Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

[A-489-807]

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

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson, Cameron Werker, or

Fabian Rivelis, Import Administration, International Trade

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

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

482-1776, (202) 482-3874, or (202) 482-3853, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

Final Determination

We determine that certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar)

from Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in Sec. 735 of the Act.

Case History

Since the preliminary determination in this investigation (Notice

of Preliminary Determination and Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 61 FR 53203, (Oct.

10, 1996)), the following events have occurred:

In October 1996, we issued supplemental sales and cost

questionnaires to Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu), Ekinciler Demir

Celik A.S. (Ekinciler), and Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal

Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), and a supplemental cost questionnaire to Izmir

Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A. S. (Metas). Responses to these

questionnaires were also received in October 1996.

From October through December 1996, we verified the questionnaire

responses of Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas. We also verified

that the following companies had no shipments of subject merchandise to

the United States during the period of investigation (POI): Cebitas

Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S., Cukurova Celik Endustrisi A.S., Icdas

Istanbul Celik ve Demir Izabe Sanayii A.S., Diler Demir Celik

Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Diler Dis Ticaret A.S., and Yazici Demir

Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

On January 14 and 27, 1997, the Department requested that Colakoglu

and Habas submit new computer tapes to include data corrections

identified through verification. This information was submitted on

January 17 and 29, 1997, respectively.

Petitioners (i.e., AmeriSteel Corporation and New Jersey Steel

Corporation) and three of the respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Ekinciler,

and Habas) submitted case briefs on January 22, 1997, and rebuttal

briefs on January 27, 1997. No case or rebuttal briefs were received

from any other interested party.

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is all stock deformed

steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils.

This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,

rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round

rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated,

and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item

numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the

scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The POI is January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995.

Facts Available

One of the respondents in this case, Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S.

(IDC), failed to respond completely to the Department's requests for

information. Specifically, IDC submitted a response to Sections A, B,

and C of the May 9 questionnaire, but did not provide any subsequent

information, including a response to the supplemental sales

questionnaire and the cost of production (COP) questionnaire.

On August 12, 1996, IDC informed the Department that it would not

be able to provide any additional information in a timely manner and

requested that the Department use the information already on the record

in its analysis. However, we were unable to perform any analysis for

IDC without a COP response because COP data is an essential component

in our margin calculations. We afforded IDC an opportunity to request

additional time for completion of its responses. However, IDC neither

requested an extension nor submitted any additional data.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party:

(1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form

or manner requested; (3) significantly impedes a determination under

the antidumping statute; or (4) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, use facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable determination. Because IDC

[[Page 9738]]

failed to respond to the Department's supplemental and COP

questionnaires and because that failure is not overcome by the

application of subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, we must use

facts otherwise available with regard to IDC.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be

used against a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See also

Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R.

Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870. IDC's failure to reply to the

Department's requests for information demonstrates that IDC has failed

to act to the best of its ability in this investigation. Thus, the

Department has determined that, in selecting among the facts otherwise

available, an adverse inference is warranted with regard to IDC. As

facts otherwise available, we are assigning to IDC the highest margin

stated in the notice of initiation, 41.8 percent.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies

on secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts

otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate

that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its

disposal. Corroborative means that the secondary information to be used

has probative value. See SAA at 870. In analyzing the petition, the

Department reviewed all of the data the petitioners relied upon in

calculating the estimated dumping margins, and adjusted those

calculations where necessary. See Memorandum to the File from Case

Analysts, dated March 26, 1996. These estimated dumping margins were

based on a comparison of a home market price list to: (1) A contracted

price to a U.S. customer; and (2) an offer of sale to a U.S. customer.

The estimated dumping margins, as recalculated by the Department,

ranged from 27.4 to 41.8 percent. The Department corroborated all of

the secondary information from which the margin was calculated during

our pre-initiation analysis of the petition to the extent appropriate

information was available for this purpose at that time. For purposes

of this determination, the Department re-examined the price information

provided in the petition in light of information developed during the

investigation and found that it continued to be of probative value.

Fair Value Comparisons

Petitioners have requested that the Department and the ITC find

that there is a regional industry 1 and perform the requisite

analysis, in accordance with Sec. 771(4)(C) of the Act. Section

736(d)(1) of the Act directs the Department to assess duties only on

the subject merchandise of the specific exporters and producers that

exported the subject merchandise for sale into the region concerned

during the POI. In our notice of initiation we indicated that the

petition had met the requirements of Sec. 771(4)(C) and

Sec. 732(c)(4)(C) of the Act. However, because respondents were not

able to provide requested information on sales which were ultimately

made in the region, we have not limited our analysis in the LTFV

investigation to only shipments entering ports located in the region.

We will again attempt to collect this information during any subsequent

administrative reviews, in the event that an antidumping duty order is

issued in this case.

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

1 The region identified by the petitioners includes

Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee,

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

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

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Colakoglu,

Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas to the United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the Export Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV),

as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of

this notice.

Regarding Habas, we calculated NV based on constructed value (CV)

in accordance with Sec. 773(a)(4) of the Act because Habas's home

market sales did not provide an appropriate basis for calculating NV.

See the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below, for further

discussion.

Regarding Metas, we calculated NV on the basis of CV because we

found no home market sales at prices above COP. See the ``Normal

Value'' section of this notice, below, for further discussion.

Regarding Colakoglu and Ekinciler, as set forth in

Sec. 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated NV based on sales at the

same level of trade as the U.S. sale. In accordance with

Sec. 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared weighted-average EPs to

weighted-average NVs. In determining averaging groups for comparison

purposes, we considered the appropriateness of such factors as physical

characteristics, level of trade, and significant inflation.

(i) Physical Characteristics

In accordance with Sec. 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products covered by the description in the Scope of Investigation

section, above, produced in Turkey and sold in the home market during

the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Regarding Colakoglu and

Ekinciler, where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the

home market pursuant to Sec. 771(16)(B) of the Act, to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like

product on the basis of the physical characteristics listed in Appendix

III of the Department's antidumping questionnaire.

(ii) Level of Trade

In its preliminary determination, the Department found that no

differences in level of trade existed between home market and U.S.

sales for any participating respondent. Our findings at verification

confirmed that the respondents performed essentially the same selling

activities for each reported home market and U.S. marketing stage.

Accordingly, we determine that all price comparisons are at the same

level of trade and that an adjustment pursuant to Sec. 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act is unwarranted.

(iii) Significant Inflation

Turkey experienced significant inflation during the POI, as

measured by the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) published by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the International Financial

Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid the distortions caused by the effects

of significant inflation on prices, we calculated EPs and NVs on a

monthly-average basis, rather than on a POI-average basis. See, e.g.,

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30315 (June 14, 1996) (Pasta).

Export Price

We calculated EP, in accordance with subsections 772 (a) and (c) of

the Act, where the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and

where constructed export price was not otherwise warranted based on the

facts of record.

A. Colakoglu

We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in

the United States. We made deductions to EP for foreign inland freight,

dunnage expenses, lashing expenses, loading charges, despatch expenses

(which included an adjustment for revenue that was realized on a

contractual agreement between Colakoglu and its ocean freight

[[Page 9739]]

carrier), demurrage expenses, and ocean freight, where appropriate, in

accordance with Sec. 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed an

adjustment to EP for wharfage revenue and freight commissions earned by

an affiliated party because we were unable to make a corresponding

deduction for the affiliate's costs (see Comment 8).

We based our calculations on the revised U.S. sales database

submitted by Colakoglu after verification. We revised the amount of

despatch revenue received on one U.S. sale based on our findings at

verification because this correction was not incorporated into the

revised sales listing.

B. Ekinciler

We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in

the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight,

warehousing expenses, loading charges, tallying expenses, forklift

expenses, dunnage expenses, demurrage expenses (which included an

adjustment for despatch revenues), ramneck tape expenses, customs fees,

detention expenses, stevedoring expenses, wharfage expenses, overage

insurance, and ocean freight, where appropriate, in accordance with

Sec. 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed an adjustment to EP for

agency fee revenue and freight commissions earned by an affiliated

party because we were unable to make a corresponding deduction for the

affiliate's costs (see Comment 8).

We made the following corrections to the data reported by

Ekinciler, based on our findings at verification: a) we revised the

price and quantity for two U.S. sales; b) we revised the control number

used for matching purposes for certain U.S. sales; c) we revised the

following movement expenses for certain U.S. sales: international

freight, forklift expenses, inland freight from plant to port, overage

insurance, and pre-sale warehouse expenses; and d) we revised bank fees

for two U.S. sales. In addition, we disallowed Ekinciler's claim for

dunnage revenue on certain U.S. sales (see Comment 13).

C. Habas

We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in

the United States. We made deductions to EP for foreign inland freight,

dunnage expenses, despatch expenses (which included an adjustment for

revenue that was realized on a contractual agreement between Habas and

its customer), brokerage and handling, demurrage expenses, customs

fees, ocean freight, and marine insurance, where appropriate, in

accordance with Sec. 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed an

adjustment to EP for freight revenue earned by an affiliated party

because we were unable to make a corresponding deduction for the

affiliate's costs (see Comment 8). We revised the amounts reported for

demurrage, brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, and

export fees for certain vessels based on our findings at verification.

D. Metas

We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in

the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight,

lashing expenses, brokerage and handling, demurrage expenses (which

included an upward adjustment for revenue that was realized on a

contractual agreement between Metas and its ocean freight carrier), and

ocean freight, where appropriate, in accordance with Sec. 772(c)(2)(A)

of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of

sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,

we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with Sec. 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because

each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign

like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home

market was viable for each respondent.

Regarding Habas, however, we did not use home market sales as the

basis for NV. Rather, we based NV on CV in accordance with

Sec. 773(a)(4) of the Act. In its questionnaire responses, Habas

notified the Department that its home market was a residual market and

that it did not maintain the records necessary to accurately report the

unique physical characteristics of its home market products. We

examined Habas's record-keeping practices at verification and confirmed

that Habas was unable to report specific product characteristics for

its home market database. Consequently, we are unable to use these

products to make price-to-price comparisons according to the matching

criteria listed in Appendix III of the Department's questionnaire.

Regarding Ekinciler and Metas, these respondents made sales of

subject merchandise to affiliated parties in the home market during the

POI. Consequently, we tested these sales to ensure that, on average,

they were made at ``arm's-length'' prices, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.45. To conduct this test, we compared the gross unit prices of

sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement

charges, rebates, and packing. Based on the results of that test, we

discarded from each respondent's home market database all sales made to

an affiliated party that failed the ``arm's-length'' test.

Based on the cost allegation submitted by petitioners, the

Department determined, pursuant to Sec. 773(b) of the Act, that there

were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in the home

market were made at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise.

Consequently, the Department initiated an investigation to determine

whether the respondents made home market sales during the POI at prices

below their respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts

for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A),

in accordance with Sec. 773(b)(3) of the Act. As noted above, we

determined that the Turkish economy experienced significant inflation

during the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid the distortive effect of

inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, we requested that

respondents submit monthly COP figures based on the current production

costs incurred during each month of the POI. See Pasta.

We used the respondents' monthly COP amounts, adjusted as discussed

below, and the WPI from the IMF (see Comment 2) to compute an annual

weighted-average COP for each respondent during the POI. We compared

the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the foreign

like product, as required under Sec. 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales had been made at prices below their COP.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and packing

expenses. We did not deduct selling expenses from the home market price

because these expenses were included in the SG&A portion of COP.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined: 1) whether, within an extended

period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2)

whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of time.

[[Page 9740]]

Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product

during the POI were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of

that model were made in ``substantial quantities,'' and within an

extended period of time, in accordance with Sec. 773(b)(2) (B) and (C)

of the Act. To determine whether prices were such as to provide for

recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, we tested whether

the prices which were below the per-unit COP at the time of the sale

were above the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POI, in accordance

with Sec. 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. If prices that were below cost at

the time of sale were above the weighted-average cost for the POI, we

included such prices in determining NV (for all respondents except

Habas). Otherwise, we disregarded them.

In accordance with Sec. 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based

on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,

profit, and U.S. packing costs, except as noted in the company-specific

sections below. In accordance with Sec. 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, where

possible, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by each of these companies in connection with the production

and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country. In addition, to account for the

effects of inflation on costs, we calculated each respondent's CV based

on the methodology described in the calculation of COP above. Company-

specific calculations are discussed below.

A. Colakoglu

We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the

following instances:

(1) We adjusted Colakoglu's submitted scrap cost to include the

transfer prices it paid to an affiliated company for freight service

because the transfer prices were made at arm's length and represent the

actual cost to Colakoglu (see Comment 11).

(2) Colakoglu based its reported SG&A and financing expense rates

on amounts contained in the company's tax return. However, because the

Department prefers to use figures from audited financial statements, we

revised the SG&A and financing expense rates for COP and CV using

amounts reported in Colakoglu's 1995 audited financial statements.

(3) We indexed the submitted monthly SG&A and financing expenses

using the IMF's WPI (see Comment 2).

(4) We included translation losses in financing expense (see

Comment 3).

(5) Because Colakoglu did not report costs for products which were

once-folded, we assigned to these products the COP and CV amounts

calculated for the same products sold in straight lengths, based on our

findings at verification confirming that there were no appreciable cost

differences associated with folding.

For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices

above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory prices to home market

customers. In accordance with Sec. 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted

home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In addition, we

adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance

with Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These adjustments included

differences in imputed credit expenses (offset by the interest revenue

actually received by the respondent), bank charges, testing and

inspection fees, and Exporters'' Association fees. We revised the

interest revenue amounts received on certain home market sales based on

our findings at verification. In addition, we recalculated credit

expenses using the interest rates associated with Colakoglu's actual

borrowings in the home market (see Comment 7). Where appropriate, we

made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with

Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.57.

Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.

B. Ekinciler

We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the

following instances:

(1) We revised the reported COP and CV amounts to account for the

costs of rebar produced by subcontractors.

(2) We used the IMF's WPI to inflate the idle asset revalued

depreciation expense adjustment, SG&A and financing expense (see

Comment 2).

(3) We included translation losses in financing expense and

amortized them over the remaining life of the loans (see Comment 3).

(4) We disallowed Ekinciler's offset to financing expenses for

foreign exchange gains related to accounts receivable because they

occurred after the sale date and therefore are not relevant to the

Department's margin calculations.

(5) We added intra-factory freight expense to the cost of billets

(see Comment 19).

(6) We reduced G&A expenses by non-operating revenue and increased

G&A expenses by non-operating expenses (see Comment 17).

For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices

above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory, ex-warehouse or delivered

prices to home market customers. We excluded from our analysis home

market sales by Ekinciler of non-subject merchandise because this

merchandise was not within the class or kind of merchandise subject to

investigation (see Comment 12 and Sec. 731 and Sec. 771(16) of the

Act). Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for

foreign inland freight, inland insurance, and direct warehousing

expenses. We revised certain foreign inland freight expenses based on

our findings at verification. In accordance with Sec. 773(a)(6) of the

Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs. As facts available for a portion of Ekinciler's total packing

expenses, we used the highest verified packing expense for one of

Ekinciler's mills (see Comment 15). In addition, we adjusted for

differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance with

Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These adjustments included

differences in imputed credit expenses, bank charges, warranty

expenses, testing and inspection fees, and Exporters'' Association

fees. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in

accordance with Sec. 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

Sec. 353.57.

Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.

C. Habas

As noted in the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section above, we

determined NV for Habas on the basis of CV. We relied on the

respondent's CV amounts except in the following instances:

(1) We revised the reported CV amounts to account for the cost of

billets and rebar produced by subcontractors.

(2) Because Habas could not accurately report the unique physical

characteristics of its home market products, we were unable to

determine whether Habas made home market sales in the ordinary course

of trade (e.g., perform the cost test). Consequently, we based Habas's

SG&A expenses and

[[Page 9741]]

profit on the weighted average of the profit and SG&A data computed for

those respondents with home market sales of the foreign like product in

the ordinary course of trade (i.e., Colakoglu and Ekinciler) in

accordance with Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Because we were unable to use Habas's home market sales data for

purposes of making price-to-price comparisons, we compared export

prices to CV. We deducted from CV the weighted-average home market

direct selling expenses and added the weighted-average U.S. product-

specific direct selling expenses. Home market direct selling expenses

were based on the weighted average of the selling expense data computed

for Colakoglu and Ekinciler (the respondents for whom we found home

market sales of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of

trade after performing the cost test) in accordance with

Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. U.S. direct selling expenses included

imputed credit expenses, bank charges, testing and inspection fees, and

Exporters' Association fees. We revised the total bank fee amount to

account for unreported bank fees based on our findings at verification.

Regarding Habas's U.S. packing expenses, we revised the monthly

reported figures based on corrections found at verification.

D. Metas

We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the

following instances:

(1) We used the IMF's WPI to recalculate the company's SG&A and

financing expenses (see Comment 2).

(2) We adjusted material costs by using the actual mix of scrap

purchased during 1995 (see Comment 23).

(3) We adjusted SG&A expenses to exclude expenses associated with

the movement of finished goods because COP is calculated on an ex-

factory basis, in accordance with Sec. 773 of the Act.

(4) Because Metas made no home market sales in the ordinary course

of trade (i.e., all sales were found to be below cost), we based the

profit and SG&A expenses used in CV on the weighted average of the

profit and SG&A data computed for Colakoglu and Ekinciler, in

accordance with Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Because all of Metas's home market sales were sold below their COP,

we compared export prices to CV. We deducted from CV the weighted-

average home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-

average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses. Home market

direct selling expenses were based on the weighted average of the

selling expense data computed for Colakoglu and Ekinciler (those

respondents with home market sales of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade after performing the cost test), in accordance

with Sec. 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. U.S. direct selling expenses

included imputed credit expenses (offset by the interest revenue

actually received by the respondent), bank charges, testing and

inspection fees, and Exporters' Association fees.

Currency Conversion

The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the

Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track

or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/

Retrieval Service. See 19 CFR Sec. 353.60. See e.g., Pasta.

Critical Circumstances

In the petition, petitioners made a timely allegation that there is

a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances

exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise.

According to Sec. 733(e)(1) of the Act, if critical circumstances

were alleged under Sec. 733(e) of the Act, the Department will

determine whether:

(A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason

of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject

merchandise, or

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was

imported knows or should have known that the exporter was selling the

subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was

likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and

(B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over

a relatively short period.

In this investigation, the first criterion is satisfied because the

Republic of Singapore began imposing antidumping measures against rebar

from Turkey in 1995. Therefore, we determine that there is a history of

dumping of rebar by Turkish producers/exporters. Because there is a

history of dumping, it is not necessary to address whether the importer

had knowledge that dumping was occurring and material injury was

likely.

Because we have found that the first statutory criterion is met, we

must consider the second statutory criterion: whether imports of the

merchandise have been massive over a relatively short period. Pursuant

to 19 CFR 353.16(f) and 353.16(g), we consider the following to

determine whether imports have been massive over a relatively short

period of time: (1) Volume and value of the imports; (2) seasonal

trends (if applicable); and (3) the share of domestic consumption

accounted for by the imports.

When examining volume and value data, the Department typically

compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and

following the filing of the petition. Under 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), unless

the imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15

percent over the imports during the base period, we will not consider

the imports to have been ``massive.''

To determine whether or not imports of subject merchandise have

been massive over a relatively short period for all respondents, except

IDC, we compared each respondent's export volume for the seven months

subsequent to and including the filing of the petition to that during

the comparable period prior to the filing of the petition. Based on our

analysis, we find that imports of the subject merchandise from

Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas increased by more than 15 percent over a

relatively short period, whereas the imports of subject merchandise

from Colakoglu did not increase by more than 15 percent. Moreover,

regarding IDC, as facts available, we are making the adverse assumption

that imports have been massive over a relatively short period of time

in accordance with Sec. 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act.

Therefore, because there is a history of dumping of such or similar

merchandise, and because we find that imports of rebar from all

respondents except Colakoglu have been massive over a relatively short

period of time, we determine that critical circumstances exist with

respect to exports of rebar from Turkey by Ekinciler, Habas, IDC, and

Metas. Regarding Colakoglu, because we find that imports of rebar from

this company have not been massive over a relatively short period of

time, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with

respect to exports of rebar from Turkey by Colakoglu. For further

discussion, see Comment 10.

Regarding all other exporters, because we find that critical

circumstances exist for three of the four investigated companies, we

also determine that critical circumstances exist for companies covered

by the ``All Others'' rate.

[[Page 9742]]

Verification

As provided in Sec. 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information

submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We

used standard verification procedures, including examination of

relevant accounting and production records and original source

documents provided by respondents.

Interested Party Comments

A. General

Comment 1: Use of Total Facts Available for the Final Determination

Petitioners assert that the Department should base its final

determination with regard to Ekinciler on total facts available due to

the numerous errors discovered by the Department at verification.

Petitioners contend that these errors are so numerous and substantial

that they call into question the propriety of using Ekinciler's

response as the basis for calculating a dumping margin. Petitioners

cite the following examples: (1) Ekinciler included non-subject

merchandise in its home market sales database; (2) Ekinciler's packing

expenses contained errors; (3) Ekinciler did not report the cost of old

stocks (i.e., fuel oil) and certain service production costs; and (4)

Ekinciler was unable to provide the Department with heat sheets for

grade 60 billets as requested.

In support of their position, petitioners cite to Circular Welded

Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from South Africa: Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR 24274 (May 14, 1996) (Steel

Pipe), where the Department used facts available because ``the number

of errors discovered draw into question the completeness and

accurateness of respondent's remaining sales (i.e., sales not

specifically reviewed at verification).'' Petitioners state that the

antidumping law and the Department's practice require that the

Department strive to calculate accurate margins, but that an accurate

and fair comparison is not possible in view of the errors in

Ekinciler's responses. Therefore, according to petitioners, the final

determination for Ekinciler should be based on total facts available.

Moreover, petitioners urge the Department to consider applying total

facts available to Colakoglu and/or Habas on the same basis, even

though their errors were not as egregious or numerous as those of

Ekinciler.

Ekinciler argues that its reported sales and cost data were

substantially verified by the Department and, as a result, the use of

total facts available for the final determination is not supported by

evidence on the record. Respondent cites to Certain Cut-To-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 13834 (March 28, 1996), where the

Department rejected petitioner's request to base the final results of

the review on total best information available because respondent had

been cooperative throughout the proceeding and the errors found at

verification were not so large as to render the respondent's reported

information unusable. Ekinciler maintains that, pursuant to

Sec. 776(a)(2) of the Act, when errors or gaps appear in otherwise

timely and verified information and the respondent has been

cooperative, the Department will simply revise the information or fill

the gaps using non-adverse facts available. Accordingly, Ekinciler

asserts that the Department should, consistent with this practice, fill

the gaps in its reported data found at verification with non-adverse

facts available.

Colakoglu and Habas argue that the information they have submitted

on the record was also substantially verified, and, thus, the use of

total facts available is not supported by evidence on the record.

DOC Position

We agree with respondents. Although our verifications uncovered

certain errors in the responses of these companies, those errors are

not so egregious as to resort to total facts available for purposes of

the final determination. The errors found at Ekinciler consisted

primarily of minor variations in the reported movement expenses due to

clerical errors and inadvertent omissions--errors that the Department

routinely corrects in making its final determination. Regarding the

inclusion of non-subject merchandise, the Department normally excludes

sales from its analysis which were found at verification to have been

incorrectly included. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey, 61 FR 69067, 69068 (Dec. 31, 1996), Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Extruded Rubber Thread from

Malaysia, 61 FR 54767 (Oct. 22, 1996), and Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 FR 31960,

31965 (June 19, 1995).

Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the errors found at Ekinciler

were not of the same magnitude as the errors described in Steel Pipe.

The errors encountered at verification in Steel Pipe undermined the

fundamental components of the respondent's submitted data and included

most notably quantity and value reconciliation errors, unreported

sales, and incorrect prices for a majority of sales. Such errors led

the Department to determine that respondent's questionnaire responses

were unverifiable. In the instant case, the discrepancies found in

Ekinciler's responses are not so material and pervasive as to warrant

use of total facts available. Consequently, in accordance with our

practice, we have used facts available only for certain aspects of

Ekinciler's response, as discussed in other comments below.

Comment 2: Selection of Inflation Index

Respondents argue that monthly costs should be inflated to year-end

values using the WPI published by the IMF rather than the primary

metals index (PMI) published by the Turkish Institute of Statistics.

Respondents note that the WPI was used to determine that Turkey was

experiencing hyperinflation and, thus, this index should be used to

account for distortions caused by hyperinflation. Additionally,

respondents argue that they paid for major material inputs using U.S.

dollars. For this reason, respondents argue that the Department should

use the WPI--which is a general indicator of the price levels of the

whole economy--because it provides a reliable, macroeconomic indicator

of the relative values of the Turkish lira and the U.S. dollar.

Respondents assert that the PMI does not reflect macroeconomic

considerations.

Petitioners counter that PMI should be used to inflate monthly

costs to year-end values because this index is industry-specific and,

unlike the WPI, it is not subject to influences which are irrelevant to

the merchandise under investigation. Petitioners argue that the test of

whether an economy is experiencing hyperinflation is a threshold test

and the use of a particular index to determine whether the threshold

has been met does not imply that the same index should be used to

measure the impact of inflation. Petitioners also claim that it is

irrelevant whether the index used is a reliable indicator of the

relative values of the Turkish lira and the U.S. dollar because the

index is being used for a different purpose--to inflate Turkish lira-

denominated monthly expenses and cost of sales to year-end amounts.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners that it is irrelevant whether the index

used is a

[[Page 9743]]

macroeconomic indicator of the relative value of the Turkish lira and

the U.S. dollar since inflation adjustments concern only the Turkish

lira. However, we have reconsidered our use of the PMI in the

preliminary determination and, for the reasons set forth below, have

used instead the WPI published by the IMF to account for inflation in

the final determination.

There are no financial reporting requirements prescribed by Turkish

authorities that require the financial statements of Turkish companies

to be restated to account for the effects of inflation. Consequently,

in the absence of this requirement, none of the respondents restated

their financial statements to correct for the effects of inflation.

Accordingly, in this instance, we relied on International Accounting

Standard (IAS) 29 entitled ``Financial Reporting in Hyper-inflationary

Economies'' for guidance on an appropriate methodology. (See Memorandum

to the File from Paul McEnrue, dated February 12, 1997.) According to

IAS 29, financial statements prepared in the currency of a highly

inflationary economy must be restated to account for the effects of

inflation. The statement requires the use of a general price index that

reflects changes in general purchasing power to restate financial

statements. The IAS statement also notes that the same index should be

used for all enterprises that report in the currency of the same

economy. Because the WPI measures changes in the general price index,

while the PMI does not, we find that it is more appropriate to use the

WPI to account for inflation for purposes of the final determination.

Comment 3: Translation Losses 2

Respondents contend that translation losses from their foreign

currency borrowings (which were principally U.S. dollar-denominated)

should be excluded from the submitted costs. Respondents reason that,

since the translation losses are not a result of cash transactions, the

losses are fictional. Respondents explain that the translation losses

result from converting dollar-denominated loans into their Turkish lira

equivalents as of the balance sheet date. Respondents argue that the

translation losses are equivalent to monetary corrections on domestic

loans and the Department's practice is to exclude monetary corrections

from reported costs. Respondents note that, where the indexation (i.e.,

adjustment for inflation) of domestic loan balances is required by the

generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) of a hyperinflationary

economy, the Department's practice has been to exclude the monetary

corrections on such loan balances and to treat the indexation of those

loan balances as an adjustment which is not relevant to the

determination of cost (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Tubeless Disc Wheels From Brazil, 52 FR 8947, 8949 (March

20, 1987) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 59 FR 8598, 8598 (Feb. 23,

1994)). Respondents maintain that their adjustment of foreign currency

loan balances for translation losses is equivalent to the indexation of

domestic loans and, thus, the Department should not include

respondents'' translation losses in COP and CV. Additionally, because

costs included in CV are eventually converted into dollars, respondents

argue that the Department should base loan costs on the U.S. dollar-

denominated loan balances and avoid the conversion from dollars to

Turkish lira and back to dollars which creates a loss that does not

exist in dollar terms.

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

2 Foreign currency translation is the process of

expressing amounts denominated in one currency in terms of a second

currency, by using the exchange rate between the currencies. Assets

and liabilities are translated at the current exchange rate on the

balance sheet date. The Department typically includes foreign

exchange translation gains and losses in a respondent's financial

expenses if such gains and losses are related to the cost of

acquiring debt for purposes of financing the production of the

subject merchandise.

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

Petitioners argue that translation losses are ``real costs'' that

should be included in COP and CV. To support their position,

petitioners cite the decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT)

in Micron Tech. v. United States, 993 F. Supp. 21, 29-30 (CIT 1995). In

that case, the CIT held that ``increased liability for borrowed funds

caused by fluctuations in the exchange rate . . . are akin to an

increased cost of borrowing funds that should be included in any

reasonable measure of the cost climate faced by the company during the

period of investigation. . .'' Moreover, petitioners maintain that it

is the Department's practice to include foreign exchange translation

losses in the cost of manufacturing (see Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products,

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

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

Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37187 (July 9, 1993)).

Petitioners contend that respondents'' argument for excluding

translation costs from COP and CV fails for the following reasons.

First, CV is the cost of producing merchandise in the exporting country

and not the cost of producing merchandise in the United States or in

U.S. dollars. Therefore, the fact that a translation loss does not

exist in dollars is irrelevant. Second, the Department's practice of

excluding from costs monetary adjustments from the indexation of

domestic loan balances does not apply in this case because respondents

do not index their foreign currency or domestic loans and Turkish GAAP

does not call for such indexation. Third, respondents did not cite any

precedent which establishes the Department's position regarding the

treatment of monetary corrections for foreign currency loans. Thus,

petitioners urge the Department to include respondents'' translation

losses in COP and CV.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. The cases cited by respondents are not

specifically related to the Department's treatment of monetary

corrections for foreign currency loans. The Department does not agree

with respondents' supposition that their translation losses are

fictional. The translation losses are recorded in respondents''

financial statements in the ordinary course of business. In the past,

the Department has found that translation losses represent an increase

in the actual amount of cash needed by respondents to retire their

foreign currency-denominated loan balances. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from

Ecuador, 24 FR 7019, 7039, (Feb. 6, 1995). We have therefore included

the translation losses in our calculation of COP and CV and have

amortized these expenses over the remaining life of the companies''

loans.

Comment 4: Waste and Discarded Material

Petitioners note that the accounting method used by each respondent

to record the value of scrap (either generated from or recycled back

into rebar production) can result in a significant understatement of

costs. Petitioners reason, therefore, that the Department should

closely scrutinize the quantity, value and accounting treatment of

scrap reported by each respondent.

Respondents maintain that each company's treatment of scrap is

reasonable and does not result in a significant understatement of

costs.

DOC Position

We reviewed and verified the respondents' accounting treatment of

[[Page 9744]]

scrap. We found respondents' treatment accurately reflects the value of

scrap. See Colakoglu Cost Verification Report at 6 and 7; Ekinciler

Cost Verification Report at 10 and 18; Habas Cost Verification Report

at 9 and 17; and Metas Cost Verification Report at 10 and 18.

Comment 5: Treatment of Defective Bar and ``Out-of-form'' Billets

Petitioners assert that Colakoglu and Habas improperly treated

defective bar and ``out-of-form'' billets, respectively, as co-

products. Petitioners argue that both respondents should have treated

these products as by-products. Petitioners state that by-products are:

(1) products that have low sales value compared to the sales value of

the main product; and (2) produced unintentionally as part of the

manufacturing process from the intended product. Petitioners assert

that Colakoglu's defective bar and Habas's out-of-form billet satisfy

all the by-product criteria and, therefore, should be treated as such.

Colakoglu maintains that its co-product accounting treatment of

defective bar is proper, stating that a co-product accounting

methodology is consistent with the manner in which defective bar is

treated in its books and records in the normal course of business.

Colakoglu argues that during verification the Department did not find

its co-product methodology distortive.

Habas argues that it properly treated ``out-of-form'' billet as a

co-product because billets are a finished good and are treated as such

in Habas's books. Furthermore, Habas contends that it accounts for such

billets in the same manner as it accounts for plain billets in the

ordinary course of business. Habas also states that the only difference

between billet and rebar production processes is the additional rolling

time required for rebar.

DOC Position

We agree with respondents. We believe that the methods used by

Colakoglu and Habas to account for defective bar and ``out of form''

billet, respectively, are reasonable because we found that they do not

distort the cost of producing rebar. Consequently, we have relied on

them for purposes of the final determination.

According to Sec. 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, ``costs shall normally

be calculated based on the records of the exporter or producer of the

merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with the generally

accepted accounting principles of the exporting country (or the

producing country, when appropriate) and reasonably reflect the costs

associated with the production and sale of the merchandise.'' See also

H.R. Doc. No. 316 (SAA) at 834 and 835. The CIT has upheld the

Department's use of expenses recorded in the company's financial

statements, when those statements are prepared in accordance with the

home country's GAAP and do not significantly distort the company's

actual costs. See e.g., Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, Slip Op.

94-160 at 22 (CIT 1994).

Accordingly, our practice is to adhere to an individual firm's

recording of costs, if we are satisfied that such principles reasonably

reflect the costs of producing the subject merchandise and are in

accordance with the GAAP of its home country. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit

from Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29559 (June 5, 1995); Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel Welded Pipe

from the Republic of Korea, 57 FR 53693, 53705 (Nov. 12, 1992); and

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol

from South Africa, 60 FR 22550, 22556 (May 8, 1995). Normal accounting

practices provide an objective standard by which to measure costs,

while allowing respondents a predictable basis on which to compute

those costs. However, in those instances where it is determined that

normal accounting practices result in an unreasonable allocation of

production costs, the Department will make certain adjustments or may

use alternative methodologies that more accurately capture the costs

incurred. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: New Minivans from Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21952 (May 26, 1992).

In the instant proceeding, therefore, the Department examined

whether respondents' accounting methodology for defective bar and ``out

of form'' billet reasonably reflects the cost of producing the subject

merchandise. We found that the quantity of defective bar and ``out of

form'' billet produced by these companies, in relation to total

production of all bar products, is so small as to not significantly

affect the per-unit cost for rebar. See Colakoglu Cost Verification

Report at 12 and Habas Cost Verification Report at 11. As such, we have

determined that respondents' methods of accounting for defective bar

and ``out of form'' billet do not distort the cost of producing rebar.

Moreover, these methods are used in the normal course of business.

Accordingly, we have accepted these methods for purposes of the final

determination.

Comment 6: Revised Cost Databases Submitted by Colakoglu and Habas

Petitioners argue that several fields in the cost databases

submitted after verification were revised without explanation from

those used for the preliminary determination. Therefore, petitioners

argue that the Department should use facts available instead of the

unexplained values contained in the altered fields. If the Department

has the information at its disposal, petitioners ask that the

Department explain why certain fields were omitted from the revised

cost databases.

In addition, petitioners state that Habas reported costs for

certain products for months during which there was no production of

those products. Petitioners maintain that the Department should ensure

that Habas did not fail to account for all costs actually incurred and

that the method Habas used to calculate monthly costs appropriately

allocated all costs. Petitioners argue that the Department should use

total facts available if Habas's submissions do not account for all

costs actually incurred, or if all costs are accounted for but

inappropriately allocated.

Colakoglu maintains that certain fields in its cost database were

altered due to changes that were requested by the Department.

Furthermore, Colakoglu states that certain fields were omitted because

the Department did not use those fields for the preliminary

determination, and, in fact, never requested that such data be

reported.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. We analyzed respondents' revised

databases and found that all revisions were the direct result of

changes requested by the Department. Moreover, regarding the omitted

fields, we agree with Colakoglu that these fields were unnecessary and

were not used in our analysis. Therefore, we have accepted respondents'

revised databases for purposes of the final determination.

Company-Specific Issues

B. Colakoglu

Comment 7: Interest Rate Used to Calculate Home Market Credit Expenses

Colakoglu argues that the Department should not use loans issued by

the Turkish Eximbank in calculating its home market imputed credit

expenses. Colakoglu asserts that its Eximbank loans were related to

export-oriented activities and, as such, were not used to

[[Page 9745]]

finance home market sales. As precedent for its position, Colakoglu

cites Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 43327 (Aug. 16, 1993)

(Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware), where the Department excluded short-

term export loans from the information used to calculate the home

market interest rate.

Petitioners disagree, stating that the Department should use

Colakoglu's Eximbank loans in calculating credit because Colakoglu had

no other source of borrowings denominated in Turkish lira during the

POI. Petitioners maintain that Colakoglu's actual borrowings are more

indicative of the company's short-term borrowing experience than are

the rates published by the IMF. Moreover, petitioners claim that the

facts in this case are distinguishable from those in Porcelain-on-Steel

Cooking Ware because the respondent in Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware

had other short-term loans denominated in the home market currency.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. In general, the Department's practice

with regard to the interest rate used to calculate home market imputed

credit expenses is to base the rate on a company's actual borrowings in

the home market currency. The Department makes exceptions to this

practice either when there are no loans in the home market currency or

when a company is able to prove that its loans in that currency do not

form an appropriate basis for the home market interest rate (e.g., when

they are tied to specific export transactions).

In Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware, it was demonstrated to the

Department's satisfaction that the loans at issue were tied directly to

exports of subject merchandise. In this case, however, not only is

there no evidence on the record showing that these loans are tied to

U.S. sales of rebar, but there is also no evidence that they are tied

to exports at all. Moreover, these loans are based on Turkish lira-

denominated borrowings and bear interest rates into which inflation has

been factored. Consequently, we find that the interest rates paid on

these loans are more indicative of Colakoglu's actual borrowing

experience than are the interest rates published by the IMF.

Accordingly, we have used them in our calculation of home market credit

for purposes of the final determination.

Comment 8: SG&A Expenses Incurred by Affiliated Parties at the Port

Colakoglu argues that the Department should not include in its U.S.

movement expenses those SG&A expenses incurred by Denak, an affiliated

party, in connection with export-related activities at the port.

According to Colakoglu, the administrative services performed by Denak

consist of securing vessels and communicating with vessel owners, not

running the port or moving goods. As such, Colakoglu asserts that these

circumstances are analogous to the circumstances in which a respondent

itself secures the services of an unaffiliated ocean freight company.

Colakoglu notes that, in such an instance, the Department does not add

a respondent's overhead expenses to the amount reported for ocean

freight.

Colakoglu also contends that in the event that the Department

decides that it must make an adjustment for Denak's SG&A expenses, the

Department should exclude those expenses which were unrelated to

services provided on behalf of Colakoglu.

Petitioners assert that the Department should make an adjustment

for Denak's SG&A expenses in order to ensure that all U.S. movement

expenses are captured in the margin calculation.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners and have made no adjustment for

Denak's SG&A expenses for the reasons explained below.

Regarding services provided by affiliated parties, the Department's

practice is to value the services at an arm's-length price. In order to

determine whether the price between the parties is at arm's length, the

Department generally looks at prices charged by the affiliate to

unaffiliated parties or at prices paid by the respondent to an

unaffiliated party. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Finland, 56 FR 56363

(Nov. 4, 1991). When there is no transaction with an unaffiliated

party, the Department must find another way to value the services in

question.

In this case, we examined Denak's role in the export process at

verification. We noted that Denak performed several services for

Colakoglu related to the shipment of the subject merchandise to the

United States. However, we were unable to determine the arm's-length

value of these services because we found that Denak did not charge

Colakoglu for such services, nor did Colakoglu secure the same services

from an outside party. As an alternative, we examined Denak's total

SG&A expenses at verification. However, we are unable to use these

expenses in our margin calculations because they relate to Denak's

operations as a whole, and not just to the shipment of rebar to the

United States.

Under these circumstances, the Department would normally base the

per-unit amount of the expense on facts available. Given the particular

facts of this case, however, we find that this is not appropriate for

Colakoglu. Specifically, we find that there is no net cost associated

with Denak's activities because: (1) Denak received revenue from

unaffiliated parties which was directly related to Colakoglu's export

of subject merchandise to the United States; and (2) Denak's revenues

exceeded its aggregate costs during the POI. As such, we determine that

no adjustment for Denak's SG&A expenses (or the directly-related

revenues) is warranted in this case.

We note that two of the other respondents, Ekinciler and Habas, had

similar arrangements with affiliated parties during the POI and similar

problems in determining the amount of per-ton SG&A expenses. Consistent

with our treatment of Colakoglu's situation, we have made no

adjustments for either the expenses or revenues associated with these

transactions.

Comment 9: Use of Data Contained in Revised Sales Database

At verification, the Department found that in certain instances

Colakoglu had reported average home market price and interest revenue

data. Colakoglu argues that the Department should accept its revised

database correcting these data for purposes of the final determination.

Colakoglu maintains that the averaging affected only a limited portion

of the home market database. Moreover, Colakoglu notes that the

corrected information was verified by the Department.

Petitioners contend that the Department should not use the data in

question. According to petitioners, this information is untimely

because it was submitted after the deadline for submission of factual

information (i.e., seven days prior to the start of verification).

Petitioners cite Elemental Sulfur from Canada: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (Jan. 7, 1997)

(Elemental Sulfur), which outlines the conditions under which the

Department will accept new information

[[Page 9746]]

at verification.3 Petitioners claim that the conditions set forth

in Elemental Sulfur do not apply here.

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

\3\ These conditions are: (1) the need for the information was

not evident previously, (2) the information makes minor corrections

to information already on the record, or (3) the information

corroborates, supports, or clarifies information already on the

record.

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

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. The information in question was not

new information within the meaning of 19 CFR Sec. 353.31 because it

consisted of minor corrections to data which were already on the record

and affected only a limited portion of Colakoglu's home market

database. Accordingly, consistent with our practice outlined in

Elemental Sulfur, we used Colakoglu's revised home market database for

purposes of the final determination.

Comment 10: Critical Circumstances

Colakoglu maintains that the Department should determine that

critical circumstances do not exist with respect to its shipments based

on the fact that the increase in its imports has not been massive prior

to the preliminary determination. According to Colakoglu, it is the

Department's practice to use in its analysis the longest period for

which information is available from the month of the filing of the

petition until the effective date of the preliminary determination. In

this case, the appropriate period would be seven months.

Petitioners contend, however, that the Department should define the

period used in its analysis as the five-month period between the filing

of the petition and the date of the preliminary determination as

originally scheduled (i.e., August 1996). Petitioners argue that, had

it not been for the Department's decision to conduct a below-cost

investigation, the Department would have issued the preliminary

determination in August and Colakoglu would have been effectively

precluded from making its argument on critical circumstances. Moreover,

petitioners assert that a finding in Colakoglu's favor would have a

chilling effect on petitioners' use of either the below-cost provisions

or the critical circumstances provisions of the antidumping law, by

forcing petitioners to choose between alleging the existence of sales

below cost or critical circumstances.

DOC Position

We agree with Colakoglu. In determining whether imports have been

massive within the meaning of Sec. 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act, it is the

Department's practice to base its analysis on the longest period for

which information is available, normally beginning with the month of

filing of the petition 4 and ending with the date of the

preliminary determination. See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's

Republic of China (issued on Feb. 24, 1997), where the Department used

a seven-month period; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 60

FR 56567, 56574 (Nov. 9, 1995), where the Department used periods

ranging from three to six months, based on ``the Department's practice

of using the longest period for which information is available from the

month that the petition was submitted through the effective date of the

preliminary determination,'' affirmed in Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic

of China, 61 FR 19026, 19031 (April 30, 1996)); and Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Disposable Pocket

Lighters from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 436, 437 (Jan. 4,

1995), where the Department used a period of seven months, affirmed in

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

Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR

22359, 22363 (May 5, 1995).

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

\4\ The date on which a petition is filed will determine

whether the month of filing will be included in the base or

comparison period.

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

Consequently, we have based our analysis on the seven-month period

between the filing of the petition and the date of the preliminary

determination. Using these data, we find that imports by Colakoglu have

not been massive over a relatively short period of time. Accordingly,

we find that critical circumstances do not exist for Colakoglu.

Comment 11: Affiliated Party Freight Services

Colakoglu argues that the transfer prices that it pays to its

affiliate Denak for transporting imported scrap are not equivalent to

market prices and, therefore, should not be used in the Department's

final determination. Respondent notes that, in the past, the Department

has included transfer prices only when it was demonstrated that they

were equivalent to market prices. See Final Determination at Less Than

Fair Value: High Information Content Flat Panel Displays and Display

Glass from Japan, 56 FR 32376, 32376 (July 16, 1991). Respondent

reasons that, in order for the Department to conclude that the transfer

price between Colakoglu and its affiliate is at arm's length, the

Department must conclude that prices charged by the affiliate are

comparable to those charged by an unaffiliated freight supplier.

Respondent argues that the discrepancy between Denak's price and the

unaffiliated price demonstrates that the amount charged by Denak is not

an arm's-length price and should be disregarded. Respondent notes that

the statute does not specify that only transfer prices that are lower

than market prices may be disregarded. Rather, respondent points out

that in the past the Department has also disregarded transfer prices

which are higher than arm's-length prices. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Color Picture Tubes from Japan,

55 FR 37915, 37922 (Sept. 14, 1990).

Petitioners argue that the Department should continue to use the

price Colakoglu paid to Denak for freight services because it is an

arm's-length price. Petitioners note that the Department has recently

found that ``in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons

involving a major input, we will use the highest of the transfer price

between the affiliated parties, the market price between unaffiliated

parties, and the affiliated supplier's cost of producing the major

input.'' See Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review:

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United

Kingdom, 62 FR 2081, 2115 (Jan. 15, 1997) (AFB's).

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. In determining whether a transaction

occurred at an arm's-length price for a major input, as stated in

AFB's, the Department will use the highest of the transfer price

between the affiliated parties, the market price between unaffiliated

parties, and the affiliated supplier's cost of producing a major input.

In the normal course of business Colakoglu records the transfer

price in its books to account for freight costs from its affiliate.

However, Colakoglu submitted its affiliate's cost of providing freight

service, the transfer price paid by Colakoglu, and prices from

unaffiliated freight companies. In accordance with the practice

outlined in AFB's, we

[[Page 9747]]

compared these data and found that the price paid to Denak was an

arm's-length price for freight services pursuant to Sec. 773(f) (2) or

(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we have used the affiliated company's

transfer price to value freight services.

C. Ekinciler

Comment 12: Non-Subject Merchandise Ekinciler argues that the inclusion

of de minimis quantities of non-subject merchandise in its home market

database is not material to the calculation of dumping and that the

Department should not adjust its reported home market sales database

with regard to non-subject merchandise. Ekinciler states that the

number of sales of fabricated rebar inadvertently included in its home

market sales database is so small as to be insignificant. Ekinciler

maintains that a comparison of the relative prices of the non-subject

rebar to the subject rebar demonstrates that the inclusion of the non-

subject merchandise is of no consequence and may work to its

disadvantage. Thus, Ekinciler asserts that the Department should

continue to use Ekinciler's submitted home market database without

making adjustments for fabricated rebar for purposes of the final

determination.

Petitioners contend that, if the Department does not base

Ekinciler's margin on total facts available (see Comment 1), it should

use the most adverse facts available for this aspect of Ekinciler's

margin.

DOC Position

We disagree with respondent, in part. We agree with respondent that

the Department should continue to use its home market sales listing

because the quantity of non-subject merchandise included is small.

However, according to Sec. 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the price on

which normal value is based is ``the price at which the foreign like

product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale)

for consumption in the exporting country * * *'' Therefore, we are

required by the statute to exclude non-subject merchandise from our

calculation of normal value.

Petitioners point to the inclusion of non-subject merchandise as

evidence that Ekinciler's entire response is unreliable and propose the

use of the most adverse facts available for this aspect of Ekinciler's

response. We find, however, that adverse facts available is not

warranted in this instance because we were able to verify Ekinciler's

home market sales of subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have excluded

all sales of non-subject merchandise discovered at verification.

Comment 13: Dunnage Revenue

Petitioners argue that the Department should omit dunnage revenue

from the calculation of U.S. price for Ekinciler because dunnage

revenue could not be verified. Specifically, petitioners cite to the

verification report which stated that Ekinciler was ``unable to provide

bills of lading for third country sales that would have confirmed which

shipment was more appropriately associated with the dunnage sales.''

Ekinciler contends that, although it was not possible to directly

tie the reported dunnage revenue to a specific U.S. sale, its

methodology is reasonable, and the Department should make an adjustment

for the reported revenue. Ekinciler maintains that, as stated in the

verification report, no more than one vessel may dock at the port for

loading at any one time. Therefore, since Ekinciler matched dunnage

sales to shipments that left the port on approximately the same date as

the date of the dunnage sale, it claims that it is reasonable to assume

that the reported dunnage revenues were earned in connection with the

identified U.S. shipments.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. At verification, we noted that Ekinciler

did not receive revenue from the sale of dunnage materials on every

export shipment. Consequently, we were unable to verify that the

reported dunnage revenue actually corresponded to shipments of U.S.-

bound rebar and not to shipments to other export markets. Therefore we

did not include dunnage revenue in our final margin calculation for

Ekinciler.

Comment 14: Home Market Credit Expense

Ekinciler asserts that the Department should make no adjustment for

imputed home market credit expense for the final determination because

this adjustment is de minimis. Ekinciler claims that the imputed credit

expense resulting from the use of its verified average number days

outstanding is insignificant, and that the Department should disregard

this insignificant adjustment to NV in accordance with Sec. 777A(a)(2)

of the Act and 19 CFR 353.59(a). Alternatively, Ekinciler contends that

the Department should correct its calculation of credit to reflect that

the interest rate reported is an annual rate.

DOC Position

We agree with respondent, in part. According to Sec. 773A(a)(2) of

the Act, the Secretary may disregard adjustments that are

insignificant. However, there is no requirement that adjustments which

may be insignificant must be disregarded. We have made the adjustment

to NV for imputed credit expenses because this adjustment can be easily

made and the information on which it is based has been verified and is

reliable. However, we agree with respondent that this expense was

calculated incorrectly for the preliminary determination. Accordingly,

we have corrected our calculation for the final determination to

reflect that the interest rate was reported on an annual basis.

Comment 15: Packing Expenses

Ekinciler argues that the Department should accept its packing

expenses as reported. Ekinciler maintains that, although the

Department's verification report indicates that there was a variation

in the reported packing expenses for one of its mills as well as a

difference in home market and U.S. packing, it was unaware that there

was any significant discrepancy between the reported packing costs and

those found at verification. Ekinciler states that, if the Department

should find that the packing expenses with respect to the mill in

question need to be corrected, the Department may use any of the

reported monthly packing expenses from its other mills. According to

Ekinciler, these sources provide accurate, verified data reasonable for

use as facts available, particularly since Ekinciler can be assumed to

have sourced all of its packing materials for all of its mills from the

same sources at the same prices.

Petitioners argue that, if the Department does not base Ekinciler's

margin on total facts available (see Comment 1), it should use the most

adverse facts available for this aspect of Ekinciler's margin

calculation.

DOC Position

We disagree with Ekinciler that the Department should accept its

submitted packing expenses. At verification, Ekinciler was unable to

demonstrate that the packing expenses associated with one of its mills

were reported correctly. Consequently, we have based the packing

expenses for the mill in question on facts available. As facts

available, we used the highest verified monthly packing expense

reported by Ekinciler for any of its other mills.

[[Page 9748]]

Comment 16: Depreciation

Petitioners claim that Ekinciler failed to allocate the year-end

inflation adjustment for depreciation expense to each month of the

year. Thus, petitioners maintain that Ekinciler's monthly depreciation

costs are understated.

According to Ekinciler, its cost submissions clearly show that the

year-end inflation adjustment to depreciation expense was included in

the monthly costs used to derive COP and CV. Also, Ekinciler asserts

that, if the Department inflates its monthly production costs as it did

in the preliminary determination, it will overstate its depreciation

expense because this expense was already adjusted to account for

inflation. Ekinciler notes that the Department verified its reported

depreciation expense included a monthly adjustment. This adjustment was

calculated at year-end using the revaluation index published by the

Turkish Ministry of Finance and applied to each month's costs.

Therefore, Ekinciler contends that in the final determination the

Department should either: (1) Not inflate reported monthly depreciation

expenses; or (2) deflate the reported monthly depreciation expenses to

remove the effects of the revaluation before depreciation expenses are

inflated.

DOC Position

We agree with Ekinciler. Ekinciler expressed the year-end inflation

adjustment to depreciation expense as a percentage of cost of sales and

applied this percentage to reported monthly manufacturing costs to

derive the monthly depreciation expense reported for COP and CV. Thus,

contrary to petitioners'' claim, the adjustment to inflate depreciation

expense was applied to each month of the POI.

Additionally, the Department found at verification that the

reported depreciation expense was calculated using asset costs that had

been revalued with the revaluation index published by the Turkish

Ministry of Finance. Moreover, Ekinciler provided a translation of the

Ministry of Finance's regulations concerning asset revaluation which

indicated that the revaluation index is based on an inflation index.

Thus, revaluation using this index means that the depreciation expense

was already adjusted for inflation. Accordingly, for the final

determination we have subtracted depreciation expense from total

manufacturing costs before inflating those costs to year-end values. We

added inflated manufacturing costs to the reported depreciation expense

to derive the total cost of manufacturing.

Comment 17: Other Revenue and Expenses

Petitioners maintain that Ekinciler should include non-operating

and other expenses in general and administrative (G&A) expenses because

these expenses are related to the production of subject merchandise.

However, petitioners argue that non-operating and other revenue should

not be used to offset G&A expenses because this revenue is either from

activities unrelated to the sale or manufacture of rebar or from

accounting adjustments.

Ekinciler maintains that both non-operating and other expenses and

revenue should be included as reported because these are components of

G&A expenses. Unless G&A expenses are reported on a divisional or

product-line basis, Ekinciler contends that it is irrelevant that an

element of G&A does not relate to the subject merchandise.

DOC Position

We agree with Ekinciler that both non-operating and other revenue

and expenses should be included in G&A. At verification, we identified

each item included in non-operating and other revenue and expenses.

After examining these items we determined that, except for one revenue

item, Ekinciler's non-operating and other revenue and expenses relate

to the subject merchandise. We reached this conclusion because these

items are generated from resources associated with the production of

subject merchandise. The Department's practice is to adjust G&A

expenses for miscellaneous revenue and expenses related to the

production of subject merchandise (see Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, 60 FR

33539, 33550, (June 28, 1995)). Therefore, we have increased G&A by

non-operating and other expenses and reduced G&A expenses by non-

operating and other revenue except for the one revenue item unrelated

to the production of subject merchandise.

Comment 18: G&A Rate

Petitioners note that Ekinciler included certain non-manufacturing

costs (i.e., costs associated with operating Ekinciler's port and

cafeteria) in the denominator of its G&A ratio, but did not report

these costs elsewhere in its response. Petitioners argue that, because

these non-manufacturing costs were not included in COP and CV, the

Department should base both Ekinciler's G&A rate and COP on adverse

facts available. Petitioners claim that Ekinciler's failure to report

the costs in question demonstrates that the company's response contains

other inaccuracies. At a minimum, however, petitioners argue that, if

the Department does not apply adverse facts available, it should treat

the non-manufacturing costs consistently (i.e., either exclude or

include such costs from both the G&A rate and the reported costs).

Ekinciler maintains that the Department should accept its G&A rate

as reported (i.e., by including the non-manufacturing costs in question

as part of the denominator of the calculation of the G&A rate).

Ekinciler notes that the Department defined G&A expenses in its cost

questionnaire as ``those period expenses which relate to the activities

of the company as a whole rather than to the production process

alone.''

DOC Position

We agree with Ekinciler. Because the G&A expenses used to derive

the G&A rate relate to the activities of the company as a whole,

including non-manufacturing activities, we have determined that the

methodology Ekinciler used to compute the G&A rate is appropriate.

Furthermore, the non-manufacturing costs are related to a separate line

of business and, thus, they are unrelated to the manufacture of the

subject merchandise. Therefore, these costs were properly excluded from

the COP and CV.

Comment 19: Billet Transportation Costs

At verification, the Department found that Ekinciler failed to

include the cost of transporting billets within the factory in its

reported billet cost. Ekinciler urges the Department to accept the

reported billet costs because the omission found at verification is

insignificant.

Petitioners claim Ekinciler's failure to include intra-factory

transportation costs in reported billet costs indicates Ekinciler's

responses are unreliable and therefore, the Department should base

Ekinciler's billet cost on adverse facts available.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. For the reasons stated in Comment 1,

we do not find that Ekinciler's omission of intra-factory

transportation costs satisfies the statutory requirements for using

facts available or making adverse inferences in reaching a

determination. Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice of

correcting minor errors where the use of adverse facts available is

unwarranted, we adjusted the

[[Page 9749]]

reported billet cost to include intra-factory transportation costs (see

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

Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium Alloys From the Republic of

Kazakstan, 62 FR 2648, 2650 (Jan. 17, 1997)).

D. Habas

Comment 20: Packing Expenses

Habas acknowledges that the Department was unable to verify the

monthly production quantities of exported billet, which together with

monthly rebar production quantities serve as the denominator for

monthly per-unit strap expense. However, Habas maintains that the

Department was able to successfully verify all other components of its

packing calculation. Habas, therefore, argues that the Department

should continue to use Habas's reported packing costs in the margin

calculation.

Petitioners argue that, because the Department found Habas's

packing expense to be erroneous at verification, the Department should

either base Habas's packing expense on adverse facts available or

recalculate Habas's packing expense taking into account the information

discovered at verification. Petitioners maintain that using adverse

facts available with respect to calculating Habas's packing expense is

appropriate because: 1) the respondent has an obligation to provide

accurate data; 2) the Department has a practice of not accepting new

information submitted at verification; and 3) the Department's

resorting to the use of facts available constitutes a significant

incentive for the submission of accurate data.

DOC Position

To calculate the per unit strap expense in its overall packing

calculation, Habas used billets produced for export along with total

rebar production as part of the calculation's denominator. At

verification, Habas was unable to provide supporting documentation for

billets produced for export. We agree with respondent that, other than

this one element, the Department was able to successfully verify all

other packing material and labor expenses. Therefore, we disagree with

petitioners that adverse facts available is warranted in this instance.

We do, however, agree with petitioners that the Department should

recalculate Habas's packing expense taking into account the information

discovered at verification. Therefore, rather than billets produced for

export, we used the total verified 1995 exports of billets and total

rebar production as the denominator for the per-unit strap calculation.

Comment 21: Home Market Credit

Habas states that, as reported to the Department, its books do not

accurately reflect the date of receipt of payment for home market

sales. However, Habas contends that its methodology for reporting

payment dates and amounts of payment is consistent with the records

kept by Habas in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, Habas

argues that the Department should continue to use its reported home

market credit expenses in the final determination.

DOC Position

Because we did not use Habas's selling expense data for purposes of

the final determination, this issue is moot.

Comment 22: G&A Expenses

Petitioners assert that, as facts available, the Department should

base Habas's G&A expenses on Habas's annual corporate-wide G&A expenses

for 1995, adjusted for inflation, rather than the G&A expenses for the

iron and steel division. As support for this position, petitioners cite

the Department's practice in the following determinations: Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled

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

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,

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

37114 (July 9, 1993).

Habas maintains that the Department verified all of its SG&A

expenses. Habas states that, although the Department frequently uses a

corporate-wide G&A rate, the Department's practice is to use selling

expenses which are based on the expenses of the relevant division

within a company. Therefore, Habas maintains that the correct ratio to

use for the sales portion of the SG&A is the indirect selling expenses

of the iron and steel division divided by the iron and steel division's

cost of sales.

DOC Position

Insofar as we did not use Habas's G&A expenses in the calculations

for the final determination, this issue is moot.

E. Metas

Comment 23: Material Costs

Petitioners argue that Metas's submitted cost of materials is not

based on the actual quantities of scrap used in the production of

rebar. Petitioners note that Metas calculated its submitted cost of

scrap inputs based on the company's policy regarding the preferred

mixture of different scrap types. Petitioners maintain that the

Department was unable to verify that Metas's policy of preferred scrap

usage is indicative of the actual scrap used to produce rebar during

the POI. Petitioners believe that Metas's schedule of scrap purchases

during the POI is the best evidence on the record of actual scrap used

and argue that the Department should adjust Metas's material costs so

that the average usage of scrap reflects the ratio of scrap purchased

during 1995.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. In order to provide the Department with

product-specific material costs, Metas calculated the cost of materials

using the average scrap quantities it believes are typical of the

mixtures required to make rebar. During verification, we found that

Metas does not specifically track the quantity of the types of scrap

used in the production of rebar. As a result, Metas was unable to

provide us with documentation to substantiate the ratio of scrap types

used in its calculations. Therefore, we recalculated Metas's material

costs using the actual mix of scrap purchased during 1995.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with Sec. 735(c) of the Act, we are directing the

Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of

rebar from all companies except Colakoglu that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 12, 1996,

which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the notice of the

preliminary determination in the Federal Register. Regarding Colakoglu,

we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation

of all entries of rebar from Colakoglu that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 10, 1996, the date

of publication of our preliminary determination in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount

by which NV exceeds export price, as indicated in the chart below. This

suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

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

Weighted-

average Critical

Exporter/manufacturer margin circumstances

percentage

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

Colakoglu........................... 9.84 No.

Ekinciler........................... 18.68 Yes.

Habas............................... 19.15 Yes.

[[Page 9750]]

IDC................................. 41.80 Yes.

Metas............................... 30.16 Yes.

All Others.......................... 16.25 Yes.

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

ITC Notification

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

of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the

ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing

material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the

United States. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of

material injury, does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and

all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC

determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess

antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective

date of the suspension of liquidation.

This determination is published pursuant to Sec. 735(d) of the Act.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-5228 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P