Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-703]

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On May 11, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy. This

review covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise. The period

of review is August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997. Based on our

analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the

preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the section

``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement 2, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

4162 and (202) 482-3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 citations to Department of Commerce (the Department)

regulations are to the regulations provided in 19 CFR Part 351, as

published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

Background

This review covers sales of granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin

(PTFE resin) made during the period of review (POR) by Ausimont SpA/

Ausimont USA (Ausimont). On May 11, 1998, the Department published the

preliminary results of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polytetrafluoroethylene

Resin from Italy, 63 FR 25826 (Preliminary Results). On June 10, 1998,

we received a case brief from Ausimont. On June 17, 1998, we received a

rebuttal brief from the petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is granular PTFE resin, filled

or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from

Italy to the United States. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

from Italy; Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty

Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE

dispersions in water and fine powders. During the period covered by

this review, such merchandise was classified under item number

3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS). We are providing this HTS number for convenience and Customs

purposes only. The written description of the scope remains

dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

We calculated constructed export price (CEP) and normal value (NV)

based on the same methodology used in the preliminary results, except

as follows.

1. We made a correction to the calculation of CEP profit. See our

response to Comment 3, below.

2. We corrected clerical errors regarding home market selling

expenses, as detailed in the Memorandum from Analyst to File: Final

Results Analysis Memorandum (September 8, 1998) (Final Results Analysis

Memorandum).

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. As noted above, we received comments from Ausimont

and rebuttal comments from the petitioner.

Comment 1: Ordinary Course of Trade

Ausimont argues that its sales of PTFE wet reactor bead in the home

market should not be used for comparison to U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise because such sales were not made in the ordinary course of

trade. Ausimont argues that the factors the Department considered

relevant in determining whether a sale is outside the ordinary course

of trade in Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. U.S., 946 F. Supp. 11, 16 (CIT

1996) (Thai Pineapple), are also relevant

[[Page 49081]]

to sales of wet reactor bead. These factors include differences in

customers, terms of sales, volume of sales, frequency of sales, sales

quantity, sales price, profitability, and market demand. Ausimont

maintains that all of these factors are present in the instant review,

except that the customer that purchased the PTFE wet reactor bead also

purchased granular PTFE resin from Ausimont during the POR. According

to Ausimont, the above factors applied to this case establish the non-

ordinary-course-of-trade nature of home market reactor bead because:

(1) The volume of wet reactor bead sales, in terms of number of

transactions, was very low compared with total PTFE resin sales; (2)

the profits for the wet reactor bead sales were abnormally high when

compared with the average profit for PTFE resin sales; (3) there is

virtually no market demand for wet reactor bead (in this respect

Ausimont notes that no such sales occurred in the prior review period);

(4) sales of wet reactor bead were made at prices that differ

significantly from the average gross unit price of granular PTFE resin;

(5) the terms of sale differed as well, as evidenced by documents the

Department collected during verification; and (6) the mean average

quantity of PTFE wet reactor sales is unusual in that it is

significantly higher than that of granular PTFE resin sales (Ausimont

claims in addition that this fact would permit the exclusion of such

sales under the ``usual commercial quantities'' provision of the Act at

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)).

The petitioner responds that the Department should continue to

include home market sales of wet reactor bead for the following

reasons: (1) The Act contains a clear preference for price-to-price

comparisons; (2) Ausimont provided information on such sales throughout

the information-gathering stage of this review and at verification

without indicating that it believed such sales were made outside the

ordinary course of trade; (3) the evidence to which Ausimont cites in

its case brief does not meet the burden of proof for disregarding such

sales, as set forth in Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 932 F.

Supp. 1488, 1497-1498 (CIT 1996) (Koyo); and (4) the record shows that

Ausimont's home market wet reactor bead sales are in fact similar in

many respects to other home market sales, based on the factors cited in

Ausimont's case brief (e.g., market demand and customers).

DOC Position: The information on the record before us does not

provide a sufficient basis to exclude Ausimont's home market sales of

wet reactor bead as outside the ordinary course of trade. While we have

given full consideration to the arguments made in Ausimont's case

brief, these arguments concern a case record that was compiled in the

absence of any claim by Ausimont, prior to the filing of its case

brief, that the wet reactor bead sales that it reported in its home

market database were made outside the ordinary course of trade. In

considering Ausimont's claim in light of this record evidence, we find

that the respondent has not met its burden of establishing that such

sales are inappropriate for use in our analysis.

Our general preference in determining normal value is to rely upon

home market sales of the foreign like product prior to resorting to

constructed value. See section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. While we do not

include in our analysis home market sales made outside the ordinary

course of trade (per section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act), the

evidentiary burden of establishing the non-ordinary-course-of-trade

nature of home market sales is on the party making such a claim. See,

e.g., Murata Mfg. Co. v. United States, 820 F. Supp 603 (CIT 1993)

(Murata).1 With respect to comparisons to merchandise that

is further manufactured after importation into the United States, the

relevant home market sales to be considered for price-based matches are

those of products identical or similar to the subject merchandise as

imported into the United States. In this case, U.S. further-

manufactured sales involved imported wet reactor bead that was further

processed into finished PTFE resin; as such, the relevant home market

sales for purposes of price-based matches are those of wet reactor

bead.

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

\1\ In this case, the CIT stated that ``Plaintiff must bear its

burden by proving that the sales used in Commerce's calculation are

outside the ordinary course of trade and it must satisfy this burden

by providing the information to Commerce in a timely fashion in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(a)(1)(ii) (1992).'' Murata at 607.

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

Ausimont reported such sales in its initial home market sales

listing specifically for the purpose of matching them to sales of wet

reactor bead imported into the United States. See Ausimont section A-D

questionnaire response, Exhibit B-2 (November 6, 1997). In doing so,

Ausimont did not claim that such sales were inappropriate for any

reason. Subsequently, in addressing the general matching methodology in

our supplemental questionnaire, we indicated our intent to use the

reported home market sales of wet reactor bead in our analysis,

providing additional matching instructions regarding sales of wet

reactor bead as follows:

Please note that the above-referenced data [concerning general

product matching variables] is also required in the U.S. and

comparison market sales listings for wet reactor bead products in

both markets. Ensure that you have provided home market sales of all

products that can be matched to reactor bead that is further

manufactured in the United States and provide a complete description

of the home market products and sales that you believe are the most

appropriate comparisons to wet reactor bead imported into the United

States.

See section A-C supplemental questionnaire at 3-4 (February 23, 1998)

(emphasis added).

In response, Ausimont stated that it had ``provided home market

sales of all products that can be matched to the reactor bead that is

further-manufactured in the United States. * * * The appropriate home

market reactor bead code is provided with each individual further-

manufactured sales transaction in Ausimont's U.S. sales listing.'' See

Ausimont section A-D supplemental response at 9-10 (March 16, 1998)

(emphasis added). As in its initial response, Ausimont made no claim

that such home market sales were inappropriate for use in our analysis

for any reason, much less that such sales were inappropriate

specifically because they were made outside the ordinary course of

trade. In fact, the plain language of Ausimont's response to our

supplemental questionnaire clearly indicated the company's expectation

that such sales would be used, and were appropriate for use, as price-

based matches for U.S. further-processed sales of imported wet reactor

bead. Thus, at no time during the information-gathering stage of this

review did Ausimont provide any evidence, or make any claim, regarding

the exclusion of such sales as outside the ordinary course of trade.

Prior to and during verification, we again indicated our intent to

use home market sales of wet reactor bead in our analysis, selecting

certain such sales for detailed examination. See DOC verification

outline, Appendix 1 (March 25, 1998). At verification, Ausimont

officials discussed these sales in depth without making any claim that

they were made outside the ordinary course of trade.

Accordingly, given the statutory preference for price-to-price

matches, and in the absence of information indicating that the relevant

home market sales were inappropriate for use in our analysis, we

determined in the preliminary results that home market sales of wet

reactor bead are the most appropriate basis for establishing normal

value with respect to U.S. sales

[[Page 49082]]

involving imported wet reactor bead that was further processed prior to

sale.

For these final results, we have given full consideration to the

record evidence that Ausimont cites in support of its contention that

home market sales of wet reactor bead were made outside the ordinary

course of trade. However, as shown below, this evidence is insufficient

to establish a basis for the respondent's claim. While we agree with

certain of the facts presented by Ausimont (e.g., that the number of

sales transactions involving wet reactor bead is low relative to the

total number of transactions involving finished PTFE resin), on balance

we find that the facts surrounding these sales do not establish that

they were made outside the ordinary course of trade. See Koyo at 1497-

1498 (``Commerce cannot exclude sales allegedly outside the ordinary

course of trade unless there is a complete explanation of the facts

which establish the extraordinary circumstances rendering particular

sales outside the ordinary course of trade.''). Our examination of the

record evidence as it applies to the ordinary-course-of-trade issue is

detailed below.

We agree with Ausimont that the frequency of wet reactor bead

sales, in terms of the number of transactions, and the volume of such

sales, in terms of total quantity sold, represent small percentages of

total home market sales. However, while sales of PTFE wet reactor bead

may represent a small portion of the overall sales, the absolute amount

of such sales is not insignificant. As Ausimont itself has noted, and

as further discussed below, the quantities involved in these sales are

in fact larger on average than for other sales. Further, we note that

the number of sales or volume sold are not in and of themselves

definitive factors in determining whether the sales in question are in

the ordinary course of trade. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes

and Tubes from India, 56 FR 64,753 (1991), and Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR

31,411, 31,423 (June 9, 1998).

Regarding Ausimont's claim that the average quantity of such sales

is higher than that of other sales, we agree that the average quantity

sold of wet reactor bead is generally higher than the average quantity

sold of granular PTFE resin. However, the information on the record

provides an insufficient basis for determining whether this difference

in the average quantity between the sales of PTFE wet reactor bead and

granular PTFE resin is in fact attributable to circumstances rendering

the sales in question extraordinary or unrepresentative of normal

sales. Further, while the average quantity of wet reactor bead sales is

generally higher than that of finished PTFE resin, our examination of

the range of quantities involved in individual sales of both wet

reactor bead and finished PTFE resin does not indicate that the

quantities involved in wet reactor bead sales were so unusual as to

render such sales inappropriate for our analysis. Finally, the fact

that home market sales of wet reactor bead were made in quantities

higher than average does not support a conclusion that a normal value

based on the price of such sales would be unreasonably high. For these

reasons, we also reject Ausimont's claim that its home market wet

reactor bead may be excluded pursuant to the ``usual commercial

quantities'' provision of the Act. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. v. United States, 798 F. Supp. 716, 718

(CIT 1992) (as with the ``ordinary course of trade'' provision, the

party seeking exclusion of sales based on the ``usual commercial

quantities'' provision has the burden of proving such exclusion is

warranted, and the Department's inclusion of a home market sample sale

was appropriate where the respondent did not demonstrate that the

quantity involved in this sale was unusual).

We also disagree with Ausimont that the remaining factors we

considered in Thai Pineapple are supported by the information on the

record of this review with respect to home market sales of wet reactor

bead. Ausimont's contention that PTFE wet reactor bead was sold at

aberrational prices is not persuasive because the comparison it makes--

the average selling price of wet reactor bead versus that of finished

PTFE resin--does not take into account the fact that these are

different products for which there is no reasonable expectation of

similar selling prices; wet reactor bead is sold as an intermediate

product, at prices that we would expect to differ from those of

finished PTFE resin.

With respect to the profit earned on wet reactor bead sales,

Ausimont's comparison of the profit related to wet reactor bead sales

and that for granular PTFE resin sales does not take into account the

fact that profits made on the sales of certain models of resin were in

fact higher than that of the wet reactor bead sales. Further, the

identification of sales as having high profits does not necessarily

render such sales outside the ordinary course of trade. See Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, et al., 62 FR 54043, 54066 (October 17, 1997).

With respect to market demand, Ausimont's claim regarding the

absence of past home market sales of this merchandise focuses entirely

on the immediately prior review, without addressing the fact that the

respondent has in fact sold wet reactor bead in the home market in

previous segments of this proceeding. See, e.g., public version of

Ausimont's February 13, 1995 questionnaire response (submitted in

conjunction with the 1993-94 review and included in relevant part as

Attachment 2 to the Final Results Analysis Memorandum in this review)

at A-5 (``Ausimont SpA produces and sells PTFE wet reactor bead to

home-market customers in Italy'') and at B-3 (indicating that

Ausimont's response contained a sale-by-sale listing of ``all virgin

granular and filled PTFE resin and wet reactor bead sold in Italy'').

Regarding terms of sale, while we agree with Ausimont that selected

verification exhibits we collected during our verification show that

the terms of certain wet reactor bead sales were different from those

of certain sales of finished PTFE resin, we did not examine or collect

these exhibits for this purpose and Ausimont officials did not discuss

such differences at verification. As such, we are unable to conclude

from these documents that the terms of sale involving wet reactor bead

generally differed significantly from those of other sales of finished

PTFE resin products or that different terms of sale are not generally

applicable to all sales.

Finally, as Ausimont notes, Ausimont's sales of PTFE wet reactor

bead were made to the same customer who also purchased finished PTFE

resin products.

As shown above, Ausimont has failed to explain the facts that

establish the extraordinary circumstances rendering the claimed sales

outside the ordinary course of trade, as required by Koyo. Compare

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343, 50345 (September

27, 1993) (where home market sales were excluded as outside the course

of trade where such sales involved sample merchandise sold to testing

labs in ``extremely small quantities'' at ``prices substantially higher

than the prices of the vast majority of the sales reported,'' and where

such sales were not for consumption but for evaluation and were not

made to the respondent's

[[Page 49083]]

ordinary customers). In light of this analysis, we find that the

circumstances that would render home market wet reactor bead sales

outside the ordinary course of trade are not present in this review.

Therefore, we have continued to use these sales as a basis for

comparison with U.S. sales for purposes of these final results.

Comment 2: Level-of-Trade Adjustment

Ausimont argues that, if the Department determines that sales of

PTFE wet reactor bead in the home market are made in the ordinary

course of trade and in the usual commercial quantities, it should make

a level-of-trade adjustment for comparisons involving such sales.

First, Ausimont contends that its home market sales of wet reactor bead

are made at a more advanced level of trade than that involved in sales

of this product to its U.S. affiliate, noting the following selling

activities and expenses involved in home market sales but not on sales

to Ausimont USA: rebates, early payment discounts, inventory

maintenance, warranty expenses, and technical service expenses. With

respect to the calculation of the proposed adjustment, Ausimont

acknowledges that it does not sell to unaffiliated home market

customers at two levels of trade, but claims that it technically sells

in Italy at two levels: (1) sales of wet reactor bead to unaffiliated

home market customers, and (2) sales to Ausimont USA, which Ausimont

claims are made in Italy based on the terms of sale involved. Ausimont

requests that the Department make a level-of-trade adjustment based on

the price differences at these two levels; for the prices charged at

level 2, Ausimont suggests that the Department use the transfer price

charged to Ausimont USA. In the alternative, Ausimont proposes that the

Department calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on the

difference between the prices charged at level 1 and the constructed

value of wet reactor bead. Finally, Ausimont requests a CEP-offset

adjustment to normal value in the event that no level-of-trade

adjustment is made.

The petitioner responds that: (1) Ausimont's level-of-trade

adjustment claim was not made at any point prior to the filing of its

case brief; (2) Ausimont's response clearly indicates that there is a

single level of trade in each of the home and U.S. markets; (3)

Ausimont's proposed calculations are incorrect because they rely on

transfer prices and constructed value, neither of which the Department

takes into account in the level-of-trade analysis; and (4) Ausimont's

request for a CEP offset in the event that no level-of-trade adjustment

is made ignores the fact that the Department did in fact calculate such

an offset for the preliminary results.

DOC Position: As in the preliminary results, we find that there is

no basis for calculating a level-of-trade adjustment and that a CEP

offset is appropriate for all sales comparisons, including those

involving wet reactor bead. While we agree with Ausimont that its home

market sales of wet reactor bead (and all other reported home market

sales) are made at a more advanced level of trade than that involved in

the sale from Ausimont to Ausimont USA, we disagree that a level-of-

trade adjustment may be calculated based on the difference between home

market sales prices and either: (1) the transfer price involved in the

sale to Ausimont USA, or (2) the constructed value of wet reactor bead.

Both the Act and the Department's regulations (at sections 773(a)(7)

and 19 CFR 351.412, respectively) require that any such adjustment be

based on the price differences between different levels of trade in the

country in which normal value is determined. It would be inappropriate

to use transfer price or constructed value in lieu of home market sales

prices where there is no home market level of trade that is equivalent

to the CEP level of trade. Under these circumstances, our practice is

to make a CEP-offset adjustment when comparisons are made to home

market sales at a level of trade more advanced than that of the CEP.

See Preliminary Results, 63 FR 25826, 25827; see also 19 CFR

351.412(f). We have followed that practice and have granted a CEP

offset for all comparisons.

Comment 3: CEP Profit

Ausimont argues that the Department erred in calculating CEP profit

because it improperly included imputed credit and inventory carrying

expenses in the pool of U.S. selling expenses to which the CEP-profit

rate was applied. According to Ausimont, in order to make a fair

allocation of profits to U.S. sales, the Department must either exclude

imputed credit and inventory carrying expenses from the pool of U.S.

selling expenses to which the CEP-profit rate is applied or include

such expenses in the total selling expenses it uses to calculate the

CEP-profit rate.

The petitioner did not comment on this issue.

DOC Position: Ausimont's claim involves two aspects of the CEP-

profit calculation: (1) whether to include imputed expenses in the

total expenses we use to calculate the CEP-profit rate, and (2) whether

to include imputed expenses in the pool of U.S. selling expenses to

which we apply this rate. As explained below, our established practice,

in accordance with sections 772(d) and 772(f) of the Act, is to

calculate the profit rate based on actual costs (without regard to

imputed expenses) and to apply this rate to U.S. selling expenses

inclusive of imputed expenses.

The preamble to Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final

rule, 19 CFR Part 351, published at 62 FR 27295 (May 19, 1997)

(Preamble), address the first issue (the calculation of the CEP-profit

rate based on actual costs, without regard to imputed expenses)

directly. In response to a comment that we should include imputed

expenses in the total selling expenses used to derive total profit, we

stated: ``We have not adopted this suggestion, because the Department

does not take imputed expenses into account in calculating cost.

Moreover, normal accounting principles permit the deduction of only

actual booked expenses, not imputed expenses, in calculating profit.''

Preamble at 27354. This policy is also described in a recent policy

bulletin. See Import Administration Policy Bulletin number 97/1, issued

on September 4, 1997, concerning the Calculation of Profit for

Constructed Export Price Transactions, at 3 and note 5.

Our practice of excluding imputed expenses from the CEP-profit rate

calculation is explained further in Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081, 2127 (January 15, 1997)

(AFBs):

Sections 772(f)(1) and 772(f)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act state that

the per-unit profit amount shall be an amount determined by

multiplying the total actual profit by the applicable percentage

(ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses) and that the total

actual profit means the total profit earned by the foreign producer,

exporter, and affiliated parties. In accordance with the statute, we

base the calculation of the total actual profit used in calculating

the per-unit profit amount for CEP sales on actual revenues and

expenses recognized by the company. In calculating the per-unit cost

of the U.S. sales, we have included net interest expense. Therefore,

we do not need to include imputed interest expenses in the ``total

actual profit'' calculation since we have already accounted for

actual interest in computing this amount under section 772(f)(1).

Regarding the second issue (the inclusion of imputed expenses in

the U.S. selling expense pool to which the

[[Page 49084]]

profit rate is applied), as we explained in AFBs:

When we allocated a portion of the actual profit to each CEP

sale, we have included imputed credit and inventory carrying costs

as part of the total U.S. expense allocation factor. This

methodology is consistent with section 772(f)(1) of the statute

which defines ``total United States Expense'' as the total expenses

described under section 772(d)(1) and (2). Such expenses included

both imputed credit and inventory carrying costs.

Id. See also Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 7392, 7395 (February 13,

1998).

Accordingly, we have followed this practice in these final results

by calculating a CEP-profit rate based on actual costs (without regard

to imputed expenses) and applying this rate to a U.S. selling expense

pool inclusive of such expenses. We note that, while Ausimont's comment

suggests that we followed this practice in the preliminary results, we

in fact calculated the CEP-profit rate incorrectly by including imputed

credit expenses in the total expenses we used to calculate this rate.

We have corrected this error for these final results.

Comment 4: Rebates

Ausimont argues that the Department erred in excluding from its

margin calculation all rebate expenses reported for one of its home

market customers. Ausimont maintains that the Department's verification

report states incorrectly that the rebates for that customer were

reported erroneously based on a finding that the customer did not meet

the minimum purchasing requirements to qualify for rebates during the

POR. According to Ausimont, the sales transactions selected for

examination by the Department during verification show that the

customer in question qualified for two types of rebates: one that is

based on purchasing a certain quantity on a quarterly basis, and

another that is based on purchasing a certain quantity on a yearly

basis. Ausimont states that the verification documentation collected by

the Department at verification includes the quarterly and yearly rebate

agreements for that customer, as well as internally generated documents

showing that the customer met the quarterly and yearly minimum

purchasing requirements reflected in the rebate agreements. Ausimont

maintains that the verification documents accepted by the Department

are proof of the legitimacy of the rebates reported for the customer.

Therefore, Ausimont argues that the Department's deletion in the

database of all rebates reported for that customer is an error that

should be corrected. Ausimont acknowledges, however, that it was unable

to locate the quarterly rebate agreement for one of the sales

transactions the Department examined during verification. According to

Ausimont, the Department could consider this particular rebate as

unverified.

The petitioner responds that Ausimont's claim conflicts with the

Department's verification report, which states explicitly that this

customer did not qualify for the rebate. Petitioner also states that,

while the verification exhibits to which Ausimont referred in support

of its claim contain copies of rebate agreements, such agreements do

not show that the customer qualified for the rebates under the

agreement or that the rebates were actually paid.

DOC Position: We agree with Ausimont that certain exhibits we

collected at verification contain rebate agreements for the customer in

question, as well as internally generated documents indicating that the

customer qualified for the rebates. However, during the Department's

verification, Ausimont was unable to provide any evidence showing that

the customer in fact received rebate payments for meeting the minimum

quantity stipulated in the quarterly and/or yearly rebate

agreements.2 The only information we have on the record with

respect to the quantity sold to that customer is Ausimont's reported

home market sales database, which does not support Ausimont's

contention that the customer met the minimum purchasing requirements to

qualify for either the quarterly or yearly rebates. Therefore, we have

continued to exclude Ausimont's reported rebates for that customer from

the margin calculation for purposes of these final results.

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

\2\ See Memorandum to Office Director from Case Analysts:

Verification of the Responses of Ausimont SpA and Ausimont U.S.A. in

the 1996/97 Administrative Review of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)

Resin from Italy at 8-9 (May 4, 1998).

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

Final Results of Review

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

percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1,

1996, through July 31, 1997:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)

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

Ausimont S.p.A.......................... 8/1/96-7/31/97 45.72

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.212 (b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific

assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject

merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. We will

direct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties by applying the

assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)

of the Act: (1) For Ausimont, the cash deposit rate will be the rate

listed above; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or

exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment

of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in

which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this

proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final

results of review or in the most recent final results in which that

manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous

segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-

value investigation (50 FR 26019, June 24, 1985). These deposit

requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

[[Page 49085]]

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

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

Dated: September 4, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-24601 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P