Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-405-071]

Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On December 10, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty finding on viscose rayon staple fiber from Finland. This review

covers one company, Kemira Fibres Oy, and the period of March 1, 1996

through February 28, 1997. We gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have changed the results from those presented in

the preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Alexander Amdur,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4740 or (202) 482-5346,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 by the

Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all references to the regulations of the Department of

Commerce (Commerce) are as codified at 19 CFR part 353, as they existed

on April 1, 1997. Since the new regulations do not apply in these final

results, we should note that whenever the new regulations are cited,

they operate as a restatement of the Department's interpretation of the

Act. See !62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Background

On December 10, 1997, we published in the Federal Register (62 FR

65063) the preliminary results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty finding on viscose rayon staple fiber from Finland (44

FR 17156, March 21, 1979). We received a case brief from the sole

respondent, Kemira Fibres Oy (Kemira), on January 22, 1998, as amended

on January 30, 1998. The petitioners, Courtauld Fibers Inc. and Lenzing

Fibers Corporation, submitted a rebuttal brief on January 29, 1998. We

held a public hearing on February 5, 1998. The Department extended the

final results of this review until June 8, 1998. We are conducting this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is viscose rayon staple fiber,

except solution dyed, in noncontinuous form, not carded, not combed and

not otherwise processed, wholly of filaments (except laminated

filaments and plexiform filaments). The term includes both commodity

and specialty fiber. This product is currently classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 5504.10.00 and

5504.90.00. The HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description of the scope of the finding remains

dispositive.

Scope Issues

Kemira claims that short-cut (LK) fiber and fire retardant (VISIL)

fiber are not covered by the scope of the order, while petitioners

claim that they are covered.

The Department included LK and VISIL fibers within the scope of the

order for the purposes of the preliminary results of this review (see

62 FR 65063). We stated in our notice of preliminary results that

because of the complexity of the issues relating to LK and VISIL

fibers, we would commence a scope inquiry to determine whether LK and

VISIL fibers are covered by the scope of the order.

We asked interested parties to submit comments on these scope

issues, which we analyzed pursuant to 19 CFR 353.29(d)(6). On matters

concerning the scope of an antidumping finding or duty order, the

normal bases for determining whether a product is included within the

scope are the descriptions of the product contained in the

determinations by the Department (or the Treasury Department) and the

ITC, the initial investigation, the petition and, if applicable, prior

scope rulings. See 19 CFR 353.29(i)(1). If these descriptions are not

dispositive, the Department refers to the criteria listed under 19 CFR

353.29(i)(2). By reference to the product descriptions provided by the

parties, as well as the descriptions of the product contained in the

final determinations of the Treasury Department and the ITC, and the

petition, the Department is able to determine whether LK and VISIL

fibers are covered by the scope of the order. Therefore, we have

determined that it is unnecessary to refer to the additional factors of

section 353.29(i)(2).

Based on our analysis under 19 CFR 353.29(i)(1), the Department has

determined that LK and VISIL fibers are within the scope of the

antidumping order on Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber from Finland. See June

8, 1998 Memorandum to Maria Harris Tildon from Holly Kuga Regarding

Whether Short-Cut (LK) Fiber And Fire Retardant (VISIL) Fiber Are

Within The Scope of the Finding (Order) on Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber

from Finland.

Analysis of the Comments Received

Comment 1: Kemira argues that the Department erroneously

reclassified certain export price (EP) sales made through its selling

agent in the United States as constructed export price (CEP) sales.

Kemira notes that all of the sales at issue were made prior to

importation based on the date the order was confirmed and shipped

directly from Kemira's factory to the customer in the United States.

Kemira argues that its selling agent in the United States, Newco Fibres

Company (Newco), relocates (in part) routine selling functions of the

company from Finland to the United States, and does not perform any

more selling functions in the United States than those U.S. entities in

various cases in which the Department concluded that the sales were EP

sales (see, Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France, 58 FR 68865,

68869, (December 29, 1993); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel

Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 18547, 18552, (April 26, 1996)). Kemira

also argues that the Department's re-characterization of the sales at

issue is

[[Page 32821]]

contrary to the statute because Kemira was the seller to the unrelated

purchaser in all transactions, and Newco did not make any sales by or

for the account of Kemira.

The petitioners argue that the Department's reclassification of EP

sales to the United States made through Newco as CEP sales was

appropriate. The petitioners note that the Department relied on the

statutory definition of CEP, which is ``the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States

before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the

producer or exporter of such merchandise.* * *'' (See, section 772(b)

of the Act .) The petitioners note that Kemira acknowledges that

``sales activities in the United States market are conducted by * * *

Newco,'' and argue that Newco plays a major role in the marketing of

Kemira's products, including negotiating sales and obtaining customer

orders. The petitioners further note that, although Newco passes all

sales documentation to Kemira for confirmation, in actuality such

confirmations appear to be routine. In fact, the petitioners note, it

does not appear that Kemira ever rejected any order confirmations

passed to it by Newco during the period of review (POR).

DOC Position: We agree with the petitioners. In our preliminary

results of review, we examined the facts of this case in light of the

statute with respect to EP and CEP sales. Section 772(b) of the Act, as

amended, defines CEP as ``the price at which the subject merchandise is

first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after

the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or

exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the

producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer

or exporter, as adjusted'' (emphasis added). Section 772(a) of the Act

defines EP as ``the price at which the subject merchandise is first

sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the

producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as

adjusted.''

Furthermore, based on the Department's practice, we examine several

criteria for determining whether sales made prior to importation

through a sales agent to an unaffiliated customer in the United States

are EP sales, including: (1) Whether the merchandise was shipped

directly from the manufacturer to the unaffiliated U.S. customer; (2)

whether this was the customary commercial channel between the parties

involved; and (3) whether the function of the U.S. selling agent was

limited to that of a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a

``communications link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. buyer. Where all

three criteria are met, indicating that the activities of the U.S.

selling agent are ancillary to the sale, the Department has regarded

the routine selling functions of the exporter as merely having been

relocated geographically from the country of exportation to the United

States where the sales agent performs them, and has determined the

sales to be EP sales. Where one or more of these conditions are not

met, indicating that the U.S. sales agent is substantially involved in

the U.S. sales process, the Department has classified the sales in

question as CEP sales. (See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170 (March 18, 1998).)

Our analysis of the facts indicates that, while Kemira's alleged EP

sales meet the first two conditions, they fail to meet the third one.

Kemira employs Newco in the United States to negotiate contracts with

U.S. customers, including the negotiation of prices, for most of its

U.S. sales. All contracts are subject to acceptance by Kemira and

become effective upon Kemira's order confirmation. However, there have

been no cases to our knowledge in which the terms of sale have not been

accepted by Kemira during this POR. Therefore, the only difference that

is apparent between the claimed EP and CEP sales is the fact that the

claimed EP sales are shipped directly to the US customer; all other

functions performed by Newco for such sales are identical.

Consequently, we conclude that Newco, the agent in the United States,

is not merely a processor of sales-related documentation or a

communications link, but is, in fact, selling covered products in the

United States on Kemira's behalf. Therefore, under section 772(b), we

concluded that CEP treatment is also appropriate for sales made in the

United States prior to importation by Newco, on behalf of the producer

(i.e, Kemira), to an unaffiliated purchaser. We determine that EP

treatment is appropriate for Kemira's other sales made to the United

States before the date of importation which do not require the

employment of the sales agent in the United States. We have no further

information that would lead us to change our preliminary results with

respect to this issue; therefore, we have made no changes for the final

results of review.

Comment 2: Kemira argues that the Department should reconsider its

adverse facts available (FA) determination concerning Kemira's U.S.

sales of substandard merchandise. Kemira maintains that the Department

misinterpreted Kemira's statement in its questionnaire response that it

made sales of second-quality merchandise in the European market to mean

that it did not have sales in either Finland or the United States.

Kemira explains that it did not report its United States and Finnish

sales of second-quality merchandise because the Department did not

specify that such sales were covered by the review and should be

reported.

In support of the Department's preliminary determination on this

issue, the petitioners assert that it was appropriate for the

Department to make an adverse inference concerning Kemira's U.S. sales

of second-quality merchandise. The petitioners maintain that Kemira did

not report its home market or U.S. sales of second-quality merchandise

despite the fact that the Department twice requested Kemira to report

all sales of merchandise within the scope of the order, and that there

was no indication that second-quality merchandise was excluded from the

scope of the order. The petitioners also note that it was not until the

Department conducted verification that it discovered the existence of

these sales.

DOC Position: We agree with the petitioners. Section 776(a)(2) of

the Act provides that if an interested party withholds information that

has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information

in a timely manner or in the form requested, significantly impedes a

proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides information that

cannot be verified, the Department shall use FA in reaching the

applicable determination. Section 782(d) states that, if the Department

determines that a response to a request for information does not comply

with the request, it shall promptly inform the person submitting the

response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent

practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or

explain the deficiency.

In its original questionnaire of May 20,1997, the Department

requested Kemira to report all of its home market and U.S. sales of

subject merchandise in accordance with the instructions in the

questionnaire. Kemira did not report its home market and U.S. sales of

second-

[[Page 32822]]

quality and substandard merchandise. On August 15, 1997, the Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire to Kemira, again requesting Kemira

to report all sales of viscose rayon fiber that are not specifically

excluded from the scope of the finding. In its response to the

supplemental questionnaire, Kemira again did not report any home market

or U.S. sales of second-quality and substandard merchandise. The fact

that Kemira reported the existence of sales of substandard merchandise

in third countries, but, in response to two specific requests for

information, failed to report such sales in the United States, lead the

Department to believe that no such sales in the United States were made

during the POR. It was not until verification that the Department

discovered the existence of such sales.

In both requests for information, the Department advised Kemira

that failing to provide the requested information may result in the

application of FA. At verification, the Department was able to

determine what percentage of Kemira's total U.S. sales were of second-

quality merchandise. We observed that Kemira made a small quantity of

second-quality merchandise sales in both Finland and the United States.

(See Memorandum to Holly Kuga from Laurel LaCivita et. al. Regarding

Kemira Fibres Oy: Report on the Verification of Sales Information

Submitted in the 1996-1997 Review (Verification Report) of January 12,

1998.) Given Kemira's failure to report these sales, the existence of

which was verified by the Department, we applied FA to sales of second-

quality merchandise for the final results of review, in accordance with

section 776 of the Act.

Kemira's argument that it did not report its United States and

Finnish sales of second-quality merchandise because the Department did

not specify that such sales were covered by the review is unfounded.

There is nothing in the scope of the finding or the questionnaire that

would indicate that second-quality merchandise is excluded from the

scope of the finding. It is not required that the Department specify

which sales are covered by a review, so long as the scope covers the

merchandise sold. As the scope does not exclude second-quality

merchandise (an undisputed fact), Kemira is required to report U.S.

sales of such merchandise. Failure to do so warrants the application of

FA.

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

used when a party 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) at 870. Kemira's failure to report the

sales data requested by the Department, despite the Department's

indication regarding the consequences of such an action, demonstrates

that Kemira has, to date, failed to cooperate to the best of its

ability in this review. Thus, in selecting among the FA for Kemira, an

adverse inference is warranted. Section 776(b) states that an adverse

inference may include reliance on information derived from: (1) The

petition; (2) the final determination in the LTFV investigation; (3)

any previous review under section 751 of the Act or investigation under

section 753 of the Act; or (4) any other information placed on the

record. See also SAA at 829-831.

We applied as adverse FA the highest calculated rate for Kemira

from any segment of the proceeding to the sales of second-quality

merchandise which were not reported to the Department. This rate of 8.7

percent is the margin calculated for Kemira in both the investigation

and in the first period of review (44 FR 2219, January 10, 1979 and 46

FR 19844, April 1, 1981).

Therefore, for the purposes of the final results of review, the

Department made no changes to the methodology applied in the

preliminary results of review.

Comment 3: Kemira contends that the Department's application of a

difference-in-merchandise (difmer) adjustment to different sizes of

VISIL is unwarranted. It argues that there is no difference in material

cost or material preparation between different sizes of fiber. Kemira

states that the only potential cost difference would be in spinning

time or cutting time, and such differences are minimal. Kemira argues

that its cost accounting system does not make any distinction by fiber

size, and that it reported all costs for VISIL fiber in accordance with

its cost accounting system. Kemira also argues that the information it

provided should have been accepted by the Department because the

information was accurate, consistent with Kemira's recorded costs, and

fully verifiable. Therefore, Kemira claims that the Department has no

basis for resorting to FA for the difmer adjustment.

The petitioners contend that the Department clearly acted within

its statutory authority in resorting to adverse FA in making a difmer

adjustment for VISIL sales. The petitioners note that Kemira took the

position in its questionnaire response that the variable cost of

manufacturing (VCOM) for VISIL fibers sold in the home market and to

the United States were the same, but at verification the Department

``observed that the time required to spin other non-VISIL fibers varied

with the fiber length and linear density.'' (See December 1, 1997

Concurrence Memorandum at 15). The petitioners also note that Kemira

failed to provide usable VCOM or total cost of manufacturing (TCOM)

data that would allow the Department to make difmer adjustments, and,

as a result, the Department made a difmer adjustment to normal value

(NV) for VISIL sales based on adverse FA.

DOC Position: We agree with the petitioners. Kemira failed to

appropriately report the information needed to calculate a difmer

adjustment. Kemira reported the same VCOM and TCOM for products with

different linear density and fiber length. The Department observed at

verification that spinning and cutting time varied with the fiber

length and linear density of the product (see December 1, 1997

Concurrence Memorandum at page 15). Although Kemira claims that its

cost system does not acknowledge costs on the basis of fiber length or

fiber width, and that any such differences are minimal, it failed to

produce any evidence supporting that contention or to explain what

Kemira considers to be a ``minimal'' difference. Kemira did not provide

any worksheets in its questionnaire response on VISIL sales, which was

submitted only a few days before the commencement of verification,

showing how the variable cost figures were determined, or what factors

were considered in its calculation of VCOM and TCOM, which impeded us

from pursuing verification of this information. Furthermore, Kemira's

claim contradicts a basic principal of cost accounting that, given

identical labor and overhead rates on the same production line, longer

production times on that line will result in higher production costs.

In an attempt to educate ourselves on the potential production cost

differences with respect to the fiber width of rayon staple fiber, we

spoke with a textile fiber expert on March 26, 1998, concerning the

relationship between the fiber width and spinning times. The expert

explained that there is a direct relationship between the fiber width

and spinning time, such that if the cross-sectional area of a fiber

(determined by the fiber width) increases in size, the spinning time

decreases proportionally. Similarly, if the fiber width decreases in

size, the spinning time increases by the same ratio. (See the April 8,

1998 Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to the File Regarding The

Relationship Between Fiber Width and Processing Time.) Record evidence

indicates that

[[Page 32823]]

the fiber widths of the VISIL products sold in the United States and

the home market during the POR are at extreme ends of the fiber-width

spectrum. Consequently, we disagree with Kemira's position that

potential spinning times and cost differences attributable to

differences in fiber widths are insignificant in the calculation of the

difmer adjustment.

Therefore, while Kemira reported per-unit costs allegedly

calculated in accordance with its cost accounting system, such costs

were not usable in calculating a difmer adjustment for VISIL sales

because Kemira did not adjust its production costs to reflect

differences in fiber width. Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that

the Department may use facts available in situations in which the

necessary information is not available on the record. The Department

did not become aware that Kemira failed to provide VCOM and TCOM data

for VISIL fiber on the basis of fiber widths until verification, and

thus did not have appropriate information on the record to calculate

the difmer adjustment. Accordingly, to fill the gap, the Department

made a facts available upward adjustment to the NV equal to 20 percent

of the TCOM of the U.S. model. This is the maximum upward difmer

adjustment to the NV in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57 and Policy

Bulletin 92.2.

Accordingly, given that we have no other information on the record

on which to base the difmer adjustment, we have made no changes to our

preliminary results of review and have applied to NV an adjustment

equal to 20 percent of the TCOM of the U.S. model.

Comment 4: Kemira argues that the Department erroneously deducted

the full amount of the commission expense paid for VISIL sales in the

United States, when only a small portion of that expense qualifies as a

CEP deduction. Kemira explains that the agency agreement for VISIL

sales in the United States provided for declining ad valorem commission

rates on such sales, with a ``guaranteed commission'' paid in the event

that the sales did not reach a certain level or quota. Kemira notes

that the guaranteed commission was only paid because the sales quota

was not achieved, and that it would have been paid in the absence of

any VISIL sales at all. Consequently, Kemira argues that the guaranteed

commission is not a commission or a direct expense, but rather an

indirect selling expense. Kemira notes that the guaranteed commission

fits the definition provided in the Appendix I, p. I-6 of the

Department's questionnaire which defines indirect expenses as ``fixed

expenses that are incurred whether or not the sale is made. . . .''

Furthermore, Kemira argues that the guaranteed commission is a one-time

expense associated with initial U.S. marketing efforts for VISIL, and

is not an expense that is ``generally incurred'' in selling the subject

merchandise. Therefore, Kemira maintains that it is not a deductible

expense pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, which provides that in

CEP transactions the U.S. price be reduced by the amount of expenses

``generally incurred'' in selling the subject merchandise in the United

States. Consequently, Kemira argues that only the ad valorem portion of

the commission expense would be ``generally incurred'' on VISIL sales

and should be applied to these sales as an indirect selling expense.

Kemira argues in the alternative that, if the Department includes

the guaranteed commission in its calculations, it should determine the

importer-specific assessment rate by dividing the amount of the

guaranteed commission paid by the quantity of the merchandise entered

during the POR. Kemira notes that based on the date of order

confirmation, the quantity of VISIL products that entered the United

States during the POR was at least twice as high as the quantity of

VISIL sold during the POR. Further, Kemira argues that if the

Department bases the assessment rate for VISIL sales on the margin

determined for VISIL sales (and not entries), the (unit) amount of the

guaranteed commission will be more than doubled.

The petitioners argue that the Department appropriately deducted

the guaranteed commission as a commission for sales during the review

period. They note that three facts are undisputed: (i) Kemira hired an

unrelated entity to act as Kemira's sales agent to market VISIL fiber

in the United States, (ii) Kemira agreed to pay an ad valorem

``commission'' to its sales agent, and (iii) Kemira agreed to guarantee

a minimum commission payment to its sales agent, which Kemira paid. The

petitioners argue that treating these payments as an indirect selling

expense, and not as a commission, would directly contradict the way in

which the parties themselves view the payment. The petitioners also

counter Kemira's assertion that the commission would have been paid in

the absence of any sales based on the terms of the agency agreement.

The petitioners also disagree with Kemira that the commission

expense should be allocated over all entries during the review period,

rather than over all sales during the period, as this would be a

significant departure from the Department's traditional manner of

allocating commissions which relate to sales based on an ad valorem

rate.

DOC Position: We disagree with Kemira that only a small portion of

the expenses paid under its agency agreement for VISIL sales in the

United States should be classified as an indirect selling expense and

deducted from CEP on this basis.

Commissions are payments to affiliated or unaffiliated parties

providing services that relate to the sale of merchandise, which are

normally treated as direct selling expenses if we find that they are at

arm's length (for commission paid to affiliated parties) and directly

related to the sale. In order to determine whether a claim for a

commission paid to an unaffiliated selling agent is a bona fide

commission, we examine the nature of the agreement or contract between

the producer and selling agent which establishes the basis for payment

of the commission and for services rendered in return for payment. (See

Revised Import Administration Antidumping Manual, Chapter 8 at 35-37,

January 1998.)

In this case, our examination of the terms of the agency agreement

(contract) between Kemira and its U.S. selling agent shows that the

agreement exists for the sole purpose of making VISIL sales in the

United States during a specific time period, and stipulates that the

agent be paid a commission based on declining ad valorem rates in

accordance with the quantity of VISIL sold, and a guaranteed commission

in the event U.S. VISIL sales did not reach a certain level. (See

verification exhibit 12 and footnote 16 on page 16 of the December 1,

1997 Concurrence Memorandum for a proprietary description of the manner

in which the guaranteed commission is tied to the U.S. sales value of

VISIL products.) Contrary to Kemira's claim, the guaranteed commission

paid under this agreement constitutes a direct selling expense

specifically attributable to VISIL sales only and is not generally

incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States.

Consequently, we agree with the petitioners that the guaranteed

commission incurred on VISIL sales represents a commission covering

sales during the review period. Therefore, we have made no changes

since the preliminary results of review with respect to this issue, and

have allocated all of the commission expense incurred during the review

period over the value of sales made during the review period in

accordance with our normal

[[Page 32824]]

methodology. Also, we will follow our normal assessment practice of

allocating the amount of the uncollected dumping duty over the entered

value of sales reported on the computer sales listing.

Comment 5: Kemira noted its agreement with the Department's

treatment of certain entries of LK and VISIL fiber and supports our

preliminary determination to exclude them from its margin calculation.

Kemira also believes that, if LK and VISIL are found to be in the scope

of the order, these entries should nonetheless be ``liquidated without

any assessment of antidumping duties'' since these transactions were

not reviewed.

DOC Position: As we stated in our preliminary results of review, we

excluded three types of sales from our calculations. First, we excluded

zero-priced samples from our dumping margin calculations. Second, we

excluded sales that were shipped to the United States by a third-

country reseller if the respondent did not have any reason to know at

the time of sale that the merchandise was destined for the United

States (for a detailed explanation, see December 1, 1997 Concurrence

Memorandum). Third, we excluded sales that were entered and liquidated

prior to the reinstatement of this antidumping order and resumption of

the suspension of liquidation on February 22, 1996 (61 FR 6814). The

latter sales were excluded only if we were able to link them directly

to an entry prior to the suspension of liquidation (see, e.g., Certain

Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 177, (September 11, 1996)).

In our final results of review, we made no changes in our

methodology for determining the weighted-average margin. However, in

accordance with NSK Ltd., et al v. United States, 969 F. Supp. 34 (CIT

1997), we have adjusted our assessment calculations to ensure that no

duties are collected on the zero-priced samples that we excluded from

our calculations. We have included the entered values of the zero-

priced samples in our calculation of the assessment rates and set the

dumping duties due for such transactions to zero. We have done this

because U.S. Customs will collect the ad valorem duty-assessment rate

on all entries of subject merchandise regardless of whether the

merchandise was a zero-priced sample.

We have made no further adjustments for the other sales that we

excluded from our margin calculations. Sales that entered into the

United States prior to the reinstatement of this antidumping order have

been liquidated and all other sales are subject to the order.

Comment 6: Kemira claims that the Department erroneously failed to

convert domestic brokerage expense (DBROKU) and packing expense

(USPACK) from Finnmarks (FIM) to U.S. dollars (USD) for sales of LK

fiber.

DOC Position: We agree and have multiplied the domestic brokerage

and packing expenses for LK fiber sales to the United States by the

exchange rate on the date of the U.S. sale to convert these expenses to

U.S. dollars for the final results of review.

Comment 7: Kemira argues that the Department failed to follow the

model match hierarchy described in the notice of the preliminary

results of review. Specifically, it did not match sales to the United

States with the identical merchandise sold in the home market in the

same month as, or the closest month to, the month of the U.S. sales.

DOC Position: We agree. We inadvertently failed to include the

variable WNDORDER in the model-match hierarchy in the computer program.

Consequently, the program did not take the appropriate order of the

window period into account when making its model-match selections.

Therefore, we have modified our calculations to include this variable,

thereby implementing the model-match hierarchy described in our notice

of the preliminary results of review.

Comment 8: Kemira maintains that the Department incorrectly double-

counted the deduction for marine insurance in its calculations by

including it in both the variables for movement expense expressed in

dollars (USMOVT) and movement expense expressed in foreign currency

(HMMOVT). Kemira argues that the Department should eliminate marine

insurance from one of these two variables.

DOC Position: We agree and have eliminated marine insurance

expenses from the calculation of HMMOVT.

Final Results of Review

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

margins exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer (Percent)

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

Kemira Fibres Oy........................................... 2.41

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

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by

the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated

duties. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific

assessment rates for viscose rayon staple fiber. For both EP and CEP

sales, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the

difference between NV and EP (or CEP)) for each importer) by the

entered value of the merchandise. We will direct Customs to assess the

resulting ad valorem rates against the entered value of each entry of

the subject merchandise by the importer during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

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

shipments of viscose rayon staple fiber from Finland entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed company will be that established in these final

results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent

period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this or a previous

review or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash

deposit rate will be the most recent rate established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all

other manufacturers or exporters will be 3.9 percent, the ``new

shipper'' rate established in the first review conducted by the

Department, as explained below.

On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) and Federal-

Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) decided

that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can

only be changed through an administrative review. The Department has

determined that in order to implement the above-mentioned decisions, it

is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV

investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical

errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders.

However, in proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless we

are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV

investigation,

[[Page 32825]]

the Department has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the ``new

shipper'' rate established in the first final results of administrative

review published by the Department (or that rate as amended for

correction of clerical errors as a result of litigation) as the ``all

others'' rate for the purposes of establishing cash deposits in all

current and future administrative reviews (see, e.g., Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan,

58 FR 64720, (December 9, 1993)).

Therefore, the ``all others'' rate applied is the rate of 3.9

percent from Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland, Final Results of

Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding (46 FR 19844, April 1,

1981), the first review conducted by the Department in which a ``new

shipper'' rate (or in this case, a rate for all shipments of the

subject merchandise, including new shippers) was established.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

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

return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 8, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-15872 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P