a set of rates ``offered by four major

Australian banks,'' and that rate is the Australian equivalent of the

U.S. prime rate, which is a short-term rate by definition. Therefore,

respondent contends that the Department should use the intra-corporate

rate reported by BHP because this interest rate was not substantially

different from the Large Business rate and these rates are short-term

and market-driven.

Petitioners assert that there is no evidence on the record that the

``Large Business'' rate is the Australian equivalent of the U.S. prime

rate, and that from this evidence the Department could not tell whether

or not these rates represent long- or short-term rates. Furthermore,

petitioners argue that it is Department practice not to accept an

intra-corporate rate, since such a lending rate need not reflect

commercial reality in the marketplace. Petitioners contend that the

commercial bill rate selected by the Department is a permissible and

reasonable Best Information Available (BIA) because it represents the

interest rate for 90-day commercial lending in the home market.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners . It is not the

Department's practice to rely upon intra-corporate lending rates that

are merely intra-company transfers of funds. (See, e.g., Tapered Roller

Bearing and Parts, Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 57 FR

4960, 71 (1992) (Comm. 32)). Additionally, even though BHP's intra-

corporate rate was comparable to the Australian ``Large Business''

rate, BHP failed to provide evidence on the record to support its

contention that the Australian ``Large Business'' rate is a short-term

rate. Therefore, for the final results we will continue to use

information on the record regarding the Australian quarterly rates for

commercial bills (90 days) in effect during the POR as quoted in the

OECD's ``Main Economic Indicators'' for May 1995.

Comment 5: Petitioners contend that respondent failed to report an

unknown quantity of U.S. sales by its subsidiary BHP Steel Building

Products (Building Products) of further manufactured merchandise made

from Australian coils subject to review, and that BHP impermissibly

reported only Building Products sales that Building Products could link

to Australian coil tonnage entered during the POR. Petitioners assert

that the Department requires that all ESP sales during the POR be

reported, regardless of whether or not the subject merchandise

(Australian coils) entered before suspension of liquidation.

In addition, petitioners contend that the Department verified that

Building Products did not report all of its sales of subject

merchandise sold during the POR, and that the Department's verification

of the total sales reported did not address the (1) unreported sales of

accessories, (2) intra-company transfers of coil tonnage, and (3)

unaccounted for coil tonnage.

Petitioners claim that all sales made during the POR must be

reported and point to Industrial Belts from Italy, 57 FR 8295, 8296

(1992 1st Review) and Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR 29553

(June 5, 1995) to support their position. In Industrial Belts From

Italy petitioners assert that all sales, including sales from

merchandise entered before the POR, were reported and used to ensure

that there was no manipulation of the dumping margin.

[[Page 14053]]

However, petitioners argue that Building Products unilaterally decided

which sales to report. Therefore, the Department should apply a BIA

rate to all of Building Products unreported sales by applying the

higher of (1) the ``second-tier'' margin under its AFBs 1992 partial

BIA methodology, or (2) the highest non-aberrant margin in a given

case.

Respondent asserts that petitioners incorrectly contend that

respondent did not report sales made during the POR from tonnage

sourced from Australia which was in Building Products inventory prior

to the suspension of liquidation, i.e., from coils entered before the

POR. Respondent denies that it decided unilaterally not to report sales

made during the POR which could not be linked to tonnage entered during

the POR. In fact, respondent asserts that sales made from coils in

beginning inventory (i.e., coils in inventory at the beginning of

suspension of liquidation) constituted the bulk of Building Products

reported sales during the POR. Respondent further asserts that all

sales emanating from coils in beginning inventory were reported because

respondent was unable to establish that these coils had, in fact,

entered prior to the suspension of liquidation.

Respondent claims that it identified sales of subject merchandise

(in coil form) in 2 ways; it made a list of all coils in Building

Products inventory at the time of suspension of liquidation, which were

termed beginning inventory, and a list of all coils shipped from

Australia that entered during the POR, which were identified as

liability coils. Respondent asserts that from both of these lists

Building Products then tracked all coils as they moved through

inventory and production and into a particular line item on an invoice,

representing a sale of subject merchandise. Respondent argues that the

Department verified the completeness of Building Products response,

including its reporting of sales made from beginning inventory.

Therefore, respondent argues that petitioner is completely wrong in

claiming that respondent did not report all sales made from Australian

coils, whether or not they entered prior to, or after, suspension of

liquidation.

Additionally, respondent contends that Building Products not being

able to account for all of the weight of the liability coils is not the

result of respondent failing to report all sales from liability coil,

as petitioners argue. Rather, this missing percentage merely reflects

scrap and accessory sales made during the POR, as demonstrated by

verification exhibits, and therefore no sales from liability coils were

missing and not reported.

Moreover, respondent asserts that Building Products had no sales of

accessories which could be identified as being of Australian origin.

Respondent claims that accessory sales are, like scrap, a percentage of

coil used, and that verification exhibits demonstrate that the

percentage of coil weight for accessories approximates that

attributable to scrap. Respondent asserts that when a coil is roll-

formed, portions are lost in the process. This scrap is then collected

and placed in a bin and from this point on the scrap's origin cannot be

identified. Respondent contends that, as with scrap, when a small

portion of a coil is subsequently converted into an accessory item, the

origin of the accessory can no longer be identified. Therefore,

Building Products was unable to identify accessory sales made from

Australian coil.

Department's Position: Except with regard to accessories, we agree

with the respondent that it properly reported all sales made during the

POR. At verification, we confirmed Building Products total sales

universe of its reported sales to the first unrelated party during the

POR. Our review established that Building Products properly linked all

the ESP sales of further-manufactured goods to coils of subject

merchandise from both beginning inventory and from liability coils,

which included inter-company transfers of Australian tonnage.

Additionally, we verified respondents method for ascertaining how

further manufactured goods were produced from Australian subject coil

and how respondents accounted for and sold the merchandise to the first

unrelated party. We found this methodology accurately tracked all

further manufactured sales (See Building Products Verification Report,

May 19, 1995 and Sales Trace Exhibits BP53-BP61). We traced the subject

coil from each sourced point to Building Products records (See

verification Exhibits BP-22 through BP30(a)). In addition, we traced

the linkage establishing total tonnage shipped from Sheet and Coil

Products Division (SCPD) to Building Products (See verification

Exhibits BHP-27 through BHP28), and found that Building Products has

reported all of its sales from Australian sourced tonnage.

In Industrial Belts From Italy the Department indicated that it

would presume that all ESP sales of subject merchandise made during the

POR were from subject merchandise entered after the date of suspension

of liquidation and thus subject to antidumping duties, unless the

respondent could affirmatively demonstrate that particular subject

merchandise sold during the POR was entered prior to the POR. As in

Industrial Belts from Italy, because Building Products was unable to

link any sales with subject merchandise (coil tonnage) that entered the

U.S. prior to the date of suspension of liquidation (February 4, 1993),

all sales during the POR of merchandise made from Australian coils were

reported by respondent. Therefore, we have included all sales made

during the POR in our margin calculation. The Department accepts that

it was impossible for Building Products to link sales of accessories,

which only account for an insignificant portion of total sales, to

particular coils of Australian origin. However, sales of accessories

cannot properly be excluded. Therefore, the Department has treated all

accessories as sales made from Australian-origin coil and has assigned

to those sales the weighted-average margin based on all other sales

made during the POR. (See e.g., AFBs From Germany, 54 FR 18,992, 19,033

(1989); National Steel v. United States, 870 F. Supp. 857 (1994)).

Comment 6: Respondent states that while, in the preliminary

results, the Department denied BHP's claim for a cash (settlement)

discount in the home market, the Department requested updated

information for payment and shipment dates from BHP after the

preliminary results were issued. Pursuant to the Department's

instructions, on September 7, 1995, BHP submitted a computer tape

containing updated payment and shipment dates. Therefore, respondent

asserts that the Department should allow the cash (settlement)

discounts adjustment reported for those sales in the final results.

Petitioners argue that the Department correctly denied the reported

cash discounts for sales for which respondent had not originally

reported a date of payment. Although respondent has since provided

shipment and payment dates for these sales, petitioners argue that the

Department has not verified these dates and the estimated cash discount

amounts reported by respondent. Additionally, petitioners assert that

some of these sales with a certain term of payment were found at

verification by the Department to have been misreported and thus

unverified. Therefore, the Department should not deduct the estimated

cash discounts amounts on any of these sales.

Petitioners also contend that in the preliminary results, the

Department deducted a cash discount with regard to a particular

customer on certain home market sales even though the

[[Page 14054]]

Department verified that no discount was given. Therefore, the

Department must deny cash discounts claimed on these particular home

market sales to this customer.

In rebuttal respondent notes that while it originally reported cash

discounts on certain sales to this particular customer even though it

did not actually grant the discounts, it deleted these cash discounts

from the revised data BHP submitted after the preliminary results were

published. Respondent also notes that this customer failed the arms-

length test so the sales were excluded from the calculation of BHP's

fair market value in any event.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent. In the

Department's preliminary results, we stated that we would request the

updated shipment and payment date information from BHP after the

preliminary results were issued. The Department has analyzed the

information BHP submitted on September 7, 1995, and found the

information to be consistent with the verified information (See, BHP's

Verification Report dated May 23, 1995, p. 17). Therefore, for the

final results the Department will use the updated shipment and payment

date information.

With regard to a cash discount granted at the preliminary results

to a customer who was not eligible to receive a discount, we agree with

respondent that this customer, which did not actually receive the

discount, failed the arms-length test. Therefore, the Department is

excluding its sales from the Department's margin calculation program.

Comment 7: Petitioners allege that because BHP failed to use a

proper U.S. interest rate in the calculation of credit expenses and

inventory carrying costs, in the preliminary results the Department was

forced to use a BIA rate of 3.44 percent, which was the average of the

Federal Reserve Statistical Release one month commercial paper rates.

However, petitioners state that the Department should use the home

market short-term interest as a BIA rate because respondent had no U.S.

borrowings and did not show it had access to U.S. borrowing. Therefore,

in keeping with the Department's practice and the holdings of review

courts, the use of a U.S. interest rate to calculate U.S. credit

expense and inventory carrying costs is not appropriate. (See, Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker From Japan, 60 FR 43761, 67 (1995))

Additionally, petitioners argue that the BIA rate applied by the

Department in the preliminary results was not sufficiently adverse.

Therefore, the Department should use the short-term interest rate BHP

obtained when borrowing in the home market when calculating U.S. credit

expense and inventory carrying costs.

Respondent asserts that it has not advocated use of its home market

interest rate as a surrogate for the U.S. interest rate, as claimed by

petitioners. Respondent contends that the petitioners are incorrect in

claiming that it is the Department's practice to rely upon actual home

market interest rates when a respondent has no U.S. dollar borrowings

and provides no proof that it had access to U.S. borrowings. Rather,

respondent asserts that the Department will now look to external

information to determine an appropriate interest rate even in the

absence of proof of access. (See, Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany,

60 FR 38542, 38545 (1995)) Moreover, respondent argues that, in any

event, it provided evidence that it had access to U.S. borrowings.

Department's Position: When a respondent has no U.S. borrowings, it

is no longer the Department's practice to substitute home market

interest rates when calculating U.S. credit expense and U.S. inventory

carrying costs. Rather, the Department will now match the interest rate

used for credit expenses to the currency in which the sales are

denominated. The Department will use the actual borrowing rates

obtained by a respondent, either directly, or through related

affiliates. Where there is no borrowing in a particular currency, the

Department may use external information about the cost of borrowing in

that currency. (See Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany 60 FR at

38545,46 (1995)) Because respondent did not supply the Department with

an actual U.S. borrowing rate, for the preliminary results, we turned

to external information and applied the average of the Federal Reserve

Statistical Release one-month commercial paper rates in effect during

the POR to calculate U.S. credit expenses and inventory carrying costs.

For the final results, we have reconsidered our use of the

commercial paper rate. BHP provided no evidence that it would have had

access to commercial paper rates in the United States during the POR.

To show access to a U.S. rate, BHP provided the Department a letter

from a U.S. bank stating the prime and LIBOR rates in effect during the

POR. (See Verification Exhibit BT-32) However, this document does not

state that this bank would have lent funds at/above/below these rates

had BHP sought to borrow funds during the POR. This document also does

not speak to the availability of commercial paper rates.

In the absence of U.S. dollar borrowings, we need to arrive at a

reasonable surrogate for imputing U.S. credit expense. There are many

and varied factors that determine at what rate a firm can borrow funds,

such as the size of the firm, its creditworthiness, and its

relationship with the lending bank. Without actual U.S. dollar

borrowings and without substantial evidence on the record indicating

what rates a firm is likely to have received if it had borrowed

dollars, it is impossible to predict the rate at which a company would

have borrowed dollars. Therefore, we chose the average short-term

lending rate as calculated by the Federal Reserve. Each quarter the

Federal Reserve collects data on loans made during the first full week

of the mid-month of each quarter by sampling 340 commercial banks of

all sizes. The sample data are used to estimate the terms of loans

extended during that week at all insured commercial banks. This rate

represents a reasonable surrogate for an actual dollar interest rate

because it is calculated based on actual loans to a variety of actual

customers.

For these reasons, we have recalculated BHP's imputed U.S. credit

expense based on the average lending rate during the POR, as published

by the Federal Reserve. (See the Final Analysis Memorandum for this

review, which is on file in room B-099 of the main building of the

Commerce Department)

Comment 8: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the

Department erred when it used gross unit price in calculating home

market inventory carrying costs, but used average cost of manufacture

(TCOMU) when it calculated U.S. inventory carrying costs. Petitioners

state it is not the Department's practice to calculate inventory

carrying cost based on cost in the U.S. market and price in the home

market. Petitioners state inventory carrying costs should be compared

on a fair apples-to-apples basis based on cost of the merchandise in

both markets. In addition, petitioners note that the Department erred

in calculating U.S. inventory carrying costs by averaging the cost of

the merchandise rather than using the actual product-specific costs,

because it is the Department's practice to use actual product-specific

costs. Therefore, petitioners argue that the Department should

recalculate inventory carrying cost based on total cost of manufacture

in both markets.

Respondent states that the Department did not calculate U.S.

inventory carrying costs based on

[[Page 14055]]

prices, but based on average costs. Respondent notes that BHP submitted

data in its responses pursuant to that methodology and the data was

verified by the Department. Respondent also states that while gross

price does appear in the Department's program with respect to inventory

carrying cost, it is used (to no effect) only to ``convert'' BHP's

inventory carrying expense, not to calculate it. Respondent argues that

no change is required in the program because the Department did not

calculate inventory carrying cost based upon home market gross unit

price.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Contrary to the

respondent's claim, in the preliminary results the Department erred in

relying upon home market prices in calculating home market carrying

costs, while calculating U.S. inventory carrying costs based on the

cost of manufacture. It is the Department's practice to calculate

inventory carrying costs based on costs of the merchandise in both

markets (See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 Fed. Reg. 29553

(June 5, 1995)). Moreover, it is our practice to base the calculation

on product-specific rather than average costs (See, Television

Receivers, Monochrome and Color From Japan, 56 FR 38417, 423 (1991)).

Therefore, for the final results the Department will calculate

inventory carrying costs based on the product-specific costs of the

merchandise in both markets.

Comment 9: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the

Department incorrectly included pre-sale transportation expenses from

the U.S. port to the warehousing and manufacturing operations of BHP

Coated Steel Corporation (Coated) and Building Products as indirect

selling expenses. Petitioners state that on those ESP sales that are

further manufactured, the questionnaire and Department practice require

that these transportation costs be included in the cost of further

manufacture. On ESP sales that are not further manufactured, Section

772(d)(2)(A) of the Act clearly instructs the Department to treat

theses expenses as direct expenses. Accordingly, petitioners argue that

on these sales by Coated and Building Products the pre-sale freight

should be deducted as a cost of manufacture or direct expense.

Department's Position: Section 772(d)(2)(A) requires that the

Department deduct from USP all movement expenses incurred in bringing

the merchandise from the place of shipment in the country of

exportation to the place of delivery in the United States, regardless

of whether sales of the merchandise are purchase price or ESP

transactions. The Department does not treat these movement expenses as

selling expenses, either direct or indirect, such as are incurred

pursuant to section 772(e)(2). (See e.g. Television Receivers,

Monochrome and Color, From Japan, 56 FR 37,078 (1991)); and Sharp

Corporation v. United States, 63 F. 3d 1092 (August 1995)(upholding the

Department's practice of distinguishing U.S. movement expenses from

U.S. selling expenses and of limiting the ESP offset cap in adjusting

FMV to the indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. that are

deducted under 772(e)(2).) Therefore, for the final results, the

Department will deduct pre-sale transportation expenses from these ESP

sales that were not further manufactured. We note that for expenses for

the movement of the imported product to the place of further

manufacture prior to sale will be deducted as part of the cost of

further manufacture (See e.g., Stainless Steel Hollow Products From

Sweden, 59 FR 43810, 43813 (1994)).

Comment 10: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the

Department incorrectly included as indirect selling expenses slitting

and painting costs that BHP Trading, Inc. (Trading) paid to unrelated

parties for certain sales. Petitioners state that because these costs

are directly identified with specific sales these expenses must be

deducted from USP under section 772(d)(2)(A).

Department's Position: Section 772 (e)(3), which states that the

exporter's sales price will be reduced by ``any increased value,

including additional material and labor, resulting from a process of

manufacture or assembly performed on the imported merchandise after the

importation of the merchandise and before its sale to a person who is

not the exporter of the merchandise,'' applies here. Pursuant to that

provision, for the final results, the Department will correct the

margin calculation program and will deduct from ESP Trading's further

processing expenses including slitting and painting costs. For a full

discussion of how we arrived at the total cost of manufacturing of

these further manufactured sales, see the Final Analysis Memorandum for

this review, which is on file in room B-099 of the main building of the

Commerce Department.

Comment 11: For the preliminary results, petitioners state that the

Department had to recalculate U.S. credit expenses because BHP's

inaccurate reporting of payment and shipment dates caused the

Department's margin computer program to calculate incorrect credit

amounts on thousands of sales. Petitioners state that the

miscalculation was caused by BHP reporting a zero in the payment date

field for sales by Building Products, and the reporting of obviously

incorrect shipment dates between June 1995 and December 1999 on sales

by Building Products. Petitioners argue that for the final results the

Department should follow its standard practice of using as BIA the

highest credit cost calculated on any U.S. sale by Building Products

which has a zero entered as the payment date, or an incorrect shipment

date (See, Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement Clinker From France, 58

FR 58683, 58684 (1993)).

Respondent agrees that certain missing Building Products payment

dates or incorrect shipping dates on its computer tape should be

corrected. However, respondent contends that standard Department

practice is to replace the missing or incorrect data with the weighted-

average credit cost for U.S. sales and cites to Stainless Steel

Threaded Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, 59 FR 10784, 10786 (1994) in

support. Respondent argues that a large number of Building Products

transactions had correctly reported credit expenses which BHP states

supports the accuracy and reliability of a weighted average. Respondent

argues that using the highest credit expense as petitioners call for

would result in a credit expense that will go beyond the highest non-

aberrant rate and, therefore, would not be appropriate. Respondent

argues that if the Department chooses to use BIA, it should use the

partial BIA practice outlined in Anti-Friction Roller Bearings From

France, 57 FR 28360, 28379 (1992).

Department's Position: Before the Department may find non-

compliance on the part of a respondent, there must be a clear and

adequate communication requesting information. See e.g., Daewoo Elecs.

Col v. United States, 712 F. Supp 931, 945 (1985). BHP failed to

provide credit expense data for certain sales in Building Products

database even though the Department provided numerous opportunities to

Building Products to correct its credit expense (See Supplemental

Questionnaires dated December 27, 1994 and February 10, 1995).

The Department applies two types of BIA, partial BIA, which is used

when a respondent's submission is deficient in limited respects, but is

otherwise complete and reliable; and total BIA, which is used for a

respondent who fails to timely respond or whose submission contains

fundamental errors that render the entire submission unreliable. The

[[Page 14056]]

use of partial rather than total BIA reflects the fact that, in

general, the respondent has been cooperative. Thus, it is the nature of

the deficiency, rather than the level of cooperation that the

Department considers in exercising its discretion to select partial

BIA. See e.g., Steel Flat Products From France, 58 FR at 37,129 (1993)

(applying highest margin to certain sales of cooperative respondent);

Ad Hoc Committee v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 857 (1994). In this

review, because respondent failed to provide a substantial portion of

the total credit expense data in its possession, we have used the

highest credit cost calculated on any U.S. sales (See e.g.,

Antifriction Bearings (other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, 60 FR 10900, 10907 (1995) ``AFBs'') (See e.g.,

Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement Clinker From France, 58 FR 58683,

58684 (1993)).

Comment 12: Petitioners contend that the Department must deduct

antidumping duties paid by the respondent or related party importers.

Section 1677a(d)(1994) states that the purchase price and exporter's

sales price shall be reduced by United States import duties. According

to the petitioners antidumping duties are ``incident to bringing the

subject merchandise from the place of shipment in the country of

exportation to the place of delivery in the United States'' and are

therefore properly classified as import duties. Furthermore,

petitioners claim ``duties'' or ``import duties'' in trade laws are to

be read as antidumping or countervailing duties unless the provision

specifically indicates otherwise.

Petitioners claim that the CIT has never explicitly held that

section 1677 (c)(2)(A) covers actual antidumping duties in addition to

normal import duties, but argue that the court implicitly so held in

Federal-Mogul v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856,872 (1993).

Petitioners claim that the court distinguished actual antidumping

duties from estimated antidumping duties, which they point to as

support for the notion the actual antidumping duties are part of the

normal import duties to be deducted under section 1677a(d)(2)(A).

Lastly, petitioners claim that language in the legislative history of

the newly enacted Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) which states that

duty absorption is not intended to provide for the treatment of

antidumping duties as cost does not mean that under the new law

antidumping duties cannot be treated as normal duties, that is, as

cost.

Respondent argues that the Department's well-established practice

of not deducting duty as a cost is not only required by law but this

issue is also pending on appeal at the Court of International Trade.

Therefore, respondent asserts it would be inappropriate for the

Department to reverse its practice in this investigation without prior

notice or comment.

Department's Position: While section 772(d)(2)(A) requires the

deduction of normal ``import duties,'' cash deposits of estimated

antidumping duties are not normal import duties, and do not qualify for

deduction under section 772. Contrary to petitioners'' argument, the

CIT in Federal-Mogul v. United States 813 F. Supp. 856, 872 (CIT 1993),

recognized that the actual amounts of normal duties to be assessed upon

liquidation are known because they are based upon rates published in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and the actual entered value of the

merchandise. In contrast, deposits of estimated antidumping duties are

based upon past dumping margins and may bear little relation to the

actual current dumping margin. Thus, the CIT recognized the distinction

between estimated antidumping duties and ``normal'' import duties for

purposes of section 772(d)(2(A).

Petitioners' methodology also conflicts with the holding of the CIT

in PQ Corp. v. United States, 652 F. Supp 724 (CIT 1987), in which the

court addressed the issue of deduction of estimated antidumping duties

under section 772(d)(2)(A). The court cited with approval the

Department's policy of not allowing estimated antidumping duties, based

upon past margins, to alter the calculation of present margins. The

court explained ``[i]f deposits of estimated antidumping duties entered

into the calculation of present dumping margins, then those deposits

would work to open up a margin where none otherwise exists.'' Id. At

737.

Petitioners argue at length that the Department should not

distinguish between purchase price and ESP transactions in deducting

antidumping duties. However, because the Department does not deduct

estimated antidumping duties from any transaction, this argument is

inapposite.

The Department agrees with petitioners that statements made in the

URAA are not relevant in this review, which is being conducted under

pre-URAA law.

Comment 13: Petitioners state that the Department's calculation of

Total Cost of Manufacture (TOTCOM) and Total Cost of Production

(TOTCOP) is incorrect as a result of a clerical error and affects the

cost test and the allocation of profit.

Respondent agrees with petitioners that certain clerical errors

were made regarding TOTCOM. Respondent also claims that the Department

made an error in calculating BHP's general and administrative expense.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. For the final

results, the Department will correct the calculation of TOTCOM, thereby

correcting the calculation of TOTCOP in section 1 of the margin

calculation program. In addition, we agree with respondent and the

Department will correct its error in calculating BHP's general and

administrative expense.

Comment 14: Petitioners state that the definition of TOTCOP

inadvertently omits the packing costs incurred at SCPD on sales shipped

to BHP's steel service centers throughout Australia. Respondent agrees

with petitioners.

Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the

Department will incorporate packing costs incurred at SCPD into its

calculation of TOTCOP in section 1 of the margin calculation program.

Comment 15: Petitioners note that Building Products and Trading

reported the quantities of their sales in terms of short tons, while

Coated claimed that it reported its sales in pounds. Petitioners state

that the Department attempted to place all U.S. sales on the same

weight basis by dividing Coated's reported weight by 2000 (lbs/ton).

However, petitioners allege the Department mistakenly applied the

computer code to Trading's sales instead of Coated's sales. In

addition, petitioners state that Coated appears to have actually

reported its quantities in short tons, not in pounds.

Department's Position: We agree. Coated did report its sales on a

short ton basis. Therefore, we will correct our error in the margin

calculation program because there is no need to adjust Coated's sales

to place all U.S. sales on the same weight basis.

Comment 16: Petitioners state that the Department must put the home

market COP and the U.S. further manufacturing costs on the same weight

basis in order to arrive at an accurate allocation of profit on further

manufactured sales. Petitioners note that BHP reported home market cost

on a metric ton basis, while U.S. further manufacturing costs were

reported on a per short ton basis.

Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the

Department will convert U.S. further manufacturing costs to a metric

ton basis when calculating further manufacturing costs.

[[Page 14057]]

Comment 17: Petitioners state that the Department incorrectly

multiplied the U.S. warranty expenses by the exchange rate on Trading's

U.S. sales twice.

Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the

Department will correct the margin calculation program.

Comment 18: Petitioners state that the Department mistakenly added

three incorrect programming lines to its standard margin calculation

program which is simply a ministerial error. However, petitioners note

that the middle line should be kept and inserted at different places in

the program.

Respondent asserts that the Department's apportionment of U.S.

selling expenses to U.S. sales in the computer lines in question are

correct. However, to avoid double-counting U.S. selling expenses,

direct and indirect, it is necessary to apply a ratio which counts only

the expenses which have not already been deducted as U.S. further

manufacturing G&A costs.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the

Department in its preliminary results inadvertently included this

language in its computer program. However, we disagree with the

petitioners that the Department should keep the middle line in order to

properly calculate the home market indirect selling expense cap. For

the final results, the Department will drop these three lines from its

computer program. The program as written applies a ratio of U.S.

selling (direct and indirect) expenses, where appropriate, to the ESP

cap and offset section of our programming. The program will not be

double-counting thoses U.S. selling expenses which BHP reported for ESP

transactions with further manufacturing costs. For a full discussion of

how we treated these specific programming changes in this review, see

the Final Analysis Memorandum for this review, which is on file in room

B-099 of the main building of the Commerce Department.

Comment 19: Petitioners state that the U.S. packing costs for all

further manufactured sales are reported in U.S. dollars per short ton.

However, the program incorrectly multiplies these U.S. dollar amounts

by the exchange rate in calculating Foreign Unit Price in Dollars

(FUPDOL).

Department's Position: We agree. For the final results, the

Department will correct section 2 of the margin calculation program and

will not multiply the U.S. packing costs by the exchange rate when

calculating FUPDOL.

Comment 20: Petitioners state that in the preliminary results the

Department applied BIA to sales from Building Products that had missing

customer codes and customer level of trade information. Petitioners

argue that the Department should apply the higher of either the margin

from the investigation, or highest non-aberrant margin to these sales.

Department's Position: For certain sales, Building Products did not

report customer level of trade and customer code in its database.

Therefore, we were unable to match these sales to the home market

database in the preliminary results, and we applied the final weighted-

average margin from the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation as

BIA. However, for the final results, in accordance with AFBs and

Department practice we are using the highest weighted-average margin

from this review for these sales.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have determined that the following

margin exists for the period February 2, 1993, through July 31, 1994:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)

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

BHP.......................................................... 39.11

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

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective,

upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative

review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Australia

that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for BHP will be the rate

established above; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed

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

rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a

firm covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the

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

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

the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will

continue to be 24.96 percent, the all others rate established in the

final results of the less than fair value investigation (58 FR 44161,

August 19, 1993).

The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

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

regulations. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO

materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby

requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and 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: March 20, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-7615 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P