Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-421-805]

Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From

the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from

the Netherlands.

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

SUMMARY: On March 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene

terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid) from the Netherlands. The review covers

one manufacturer/exporter and the period June 1, 1996 through May 31,

1997.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

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

have revised the results from those presented in the preliminary

results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan at (202) 482-1324 or

Eugenia Chu at (202) 482-3964, Import Administration, International

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

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

indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353 (1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping

duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands on June 24, 1994 (59 FR

32678). On June 11, 1997, we published in the Federal Register (62 FR

31786) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of

the order covering the period June 1, 1996, through May 31, 1997.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), Aramid Products V.o.F. and

Akzo Nobel Aramid Products, Inc. (collectively ``Akzo'' or respondent),

and petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (petitioner),

requested that we conduct an administrative review for the

aforementioned period of review (POR). We published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 1,

1997 (62 FR 41339). The Department is conducting this administrative

review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

On March 9, 1998, the Department published the preliminary results

of the review. (See 63 FR 11408). The Department has now completed the

review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review are all forms of PPD-T aramid

from the Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T aramid in the form of

filament yarn (including single and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or

dry), spun-laced and spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber and floc.

Tire cord is excluded from the class or kind of merchandise under

review. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040,

5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000, 5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and

5603.00.9000. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The Department's written description of the scope

remains dispositive.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We received comments from respondent and

petitioner.

Comment 1: Petitioner contends that the Department should revise

Akzo's reported U.S. indirect selling expenses (ISE), arguing that the

calculation was improperly based on the consolidated financial

statements of Akzo Nobel Inc., and should have instead been based upon

the financial statements of Akzo Nobel Aramid Product Inc.'s (ANAPI--

the exclusive sales agent of Aramid Products V.o.F. in the United

States (Aramid)). Petitioner also asserts that the Department should

reject Akzo's use of consolidated financial data in calculating the net

interest expenses included in Aramid's cost of production so as to

reflect Aramid's actual financing expenses. Petitioner acknowledges

that the Department generally uses consolidated financial expense data

to calculate financing expenses. However, petitioner asserts that this

is not an automatic requirement. Further, petitioner contends that the

Department must not use consolidated data where using the consolidated

data would distort actual financing expenses. Petitioner asserts that

such would be the case in the instant circumstance because Akzo's

reported financial interest expense factor is unrelated to the

financing requirements of Akzo's PPD-T aramid fiber business in the

United States. Moreover, petitioner argues that Akzo justifies its use

of consolidated figures on the grounds that the U.S. parent borrows on

behalf of its related companies, and then charges the units a share of

this cost, without explaining how it allocates the financing expenses.

Petitioner argues that Akzo calculated the reported financing expenses

based on outstanding loans between the U.S. parent and ANAPI and

speculates as to the reasons why ANAPI borrowed money from its parent

company to finance its U.S. operations.

Petitioner further argues that the Department and the Court of

International Trade (CIT) misapplied binding precedent when affirming

the Department's use of Akzo's consolidated data in E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Co. v. United States, No. 96-11-02509, Slip Op. 98-7, 1998 WL

42598 (CIT Jan. 29, 1998) (E.I. DuPont). Moreover, petitioner contends

that the Department and the CIT failed to follow the express mandate of

the 1994 amendments to the antidumping statute, which directs the

Department to capture all actual costs incurred in producing the

subject merchandise and to ensure that reported costs constitute a

representative measure of the respondent's true costs. Petitioner

argues that the CIT incorrectly interpreted the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying H.R. 5110, 103rd Cong., at

834-835 (1994), which according to petitioner, requires a change in the

Department's practice with respect to the calculation of financing

costs.

Akzo argues that the CIT decision in E.I. DuPont properly affirmed

the Department's use of Akzo's consolidated financial expense in the

first administrative review. Akzo urges the Department to follow the

same methodology in the final results of the third administrative

review. Further, Akzo emphasizes that petitioner did not point to any

evidence justifying a deviation from the Department's standard practice

of using the parent's consolidated interest expense in cases where the

parent's majority ownership

[[Page 37517]]

is prima facie evidence of corporate control.

Additionally, Akzo argues that petitioner's claims that the

amendments to the antidumping statute set a new standard for

calculating interest expense is in error. Contrary to petitioner's

argument, Akzo contends that neither the SAA nor the amended section

773(f) of the antidumping statute directs the Department to change its

existing practice. Akzo further contends that the cited portion of the

SAA suggests only two distinct changes in the law that do not affect

Commerce's past practice at issue here, as the CIT explained in E.I.

DuPont at 7-9.

Akzo further buttresses its argument by pointing to evidence in the

administrative record demonstrating that the interest expense of the

consolidated company reflects the actual interest expense incurred.

Akzo claims that the only loans and corresponding interest expense on

the books of ANAPI and Aramid are intercompany loans from the parent

companies, Akzo Nobel Inc. and Akzo Nobel N.V. In addition, Akzo argues

that the Department verified that the financial statements of the

subsidiary companies are consolidated with those of the parent

companies. Akzo explains that the only actual interest expense is

recorded on the books of the parent companies because it is only these

entities that actually borrow money and incur the related interest

expense. Akzo asserts that it is only the parent that determines the

sources of money, borrows the money, and incurs the actual interest

expense and that therefore, petitioner's speculations on how and why

companies borrow money and how a parent determines the amount of loans

and interest are irrelevant because these are internal decisions that

take into account a variety of factors.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. In the prior first and

second administrative reviews, petitioner similarly urged the

Department to rely on Aramid's own financial records to determine its

net interest expense, instead of following the Department's normal

practice of using the parent company's financing expenses incurred on

behalf of the consolidated group of companies. The Department disagreed

with petitioner's position, explaining in detail that any departure

from the Department's normal practice in this case was not warranted in

light of Akzo Nobel N.V.'s majority ownership interest in Aramid, which

constituted prima facie evidence of the parent's corporate control. For

a detailed explanation of this issue, see Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly-

Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 51406 (1996); Aramid Fiber

Formed of Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands: Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 38058 (1997).

On January 29, 1998, the CIT affirmed the Department's

determination, ruling that neither the SAA nor the amended statute

mandate a change of practice with respect to using a parent company's

consolidated statements when calculating the respondent's interest

expense ratio, and that this practice is consistent with the principle

of allocating costs in a manner that reasonably reflects the actual

costs. E.I. DuPont at 8-9. (Emphasis added.) Citing Gulf States Tube

Div. of Quanex Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 97-124, Consol. Court

No. 95-09-01125, at 38-39 (CIT Aug. 29, 1997), the Court noted that the

focus of the analysis is on whether the consolidated group's

controlling entity has the power to determine the capital structure of

each member of the group. The Court concluded that the administrative

record in this case supported the Department's finding that Akzo Nobel

N.V. was a controlling entity, and that DuPont did not cite evidence

which would overcome the presumption of corporate control.

In the instant administrative review, petitioner merely reiterates

its position argued in the previous two reviews and does not point to

any new evidence in the administrative record, which would demonstrate

that the parent, Akzo Nobel N.V., does not exercise corporate control

over the respondent company. Thus, consistent with the Department's

prior determinations and the CIT's decision in E.I. DuPont, we will

continue using Akzo Nobel N.V.'s consolidated financial interest

expense in computing the respondent's net interest ratio.

Similarly, petitioner's contention that we should revise Akzo's

reported U.S. indirect selling expense (ISE) lacks merit. As the

Department stated in the prior administrative reviews, the Department

bases its calculations on the consolidated financial statements of the

parent, not the subsidiary. This method is grounded in a well-

established practice. See Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly-Phenylene

Terephthalamide from the Netherlands: Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 61 FR at 51407; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly-

Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands: Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR at 38060. As stated above, the

focal point of the analysis is upon the parent company's control over

the subsidiary. The record contains sufficient evidence of Akzo Nobel

Inc.'s corporate control over ANAPI. More importantly, the petitioner

has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the prima facie evidence of

Akzo's control over ANAPI. For the reasons stated above, we will

continue to adhere to the Department's current practice in this final

determination.

Comment 2: Petitioner alleges that ANAPI is being reimbursed for

antidumping duty deposits by one of its parent companies and argues

that the Department should deduct the deposits from Akzo's U.S. price,

or at least include the associated imputed financing expenses in Akzo's

U.S. ISE. Petitioner claims that although there are no reimbursement

agreements, the summary trial balances of ANAPI and the Annual Reports

of Akzo Nobel Inc. support this allegation. Moreover, petitioner cites

Hoogovens Staal BV v. AK Steel Corp., 1998 WL 118090 (CIT March 13,

1998) (Hoogovens), as a case affirming the Department's authority to

subtract reimbursed antidumping duty deposits, reasoning that the

antidumping duties were intended to cause importers to raise prices to

take into account such duties. Petitioner argues that the fact that

Akzo has not raised its prices by anywhere close to 66 percent since

the antidumping duty order was published further supports its claim

that ANAPI is relieved of the responsibility for the antidumping duties

and speculates that certain amounts may be reimbursed by either Akzo

Nobel Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V.

Akzo contends that ANAPI is not being reimbursed for antidumping

duties and the petitioner's speculation to the contrary should be

disregarded. Akzo cites the Department's regulations, 19 CFR 353.26(a),

requiring the Department to deduct from U.S. price the amount of any

antidumping duty which the producer or reseller paid directly on behalf

of the importer or reimbursed to the importer. Akzo notes that this

regulation also requires the importer to file a certificate, prior to

liquidation, with the U.S. Customs Service, attesting to the absence of

any agreement for the payment or reimbursement of any part of the

antidumping duties by the manufacturer, producer, seller or exporter.

The regulation provides that the Department may presume from an

importer's failure to file this certificate that the producer or

reseller paid or reimbursed the antidumping duties. Akzo argues that it

is in full compliance with the Department's regulations. It

[[Page 37518]]

states ANAPI has filed, prior to liquidation, certifications with

Customs attesting to the absence of any agreement with the

manufacturer, producer, seller or exporter for the payment or

reimbursement of antidumping duties that, as required by section

353.26(c). Further, the respondent claims that ANAPI has not entered

into such an agreement with Akzo Nobel Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V. In

support of its arguments, Akzo cites the CIT ruling in The Torrington

Corp. v. United States, 881 F. Supp. 622, 632 (1995) (Torrington) that

``once an importer * * * has indicated on this certificate that it has

not been reimbursed for antidumping duties, it is unnecessary for the

Department to conduct an additional inquiry absent a sufficient

allegation of customs fraud.'' Akzo claims that, because it has filed

the requisite certification, and because petitioner has failed to show

any customs fraud, the record establishes that neither Akzo Nobel Inc.

nor Akzo Nobel N.V. has reimbursed ANAPI for antidumping duty payments.

Akzo further contends that the CIT has affirmed the Department's

longstanding precedent that, absent evidence of reimbursement, the

Department has no authority to make the adjustment to U.S. price

requested by the petitioner. See Torrington at 632. Akzo states that,

according to the CIT, in Torrington, the party who requests the

reimbursement investigation must produce some link between the transfer

of funds and reimbursement of antidumping duties. Akzo argues that the

petitioner has failed to meet this burden by failing to establish any

agreement for reimbursement of antidumping duties between either Akzo

Nobel Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V. and ANAPI .

Furthermore, Akzo argues that petitioner's reliance on Hoogovens is

misplaced. Akzo states that the Court remanded this decision to the

Department to provide a clearer basis for its determination that

reimbursement occurred. However, Akzo argues, even if the CIT

ultimately agrees that Hoogovens reimbursed its importer of record, the

facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts in Akzo's case.

In Hoogovens, the Department found that the importer and exporter had

entered into a written agreement to reimburse antidumping duties, which

triggered the application of section 353.26 of the Department's

regulations. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Plat Products from

the Netherlands, 61 FR 48465 (1996) (First Cold-Rolled Review) (the

review that led to the Hoogovens' CIT appeal). Akzo insists that there

is no such agreement between Akzo Nobel N.V. and its U.S. subsidiaries,

or between Aramid and ANAPI and, therefore, the decision in First Cold-

Rolled Review has no bearing on this case. Thus, the requirements of

section 353.26(a) do not apply and the Department should deny the

requested adjustment to Akzo's U.S. price.

Akzo further argues that no adjustments to the reported U.S. ISE is

warranted as there were no improper exclusions. Akzo claims that

petitioner argues without any citations that the Department should

artificially inflate Akzo's U.S. ISE to account for the financing

expenses incurred in connection with the antidumping duty deposits it

has made. Akzo argues that the Department's practice and precedent

actually support a downward adjustment of ISE to account for these

expenses. See Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France (AFBs

III), 58 FR 39729 (1993) opinion after remand, Federal-Mogul Corp. v.

United States, Slip Op. 96-193 at 2, 8 (CIT Dec. 12, 1996) (Federal

Mogul II). Akzo states that the Department has justified the adjustment

as analogous to the payment of legal fees in antidumping proceedings,

which are incurred solely because of the antidumping duty order and

thus are not selling expenses. Akzo further argues that, in Tapered

Roller Bearings from Japan, 62 FR 11825, 11829 (1997), the Department

cautioned that failure to allow a downward adjustment would risk

calculating overstated margins due to failure to take into account the

fact that no such expense would have been incurred absent the order.

Therefore, Akzo argues that the Department should not make an upward

adjustment to Akzo's U.S. ISE because it is not an expense incurred in

selling the subject merchandise.

Department's Position: We agree with Akzo. The Department's

regulations require the Department to deduct from U.S. price the amount

of any antidumping duty which the producer or reseller (i) paid

directly on behalf of the importer or (ii) reimbursed to the importer.

See 19 CFR 353.26 (a)(1996). Absent evidence of reimbursement, the

Department has no authority to make the adjustment to U.S. price.

Torrington at 632, citing Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden, 57 FR

2706, 2708 (1992) and Brass Sheet and Strip From the Republic of Korea,

54 FR 33257, 33258 (1989). See also, Color Television Receivers from

the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 4408, 4411 (1996). In the absence of actual

reimbursement payments, the Department requires evidence of a concrete

link between the financial transaction and the antidumping duty before

it may find reimbursement and impose additional duties. Torrington at

632, aff'd 127 F.3d 1077, 1080-81 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (further, the Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Department's

interpretation and application of section 353.26. Id.) Finally, section

353.26 (b) of the Department's regulations also requires that the

importer file a certificate with the U.S. Customs Service, attesting to

the absence of any ``agreement or understanding for the payment or for

the refunding'' of the antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 353.26(b).

In the previous second administrative review, the Department

concluded that there was no evidence of reimbursement of ANAPI by Akzo

for antidumping duties and, therefore, there was no justification for

adjusting U.S. ISE for the potentially reimbursed antidumping duty

deposits. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:

Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From the

Netherlands, 62 FR at 38061. During the course of conducting the

instant review, the Department provided petitioner with the opportunity

to comment upon all the information and data presented by the

respondent. However, petitioner did not allege any specific instance or

evidence of reimbursement of antidumping duties in either its October

17, 1997, or December 12, 1997, comments. Petitioner's first allegation

of reimbursement was presented in its administrative case brief, dated

April 8, 1998, after the Department completed verification and issued

its preliminary results of the administrative review. In its case

brief, the petitioner failed to provide any new, specific evidence

supporting its reimbursement allegations. Petitioner's comments on this

issue are speculative and do not point to concrete evidence of

reimbursement. Mere allegations of reimbursement are insufficient to

warrant further action by the Department. Neither section 353.26 nor

past precedent provide authority for the Department to undertake

further action or make additional adjustments based upon petitioner's

thinly supported assertions of reimbursement. Moreover, we carefully

reviewed the record and found no evidence on the record suggesting

reimbursement of antidumping duties, nor did we find specific evidence

of inappropriate financial intermingling between ANAPI and Akzo Nobel

Inc. or Akzo Nobel N.V. In reviewing the financial statements and

payment records of the U.S.

[[Page 37519]]

subsidiary, we verified that ANAPI is responsible for all cash deposits

and duties assessed. See Verification Report, dated February 24, 1998.

Further, petitioner's reliance on Hoogovens is inapposite. In that

case, the CIT held that, although the record evidence in Hoogovens

``suggested'' reimbursement of antidumping duties, the Department did

not identify which evidence supported its findings of reimbursement.

Thus, the CIT remanded this case to the Department for a reasoned

articulation of its decision. In the present case, however, we lack any

evidence of reimbursement.

Finally, there is evidence on the record that ANAPI filed the

required certifications with U.S. Customs Service attesting to the

absence of any agreement with the manufacturer, producer, seller, or

exporter for the payment or reimbursement of antidumping duties. Based

on these facts, the Department presumes the continued existence of the

circumstances that gave rise to our findings in the second

administrative review and that 19 CFR 353.26 is inapplicable in this

case. Therefore, consistent with our findings in the second

administrative review, we have not deducted any amount for reimbursed

duties from Akzo's U.S. price or included them in Akzo's U.S. ISE.

Comment 3: Petitioner argues that the Department inconsistently

filled in missing values for imputed credit expense for home market and

U.S. sales. Specifically, for home market sales, the Department filled

in the missing payment dates with the date of the preliminary

determination, March 2, 1998, and then calculated the missing credit

expense value, while for the U.S. sales, the Department calculated the

average credit expense for U.S. sales and then applied that average

expense to missing credit values. Petitioner claims that this

inconsistent application maximized the credit expense deduction for

home market sales, thereby reducing normal value, and artificially

reduced the credit expense deduction for U.S. sales, thereby increasing

the U.S. price. Because Akzo failed to submit a complete questionnaire

response, petitioner further argues that the Department should apply

adverse inferences and fill in the missing data with the largest value

on the record for the U.S. price deduction and with zero for the

corresponding home market price deduction, or at least fill in the

missing data with values that do not allow Akzo to benefit from its

omissions.

Akzo argues that the Department should reject petitioner's request

as contrary to current Department practice, which is to use the last

day of verification as the payment date for unpaid sales (February 2,

1998). Respondent cites Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from

Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8928 (1998), as precedent.

Department's Position: In accordance with the Department's current

practice, the last day of verification will be used as the date of

payment for unpaid sales. See Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12752,

12757 (1998) (citing Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from

Taiwan; Final Results of Less than Fair Value Investigation, 63 FR

8909, 8928 (1998) and Brass Sheet and Strip from Sweden; Final Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review, 60 FR 3617, 3621 (1995)). We

disagree with petitioner's assertion that the Department should use an

adverse inference in calculating the imputed credit expense. In the

instant review, respondent has not impeded the review by providing

inaccurate or unverifiable data, instead it has provided data which was

successfully verified. Therefore, we have used the last day of

verification, February 2, 1998, as the date of payment for the

transactions in question.

The Department agrees with petitioner that we inconsistently

calculated missing credit expenses in the home sales market and U.S.

market during the preliminary determination. In the final results of

the review, the Department has substituted the missing payment dates

with the last day of verification and calculated the missing credit

expense value for both home market sales and U.S. sales. See

Calculation Memorandum, dated July 7, 1998, for a complete discussion

of the mathematical calculation.

Comment 4: Petitioner contends that the Department's treatment of

Akzo's goodwill expenses in the first and second administrative reviews

is not supported by substantial evidence on the record and is contrary

to law. Petitioner argues that the Department should amortize these

costs over a period that covers the POR to avoid improperly

understating the actual cost of producing PPD-T aramid fiber during the

POR.

Akzo argues that petitioner's position is unsubstantiated and

contrary to law. Akzo notes that the proper treatment of the goodwill

was the focus of the first administrative review, and of the recently

issued CIT decision. Respondent further notes that the Department spent

a significant amount of time gathering and analyzing all aspects of the

purchase. See Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene

Terephthalamide from the Netherlands, 61 FR 51406. Akso cites the CIT's

ruling to affirm the Department's treatment of goodwill as further

support for its contentions. Respondent cites specifically to the CIT's

approval of the Department's analysis, affirming that it was more

appropriate to isolate those components of goodwill that pertained to

assets used in the production of subject merchandise. Akzo states that

in preparing the questionnaire response for this review, it complied

with the Department's determination in the first two administrative

reviews. Finally, Respondent contends that no circumstances exist

warranting any deviation from the Department's prior approach, as

affirmed by the CIT.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with Akzo. As

explained at length in the final results of the first and second

administrative reviews, and affirmed by the CIT in E.I. DuPont, the

Department determined to accept Akzo's accounting method for the

amortization of goodwill expense as reasonable. See Aramid Fiber Formed

of Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands: Final Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR at 51406; Aramid Fiber

Formed of Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands: Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR at 38063.

The Department spent a significant amount of time gathering and

analyzing all aspects of the facts surrounding the goodwill issue

during the first administrative review. Upon completion of its

analysis, the Department determined that, for cost calculation

purposes, it was appropriate to isolate those components of goodwill

that pertained to assets used in the production of subject merchandise.

See Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the

Netherlands, 61 FR at 51406. The Department verified that Akzo complied

with the Department's decision in the first administrative review, and

calculated the reported depreciation expenses exclusive of goodwill

expenses in preparing its response for the instant review. The

methodology used in the instant case is consistent with the final

results of the first and second administrative reviews.

Moreover, in E.I. DuPont, the CIT rejected petitioner's arguments

with respect to goodwill, affirming the Department's treatment of

inventory write-downs and residual goodwill

[[Page 37520]]

expenses. See E.I. DuPont at 15-24. Therefore, for purposes of the

instant review, the Department will continue to use Akzo's reported

cost of production and constructed value data in calculating the

antidumping duty margin.

Comment 5: Akzo claims that the computer program used in

calculating the preliminary results contained three errors that must be

corrected. First, Akzo argues that the difference in merchandise

(DIFMER) adjustment was miscalculated by failing to convert the

submitted variable cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product (VCOMU)

from kilograms to pounds. Akzo explains that because the U.S. sales are

reported on a per pound basis and the analysis is conducted on the same

basis, it is necessary to convert the DIFMER adjustment to a per pound

amount. Second, Akzo claims that in calculating the net constructed

export price (CEP), the Department correctly added U.S. packing costs

to normal value but incorrectly included U.S. packing costs as an

adjustment to the gross price, thereby understating the net CEP and

overstating the margin. Third, Akzo argues that the Department

incorrectly deducted the ISE incurred in the home market on U.S. sales

from CEP after correctly determining in the preliminary results and LOT

analysis memo that these expenses were not related to the economic

activity in the U.S. Akzo provided suggested changes to correct the

alleged errors.

Petitioner did not rebut any of Akzo's aforementioned suggested

corrections.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with Akzo and has

revised the final margin program to reflect these changes. First, the

Department has converted VCOMU from kilograms to pounds to ensure that

the final margin analysis is performed on a comparable basis. Second,

the Department has corrected the margin program to ensure that both the

CEP and NV are calculated inclusive of packing costs. Finally, the

Department's preliminary margin calculation program inadvertently

included ISE that were not incurred in connection with economic

activity as deductions to the U.S. selling price. The Department's

analysis in the Level of Trade Memo, dated March 2, 1998, is correct in

stating that only those expenses incurred connection with economic

activity in the U.S. will be deducted from CEP in conducting the margin

analysis. For purposes of these final results of review, the Department

has revised the margin calculation to reflect the conclusion of the

Level of Trade Analysis memo. For further explanation, see Calculation

Memorandum, dated July 7, 1998.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following

weighted-average margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)

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

Akzo.................................... 6/1/96-5/31/97 6.31

All Other............................... 6/1/96-5/31/97 66.92

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the

Customs Service. For assessment purposes, we have calculated importer

specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio

of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined

sales during the POR to the total entered value of sales examined

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 PPD-T aramid fiber from the Netherlands 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 the rate listed above; (2) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the

manufacturer of the merchandise; and (3) for all other producers and/or

exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 66.92

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation

(59 FR 32678, June 24, 1994). These deposit requirements shall remain

in effect until publication of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

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 353.305 and 19 CFR 353.306. 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.221.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-18596 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P