Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

[[Page 49151]]

SUMMARY: On May 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce published in the

Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review

and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel

concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey. The administrative review covers

one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United

States, Ekinciler. The new shipper review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, ICDAS. The

periods of review are October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998, in the

administrative review, and October 10, 1996, through July 31, 1998, in

the new shipper review.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We have considered the comments received in these

final results and have changed the results from those presented in the

preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1776

or (202) 482-0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the 1996-

1998 administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping

duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from

Turkey (64 FR 24578). The Department has now completed these

administrative reviews, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Reviews

The product covered by these reviews is all stock deformed steel

concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This

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

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

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

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

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

numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Periods of Review

The period of review (POR) is October 10, 1996, through March 31,

1998, for Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S.

(collectively ``Ekinciler'') and October 10, 1996, through July 31,

1998, for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (ICDAS).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references

to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (1998).

Level of Trade and Constructed Export Price Offset

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on sales in the

comparison market at the same level of trade as export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP). The NV level of trade is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on

CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level of

trade is also the level of the starting-price sales, which are usually

from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the

level of the constructed sales from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade

than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and

selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer

and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a

different level of trade and the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price

differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-

market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a

level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory

than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the

difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the

CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).

Neither Ekinciler nor ICDAS claimed that it made home market sales

at more than one level of trade. Based on the information on the

record, no level of trade adjustment was warranted for either company.

For a detailed explanation of this analysis, see the memorandum

entitled ``Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and New Shipper Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing

Bars from Turkey,'' dated April 30, 1999 (``the concurrence

memorandum'').

Regarding Ekinciler, in order to determine whether NV was

established at a level of trade which constituted a more advanced stage

of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP, we compared the

selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed

with respect to CEP transactions, which exclude those functions related

to economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to

section 772(d) of the Act. We found that Ekinciler performed

essentially the same selling functions in its sales offices in Turkey

for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, Ekinciler's sales in

Turkey were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and distribution

than the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents an F.O.B.

foreign port price after the deduction of expenses associated with U.S.

selling activities. Because we find that no difference in level of

trade exists between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset to

Ekinciler. For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum noted

above.

Comparisons to Normal Value

To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the

United States at less than NV, we compared the CEP or EP, as

appropriate, to the NV. Because Turkey's economy experienced high

inflation during the POR (over 70 percent), we limited, as is

Department practice, our comparisons to home market sales made during

the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred and did not apply the

``90/60'' contemporaneity rule (see, e.g., Notice of Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 63 FR 35191 (June 29,

1998) (affirming Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey, 63 FR 6155, 6158 (Feb. 6, 1998)); and Certain Porcelain-on-

Steel

[[Page 49152]]

Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (Aug. 7, 1997)). This methodology minimizes

the extent to which calculated dumping margins are overstated or

understated due solely to price inflation that occurred in the

intervening time period between the U.S. and home market sales.

We first attempted to compare products sold in the U.S. and home

markets that were identical with respect to the following hierarchical

characteristics: grade, size, ASTM specification, and form. Where there

were no home market sales of merchandise that were identical in these

respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S.

products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market

based on the hierarchy of characteristics listed above.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

For all U.S. sales by Ekinciler, we used CEP, in accordance with

section 772(b) of the Act. For all U.S. sales by ICDAS, we used EP, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject

merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in

the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not

otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.

A. Ekinciler

We based CEP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser

in the United States. We made deductions from CEP for discounts, as

appropriate. We also made deductions for foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, inspection fees, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

customs duties, discharge expenses (offset by despatch revenue),

wharfage expenses, sorting expenses, truck loading expenses, U.S.

warehousing expenses and insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.

inland insurance, where appropriate, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We based the amount of foreign brokerage and

handling expenses on the amount that Ekinciler paid to an affiliated

party, because we determined that these expenses were at arm's length.

For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum.

We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for

Exporters' Association fees, bank charges, credit expenses, U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, in

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We recalculated U.S.

credit expenses using the weighted average of the U.S. interest rates

reported in Ekinciler's response. This average rate was based on the

actual borrowing experience of Ekinciler's affiliated parties for their

U.S.-dollar-denominated loans. See Comment 4.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the

starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance

with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using

the expenses incurred by Ekinciler and its affiliate on their sales of

the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like

product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

B. ICDAS

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

the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight

expenses, ocean freight expenses, inspection fees, and loading charges,

where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales

in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,

the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product

is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we

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

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

merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based

on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable

home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market

sales.

Both respondents made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in the

home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to

ensure that, on average, they were made at arm's-length prices, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To conduct this test, we compared

the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net

of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where

prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of

the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales were

made at arm's length (see 19 CFR 351.403(c) and the preamble to the

Department's regulations (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27355 (May 19, 1997)). Accordingly,

for Ekinciler, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to

the affiliated party that were made at arm's length. Regarding ICDAS,

we did not include in our analysis any sales made to affiliated parties

because they failed the arm's-length test. Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.403(d), we based our analysis on the downstream sales of the

affiliates to their unaffiliated customers. See the memorandum entitled

``Arms-Length Test Performed in the Antidumping Duty Administrative New

Shipper Review on Rebar from Turkey'' from Irina Itkin to the File,

dated September 16, 1998.

A. Ekinciler

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ekinciler had made home

market sales at prices below their cost of production (COP) in this

(the first) review because the Department had disregarded sales below

the COP for this company in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9740 (Mar. 4, 1997) (Rebar

from Turkey). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether Ekinciler made home market sales during the POR at

prices below their respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the sum of Ekinciler's cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts

for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act. We relied on Ekinciler's information as submitted, except in the

specific instances discussed below.

(1) We considered Ekinciler to be the manufacturer of all rebar

which was rolled by unaffiliated subcontractors because we find that

Ekinciler controlled the production of this merchandise. This is

consistent with our treatment of Ekinciler's subcontracted production

in the LTFV investigation. See the memorandum entitled ``Antidumping

Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars

(Rebar) from Turkey--Determination of Who Is the Producer for Rebar

Rolled by Unaffiliated Subcontractors'' from James Maeder to Louis

Apple, dated April 30, 1999. See also Stainless Steel Flanges From

India; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,

58 FR 68853 (Dec. 29, 1993); and

(2) We revised the calculation of depreciation expenses related to

the revaluation of fixed assets in order to use the index published by

the Turkish Ministry of Finance. See World Accounting, Orsini, Gould,

McAllister, & Parikh, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1998, page TRK-30.

[[Page 49153]]

As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced

significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the

distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices,

we requested that Ekinciler submit the product-specific costs of

manufacturing (COM) incurred during each month of the POR. We

calculated a POR-average COM for each product after indexing the

reported monthly costs during the POR to an equivalent currency level

using the Turkish Wholesale Price Index from the International

Financial Statistics published by the International Monetary Fund. We

then restated the POR-average COMs in the currency values of each

respective month.

We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices

of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the

Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below

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

market prices, less any applicable movement charges and selling

expenses.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In

substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at

prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections

773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of Ekinciler's sales of a given product were at prices less

than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product

because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in

``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Ekinciler's

sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that

sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an

extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the

Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such

cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which

would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for

purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded the below-cost

sales and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for

determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where

all sales of a specific product were at prices below the COP, we

disregarded all sales of that product.

In all cases, we found that comparison products existed for which

there were sales at prices above the COP. Accordingly, we based NV on

ex-factory, ex-warehouse or delivered prices to home market customers.

We excluded from our analysis home market re-sales by Ekinciler of

merchandise produced by unaffiliated companies. Where appropriate, we

added an amount for interest revenue received from home market

customers for delayed payment of invoices. Also where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight,

inland insurance, and off-site warehousing expenses, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of

the Act.

Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of

manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise,

using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the

POR, as described above.

B. ICDAS

We based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated customers. We

made deductions for inland freight expenses (offset by freight

revenue), where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the

Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home

market credit expenses (offset by interest revenue), where appropriate,

and adding U.S. credit expenses, bank charges, and Exporters'

Association fees. We recalculated home market credit expenses using the

interest rates observed at verification. We included bank charges

related to short-term loans in our recalculation. See Comment 14.

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

packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

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

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

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

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

Retrieval Service. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago, 63 FR

9177, 9181 (Feb. 24, 1998) (Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago). See

Comment 13.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received case briefs from Florida Steel Corp.

and New Jersey Steel Corp. (the petitioners) and from both respondents.

We also received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and Ekinciler.

A. Ekinciler

Comment 1: Bank Charges Associated with Intra-Company Transfers.

During the POR, Ekinciler sold rebar to its U.S. affiliate, Ferromin,

which in turn resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers.

Ekinciler incurred certain bank charges related to the payment of the

transfer price by Ferromin, and it reported these bank charges in a

separate field in its U.S. sales listing. For purposes of the

preliminary results, the Department treated these bank charges as CEP

selling expenses and deducted them from CEP. Ekinciler argues that this

treatment was incorrect, because the charges in question were

associated with the payment between affiliated parties. As these

transactions were incurred in Turkey and not directly linked to the

sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser, Ekinciler asserts that they

are indirect expenses which should not be deducted from CEP.

Ekinciler maintains that the Department is prohibited from making

adjustments for expenses between affiliated parties under its

regulations. Specifically, Ekinciler cites 19 CFR 351.402(b), which

directs the Department to make no adjustment to the U.S. selling price

for expenses that are related solely to the sale to an affiliated

importer in the United States. Ekinciler notes that, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.402(b), the Department's practice is not to make such

adjustments. As support for this position, Ekinciler cites Porcelain-

On-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 26934 (May 18, 1999) (Mexican Cookware),

where the Department stated that indirect selling expenses incurred in

the home market relating to the sale to the affiliated purchaser are

not deducted from CEP.

In any event, Ekinciler asserts that it is the Department's

practice to consider any credit-related expenses associated with

transfers between affiliates as

[[Page 49154]]

indirect selling expenses. As support for this position, Ekinciler

cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 42942, 42949

(Sept. 17, 1992), which states:

These [bank charges] result from intra-company transfers which

occurred before the sale to the first unrelated party, and are not

directly tied to individual sales to unrelated customers. The

Department considers such expenses to be indirect selling expenses.

See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:

Color Television Receivers from Korea, 55 FR 26225 (July 27, 1990).

Ekinciler also cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Color Television Receivers from Taiwan, 49 FR 7628 (Mar. 1,

1984), where the Department found that interest expenses between

affiliated parties should be treated as indirect selling expenses

because they are intra-company expenses not directly related to sales

to unrelated U.S. buyers.

According to the petitioners, the bank charges in question are

direct selling expenses because they: (1) Are associated with the sale

to the first unaffiliated customer; and (2) can be directly tied to the

sale of the rebar in question. The petitioners assert that, under 19

CFR 351.402(b), the relevant factor in determining whether an expense

should be treated as part of the CEP deduction is where the economic

activity associated with the expense occurs. The petitioners assert

that, in this case, the relevant activity--the sale--occurred in the

United States after importation. Therefore, the petitioners contend

that the Department should deduct these expenses from CEP, or, barring

that, the Department should treat them as a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment to NV.

DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler. Contrary to the petitioners'

assertions, the bank charges in question are not associated with a sale

to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Rather, they relate

solely to transactions between Ekinciler and its affiliated U.S.

reseller. Moreover, because they cannot be tied directly to a sale to

the first unaffiliated purchaser, they are indirect selling expenses.

The Department's regulations provide explicit guidance on the

treatment of such expenses. Specifically, 19 CFR 351.402(b) states:

In establishing constructed export price under section 772(d) of

the Act, the Secretary will make adjustments for expenses associated

with economic activities in the United States that relate to the

sale to an unaffiliated purchaser, no matter where or when paid. The

Secretary will not make an adjustment for any expense that is

related solely to the sale to an affiliated importer in the United

States, although the Secretary may make an adjustment to normal

value for such expenses under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

This regulation is further explained in the preamble, which states:

The purpose of these changes is to distinguish between selling

expenses incurred on the sale to the unaffiliated customer, which

may be deducted under 772(d), and those associated with the sale to

the affiliated customer in the United States, which may not be

deducted. In addition, the phrase ``no matter where or when paid''

is intended to indicate that if commercial activities occur in the

United States and relate to the sale to an unaffiliated purchaser,

expenses associated with those activities will be deducted from CEP

even if, for example, the foreign parent of the affiliated U.S.

importer pays those expenses. Finally, the reference to adjustments

normal value reflects our agreement with the comment that the

Secretary may adjust for direct selling expenses (as well as assumed

expenses) associated with the sale to the affiliated importer under

the circumstance of sale provision * * *

62 FR at 27351.

We explained our current practice in this area in a recent decision

in Mexican Cookware. Specifically, we stated:

The Department's current practice, as indicated by the preamble

to the Department's new regulations, is to deduct indirect selling

expenses incurred in the home market from the CEP calculation only

if they relate to sales to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We do not deduct from the CEP calculation indirect selling

expenses incurred in the home market relating to the sale to the

affiliated purchaser.

64 FR at 26942-43.

Consequently, in accordance with the Department's regulations and

current practice, we have made no adjustment for the bank charges in

question for purposes of the final results.

Comment 2: Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Turkey. The

petitioners contend that the Department should require Ekinciler to

report all indirect selling expenses incurred in Turkey to sell rebar

in the United States. According to the petitioners, it is implausible

that Ekinciler incurred no Turkish indirect selling expenses related to

U.S. sales.

Ekinciler notes that, under its regulations and practice, the

Department makes no adjustment for foreign indirect selling expenses.

See 19 CFR 351.402(b) and Mexican Cookware. Therefore, Ekinciler

asserts that, if the Department were to include these expenses in its

calculations, it would do so only in the calculation of CEP profit.

Ekinciler notes that this would result in the reduction of CEP profit,

which would be to Ekinciler's advantage.

DOC Position. We disagree with the petitioners. As Ekinciler

correctly notes, the expenses in question would be used only in the

calculation of CEP profit because, in accordance with the Department's

regulations, indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market

relating to the sale to the affiliated purchaser are not deducted from

the CEP calculation. See 19 CFR 351.402(b) and Mexican Cookware.

Therefore, even if Ekinciler had incurred indirect selling expenses in

Turkey related to U.S. sales, it was conservative for Ekinciler not to

report these expenses. Accordingly, we have not requested any

additional information from Ekinciler, nor have we based the amount of

these expenses on facts available.

Comment 3: Pre-Sale Freight and Warehousing Expenses. According to

the petitioners, the Department should deduct from NV neither any

freight expenses incurred on the transportation of merchandise from the

factory to Ekinciler's home market distribution warehouse nor the

warehousing expenses themselves. The petitioners contend that these

expenses should be treated as general expenses because they were

incurred prior to the sale to the first unaffiliated customer.

According to Ekinciler, its transportation and warehousing expenses

are incurred after the intra-corporate sale of the rebar to the

respondent's affiliated trading company and are subsumed in the price

to the unaffiliated customer. Ekinciler notes that both the Act and the

regulations allow these types of adjustments. Ekinciler cites the

preamble to the regulations at 62 FR 27410, which states that the

Department is to deduct from NV all movement and related expenses

incurred after the merchandise left the place of production.

DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler. Section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of

the Act directs the Department to reduce NV by the amount of any

expenses incident to bringing the foreign like product from the

original place of shipment (i.e., the production facility) to the place

of delivery. Moreover, under 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2), the Department

considers warehousing expenses incurred after the foreign like product

leaves the production facility to be movement expenses. Consequently,

in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.401(e)(2), we have continued to treat the freight and warehousing

expenses in question as movement charges and deducted them

[[Page 49155]]

from NV for purposes of the final results.

Comment 4: Credit Expenses. For purposes of the preliminary

results, the Department based the U.S. interest rate on the weighted

average of the interest rates paid by Ekdemir (i.e., the Ekinciler

Group's rebar producer) and Ekdis (i.e., the Ekinciler Group's

international trading company) on their U.S.-dollar-denominated loans.

According to the petitioners, the Department should base the U.S.

interest rate only on the rates paid by Ekdemir because this rate is

the most reflective of Ekinciler's weighted-average short-term

borrowing experience in the currency of the transaction. The

petitioners contend that the Department should disregard Ekdis' U.S.-

dollar borrowings because Ekdis was not directly involved in making

sales to the United States. The petitioners further argue that the

Department should recalculate Ekdemir's U.S. interest rate using 365

days, rather than 360, in order to make this calculation consistent

with the calculation of the credit period.

Ekinciler agrees that the Department should not base the U.S.

interest rate on the weighted average of Ekdemir's and Ekdis' U.S.-

dollar borrowings. However, Ekinciler argues that the Department should

use the average short-term dollar lending rates calculated by the

Federal Reserve, because Ekinciler's U.S. subsidiary, Ferromin, had no

borrowings during the POR. Ekinciler asserts that this rate is

appropriate because the U.S. subsidiary was the party which would have

been required to finance the U.S. sales from the date of shipment from

the U.S. warehouse until the date of payment by the U.S. customer.

Ekinciler maintains that using the Federal Reserve rate would be

consistent with Department practice. To demonstrate this, Ekinciler

cites Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 12725, 12742 (Mar. 16,

1998) (Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada), where the Department

based the U.S. interest rate on Federal Reserve data for EP sales, even

though the respondent's U.S. subsidiary had actual U.S. dollar

borrowings.

Nonetheless, Ekinciler argues that, should the Department decide to

use its U.S.-dollar borrowings in Turkey, it would be inappropriate to

use only one of the two group companies' borrowing rates. Ekinciler

cites Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 15772, 15779

(Apr. 9, 1996), where the Department stated that calculating interest

expense based on a company's consolidated financial statements is

appropriate because the cost of capital is fungible.

Finally, Ekinciler maintains that the Department did, in fact, use

365 days in the calculation of U.S. credit. Therefore, Ekinciler

asserts that no further change is necessary.

DOC Position. We disagree with the petitioners and with Ekinciler,

in part, regarding the appropriate interest rate to use in the U.S.

credit calculations. As we stated in Import Administration Policy

Bulletin 98-2 (Feb. 23, 1998):

For the purposes of calculating imputed credit expenses, we will

use a short-term interest rate tied to the currency in which the

sales are denominated. We will base this interest rate on the

respondent's weighted-average short-term borrowing experience in the

currency of the transaction... In cases where a respondent has no

short-term currency borrowings in the currency of the transaction,

we will use publicly available information to establish a short-term

interest rate applicable to the currency of the transaction.

Contrary to Ekinciler's assertions, this bulletin does not indicate

that the source of the U.S. dollar-denominated short-term interest rate

must be a bank located in the United States. Rather, this bulletin

shows a clear preference for the actual borrowing experience of the

respondent.

In this case, there were three parties who were involved in the

sale of rebar to the United States. Since the U.S. subsidiary most

directly involved in selling the subject merchandise had no U.S. dollar

borrowings, and because we have a preference for using actual

experience where possible, we have continued to use the average of the

rates paid by the other parties involved in making the sale, rather

than the Federal Reserve rate. We disagree with the petitioners'

contention that we should base the U.S. interest rate solely on the

experience of Ekdemir, because Ekdis was also involved in the sale of

the subject merchandise.

Moreover, we find that the situation in Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Canada is factually distinguishable from the circumstances in this

case. In that case, unlike here, neither the respondent nor any

affiliated party involved directly or indirectly with the sale of the

subject merchandise had any borrowings in U.S. dollars (although in

Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada the U.S. subsidiary had

borrowings in U.S. dollars, it was not involved in the sale of subject

merchandise). Thus, because the respondent had no actual U.S.-dollar-

denominated borrowings in that case, we determined that the use of the

Federal Reserve rate was appropriate. In contrast, the respondent in

this case does have actual U.S. dollar-denominated borrowings, and we

relied on these borrowings to determine the U.S. interest rate.

Regarding the calculation of the interest rate, we agree with the

petitioners. We find that Ekinciler's methodology understates the

annual interest rate, because Ekinciler misstated the portion of the

year to which the interest expense applied. Consequently, we have

recalculated the U.S. interest rate for purposes of the final results.

Comment 5: Packing Expenses According to the petitioners, the

Department should base the amount of Ekinciler's packing expenses on

facts available, because Ekinciler's response contains contradictory

statements which cannot be reconciled. Specifically, the petitioners

assert that Ekinciler made the following statements: (1) The reason the

packing material costs differ significantly from month to month is due

to changes in material prices and to varying packing requirements

depending upon the market in which the product is sold; and (2) packing

materials used for U.S. and Turkish sales are very similar, and,

consequently, the costs are nearly identical. Moreover, the petitioners

contend that Ekinciler failed to index its packing figures, and it also

did not include any expenses for packing labor or overhead in its

calculations.

Ekinciler argues that the Department should accept its packing

expenses as reported. Ekinciler maintains that the statements

identified by the petitioners are not contradictory because the

differences in packing requirements referenced above relate to third

country markets, rather than to the U.S. or home market. Ekinciler

asserts that the packing requirements for U.S. and home market sales

are virtually identical. Furthermore, Ekinciler notes that, contrary to

the petitioners' assertions, it accounted for the effects of inflation

in its packing calculations because it reported current costs for its

packing materials in accordance with standard Department practice.

Finally, regarding packing labor and overhead, Ekinciler notes that it

was not possible to segregate these costs from other labor and overhead

costs its accounting system. Nonetheless, Ekinciler contends that its

inability to report these expenses separately does not affect the

margin calculations because these expenses are: (1) extremely small;

(2) virtually the

[[Page 49156]]

same for the U.S. and home markets; and (3) captured in the reported

COM.

DOC Position. Ekinciler consistently described its packing expenses

in its response and correctly based the expenses reported on its

current cost of materials (i.e., the price of materials in the same

month as production). Moreover, we note that, while Ekinciler did not

index these costs itself, these costs were indexed in the computer

program used to calculate Ekinciler's margin for purposes of the

preliminary results.

Regarding labor and overhead, we find that, because the packing

process is essentially the same for the U.S. and home markets, there

would be no material difference in the amount of labor and overhead

allocated to the U.S. and home markets. Consequently, we have continued

to rely on the packing data reported by Ekinciler for purposes of the

final results.

Comment 6: Offset to Materials Costs. Ekinciler claimed an offset

to the materials costs reported in its response for certain materials

recovered during the production process (e.g., billet ends and slag).

According to the petitioners, Ekinciler understated the value of billet

ends because it valued them at the average shredded scrap purchase

price for the month in which they were created. The petitioners contend

that this approach is only valid if the billet ends are also used in

that month. According to the petitioners, the Department should use

facts available to account for this error.

In addition, the petitioners contend that the Department should

disallow Ekinciler's offset for slag. According to the petitioners,

slag cannot be reused in an arc furnace and is typically sold for use

in roadbeds and airport runways.

Finally, the petitioners contend that Ekinciler improperly valued

other scrap which was recovered during the production process.

According to the petitioners, the proper value is not the weighted

average of the domestic scrap purchases during the same month, but

rather the weighted average of Ekinciler's total scrap purchases within

the same month.

Ekinciler contends that the petitioners' argument regarding billet

ends is moot because billet ends are recycled daily. Nonetheless,

Ekinciler argues that the value of scrap used as an offset should be

valued when the scrap is generated, not when it is used. Ekinciler

further notes that, had it understated the value of billet ends as the

petitioners assert, the result would have been to overstate (not

understate) costs, because the offset would have been too low.

Moreover, Ekinciler asserts that the Department should also accept

its reported offset for slag. Ekinciler asserts that it is irrelevant

whether the slag is used internally by Ekdemir or sold to outside

purchasers for use in roadbeds. According to Ekinciler, because the

petitioners admit that slag has value, there is no question that

Ekinciler properly reported a value for the scrap that it recovered.

Finally, Ekinciler asserts that it provided a detailed description

of the various types of scrap and the means that it used to value them

in its supplemental questionnaire response. Ekinciler further asserts

that it based its reported scrap recovery on the company's monthly

records maintained in the ordinary course of business. Therefore,

Ekinciler asserts that the petitioners' comments should be disregarded.

DOC Position. Ekinciler's methodology for valuing scrap recovered

during the production process is reasonable. Specifically, Ekinciler

valued each month's recovered scrap at the average of the purchase

prices for scrap during the month. (See pages 21 and 22 of its March

16, 1999, supplemental response.) We do not agree with the petitioners

that Ekinciler valued certain types of recovered scrap at the weighted

average of the monthly domestic scrap purchases. This is the method by

which Ekinciler valued recovered scrap in its accounting system, not

the method by which it reported the value of such scrap to the

Department. Consequently, we have accepted Ekinciler's data as

reported.

Comment 7: Revaluation of Raw Materials Inventories. According to

the petitioners, Ekinciler's failure to revalue its monthly raw

materials inventories misstated the company's costs by failing to take

into account the impact of inflation.

Ekinciler contends that it reported the usage of raw materials at

the current monthly acquisition prices, as instructed in the

questionnaire. According to Ekinciler, because the petitioners

submitted no evidence to the contrary, the Department should disregard

the petitioners' unfounded assertion.

DOC Position. In cases involving significant inflation, it is the

Department's practice to require respondents to value raw materials

using the purchase prices obtained in the month of production. See,

e.g., Rebar from Turkey, Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey, 62 FR 51629, 51631(Oct. 2, 1997), and Ferrosilicon from Brazil;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 59407,

59408 (Nov. 22, 1996). Because Ekinciler did so, we find that its costs

appropriately account for the effects of inflation. Consequently, we

have accepted these costs for purposes of the final results.

Comment 8: Value of Billets Purchased from an Affiliated Company.

The petitioners allege that Ekinciler may have understated the value of

certain billets purchased from an affiliated party in the home market.

According to the petitioners, the Department cannot find that the

transfer prices included a profit margin merely based on the fact that

the price paid to the affiliate exceeded the price that the affiliate

paid to its supplier. The petitioners note that the higher transfer

prices may account for all, or part of, the inflation that occurred

during the months between the affiliate's purchase and resale. The

petitioners do not suggest a method by which the Department should

adjust Ekinciler's billet costs.

Ekinciler maintains that it properly valued the billets in

question. Ekinciler notes that, in its questionnaire response, it

provided invoices showing that the transfer prices paid to the

affiliated party exceeded the affiliate's acquisition cost for the same

billet, and that the lag time between the purchase and resale was only

a few days. According to Ekinciler, not only is this entirely

consistent with the Department's practice, but it was not challenged by

the petitioners prior to the briefing stage. Consequently, Ekinciler

contends that the Department should accept its billet costs as

reported.

DOC Position. In determining whether a transaction occurred at an

arm's-length price, the Department compares the transfer price between

the affiliated parties and the market price between unaffiliated

parties. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review:

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

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

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

In its questionnaire response, Ekinciler was able to demonstrate

adequately that the transfer price exceeded the affiliate's acquisition

price, paid to an unaffiliated supplier, for reasons unrelated to

inflation. Accordingly, we find that the transfer price is at arm's

length, and we have used the transfer price to value the billet

purchased from the affiliated party.

Comment 9: Billet Production Costs. According to the petitioners,

Ekinciler

[[Page 49157]]

inappropriately allocated fabrication costs in the melt shop using

total tonnage produced each month. The petitioners contend that the

Department should base Ekinciler's melt shop fabrication costs on facts

available because these costs should have been allocated based on

processing times. The petitioners provide no suggestions regarding the

appropriate source of facts available.

Ekinciler maintains that the Department should accept its costs as

reported. According to Ekinciler, because there is only one product

produced in the melt shop (i.e., billet), allocating total fabrication

costs over total production tonnage is reasonable.

DOC Position. Unlike in the rolling mill, production costs in the

melt shop do not vary by processing times. Rather, these costs vary

according to the number of tons produced. For example, the same amount

of electricity is consumed to produce a billet used in the production

of 14 mm rebar as for a billet used to make 32 mm rebar. Consequently,

we find that allocating fabrication costs using production quantity is

not only reasonable but appropriate, and we have continued to accept

Ekinciler's costs as reported for purposes of the final results.

Comment 10: Work-in-Process. According to the petitioners,

Ekinciler failed to report work-in-process at the end of its accounting

period. The petitioners assert that, although Ekinciler stated that

there are no unfinished units at the end of the accounting period, this

statement is contradicted by the fact that Ekinciler valued raw

materials using the weighted-average purchase price from the previous

month (adjusted for inflation) in cases where Ekinciler did not make

any purchases in the month when production occurred.

According to Ekinciler, it had no work-in-process at the end of the

accounting period. Ekinciler asserts that steel mills do not close

their accounting periods in mid-cast or in half-rolled bar, and that

the production cycle is so short that the production process is

completed by the end of the accounting period. Ekinciler further

contends that the statements referenced by the petitioners are not

contradictory because the petitioners confused several statements in

Ekinciler's response. Specifically, Ekinciler notes that the

petitioners appeared to confuse work-in-process (which was referenced

in the statement regarding unfinished units) and raw materials (which

was referenced in the statement regarding purchases). Accordingly,

Ekinciler asserts that the Department should disregard the petitioners'

comments.

DOC Position. We find that Ekinciler consistently described its

production process and valuation methodologies in its response.

Moreover, we find that Ekinciler appropriately valued the cost of

materials, because it based these costs on the company's purchases in

each month of the POR. Contrary to the petitioners' implication, the

Department's practice in cases involving high inflation is to base COP

on the current production costs incurred during each month of the POR.

See Rebar from Turkey, 62 FR at 9739 and Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR

30309, 30314 (June 14, 1996). For this reason, the valuation of work-

in-process is irrelevant to the dumping analysis in this case.

Accordingly, we have based our final results on the data in Ekinciler's

response.

Comment 11: General and Administrative Expenses (G&A). The

petitioners contend that Ekinciler improperly calculated G&A.

Specifically, the petitioners maintain that Ekinciler divided the G&A

of the group's rebar producer (i.e., Ekdemir) over the cost of sales of

all companies in the Ekinciler group. In addition, the petitioners

assert that Ekinciler improperly included Ekdemir's real estate taxes

and factory administrative costs in G&A. According to the petitioners,

these actions result in an allocation of rebar-related expenses to non-

subject merchandise.

Ekinciler contends that it did, in fact, allocate G&A over

Ekdemir's (and not Ekinciler's) cost of sales. According to Ekinciler,

the petitioners misread the headings in Ekinciler's G&A worksheets.

Ekinciler further contends that, contrary to the petitioners'

assertion, it classified factory administrative labor as part of

factory overhead. Regarding real estate taxes, Ekinciler asserts that

Ekdemir's corporate administrative offices are located at its mill,

and, therefore, these costs were properly reported as part of G&A. In

any event, Ekinciler notes that the amount of these taxes represents

less than 0.001 percent of Ekdemir's rolling mill costs, and,

consequently, any reallocation between G&A and COM would result in a de

minimis adjustment.

DOC Position. We have continued to accept Ekinciler's G&A as

reported for purposes of the final results. Ekinciler's G&A worksheets

clearly show that Ekdemir's G&A were allocated over Ekdemir's cost of

sales. See Exhibit 15 of the July 28, 1998, section A response and

Exhibit 30 of the March 16, 1999, supplemental response. Moreover,

Ekinciler's COM worksheets show that Ekinciler included supervisory

labor (the largest component of factory administrative costs) as part

of COM. See Exhibits 15 and 16 of the August 28, 1998, section D

response and Exhibit 25 of the March 16, 1999, supplemental response.

Regarding real estate taxes, while we agree with the petitioners

that the portion of the tax related to the rebar production facility

should have been included in fixed overhead (rather than G&A), we find

that reallocating these taxes in this case would have no material

impact on COM. According to section 777A(a)(2) of the Act, the

Department may decline to take into account adjustments which are

insignificant in relation to the price or value of the merchandise.

Consequently, in accordance with section 777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.413, we have not included these taxes in fixed overhead.

Comment 12: Financing Expenses. According to the petitioners, all

interest expenses incurred by Ekinciler should be included in COM. The

petitioners reason that the expenses incurred by Ekdemir and Ekdis

(i.e., the group trading company) constitute a large portion of the

interest expense reported by the Ekinciler Group for 1997 and in that

regard resemble a foreign exchange expense incurred by Ekdemir and

Ekdis in 1997. The petitioners speculate that these interest expenses

relate to the acquisition of raw material outside Turkey and, thus, are

associated with the purchase of raw materials. Moreover, the

petitioners assert that Ekinciler failed to include gains and losses

related to accounts payable transactions in COM, despite the

Department's explicit instructions to do so. Therefore, the petitioners

argue that the Department should also include all foreign exchange

gains and losses in COM.

In addition, the petitioners contend that the Department should

disallow offsets to financing expenses for financing income and foreign

exchange income because Ekinciler failed to show why the former offset

was appropriate and the latter was earned by entities which have no

relationship to rebar.

Ekinciler contends that it properly included in COM all costs

incurred on the purchase of materials, including bank fees and exchange

losses on the purchase of materials. Ekinciler asserts that any other

interest costs or exchange losses on payables are classified in the

normal course of business as part of financing expenses and were

treated as

[[Page 49158]]

such for purposes of Ekinciler's responses.

Regarding the offset for short-term interest income, Ekinciler

asserts that the Department's practice is to allow offsets to financing

expenses for financial income earned on short-term investments of

working capital. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the

United Kingdom, 64 FR 30688, 30710 (June 8, 1999) (Sheet and Strip from

the UK). Ekinciler asserts that it submitted substantial evidence that

its financial income was earned on short-term uses of working capital.

Therefore, Ekinciler asserts that its interest expense factor properly

included an offset for this income.

Regarding the offset for foreign exchange gains, Ekinciler asserts

that the Department's long-standing treatment of financing expenses is

to base the calculation of such expenses on the consolidated corporate

entity, due to the fungible nature of financing. Ekinciler notes that,

in accordance with this policy, the Department specifically instructed

Ekinciler to base its financing expenses on the combined expenses of

all companies in the Ekinciler Group. Accordingly, Ekinciler asserts

that the petitioners are misguided in contending that exchange gains

earned by other entities in the group are irrelevant.

DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler that it is the Department's

practice to classify interest expenses incurred by a company as

financing expenses and to calculate the expenses on a consolidated

basis. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan, 64 FR

30574, 30592 (June 8, 1999). It is also the Department's practice to

grant offsets to financing expenses when respondents are able to

demonstrate that such offsets are related to short-term interest

income. See, e.g., Sheet and Strip from the UK. Because Ekinciler

calculated its financing expenses in accordance with the Department's

practice, we have accepted it for purposes of the final results.

Regarding the petitioners' allegation that Ekinciler improperly

excluded exchange losses related to accounts payable transactions from

COM, we find no evidence that this has occurred. Accordingly, we have

made no adjustment to COM for exchange losses for purposes of the final

results.

B. ICDAS

Comment 13: Currency Conversion. The Federal Reserve Bank does not

track or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Consequently, for

purposes of the preliminary results, the Department made currency

conversions using exchange rates published by the Dow Jones News/

Retrieval Service. ICDAS argues that the Department should use the

exchange rates published by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey

for purposes of the final results because these rates better reflect

commercial reality in Turkey.

ICDAS acknowledges that the Department generally uses the Dow Jones

News/Retrieval Service rates in cases where Federal Reserve Bank rates

are not available, including currency conversions in Turkish cases.

However, ICDAS argues that the Department has the discretion to use a

source other than the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service when the rates

in question are not published by the Federal Reserve Bank, since

neither section 773A of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.415 prescribes the

precise source to be used in currency conversions.

ICDAS asserts that the Department is not precluded from using the

Central Bank rates, despite the fact that it did not raise this

exchange rate issue in previous filings, since the rates consist of

publicly available data which the Department may add to the record at

any time during the proceeding. As support for this position, ICDAS

cites the Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part: Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabyte or Above From the Republic

of Korea, 62 FR 39809, 39810 (July 24, 1997) (DRAMS from Korea);

Certain Cased Pencils From The People's Republic of China; Amended

Final Results Of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR 36491,

36492 (July 8, 1997) (Pencils from China); and Live Swine From Canada;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR

12243, 12250 (Mar. 16, 1994) (Live Swine from Canada).

The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to use

the rates published by the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service because it

is a well-established, reliable source of commercially available

exchange rates and ICDAS has provided no evidence to show that the

Central Bank rates are more reflective of commercial reality. Moreover,

the petitioners assert that the use of the Dow Jones News/Retrieval

Service rates would be consistent with Department practice. As support

for their position, the petitioners cite to Steel Wire Rod from

Trinidad & Tobago, where the Department rejected the respondent's

argument to use a source other than the Dow Jones News/Retrieval

Service in the absence of rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.

The petitioners further argue that the Department is prohibited

from using the Central Bank rates because they constitute new factual

information. The petitioners maintain that ICDAS' reliance on the cases

cited above is misplaced, because the facts in those cases are not

analogous to the facts in the instant review. Specifically, the

petitioners note that in DRAMS from Korea, the Department reviewed

current market conditions at the time of the final results, which could

not have been incorporated into the parties' filings prior to that

time, while in Pencils from China the Department re-opened the

administrative record to accept new factual information in conjunction

with a remand, not a new shipper review. The petitioners assert that

Live Swine from Canada makes clear that it is exceptional for the

Department to accept new factual information after the date of the

preliminary results of review.

DOC Position. In our exchange rate model, it is the Department's

normal practice to use exchange rates provided by the Federal Reserve

Bank. When the Federal Reserve does not provide exchange rates, the

Department uses exchange rates obtained from the Dow Jones News/

Retrieval Service because this service is a well-established, reliable

source of commercially available exchange rates. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 63 FR 68429 (Dec. 11, 1998)

(affirming Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 63

FR 42373 (Aug. 7, 1998)), Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago, Notice

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 61 FR 69067 (Dec. 31,

1996), and Rebar from Turkey. For this reason, we find that the

exchange rates obtained from the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service are a

reasonable alternative to those obtained from the Federal Reserve.

In this case, although ICDAS has asserted that the Turkish Central

Bank rates are more reflective of commercial reality in Turkey, it has

provided no evidence to support this assertion. Consequently, we find

that ICDAS has provided inadequate reasons for the Department to depart

from its established practice of using the Dow Jones rates, and we have

continued to

[[Page 49159]]

use these rates for purposes of the final results.

Comment 14: Calculation of the Home Market Short-Term Interest

Rate. For purposes of the preliminary results, the Department adjusted

the calculation of ICDAS'' short-term home market interest rate to

exclude bank commissions. ICDAS argues that the Department should

include these bank commissions in the calculation of the home market

short-term interest rate, because the commissions are part of the total

cost of borrowing. In support of its position, ICDAS cites the

following cases in which the Department included bank fees/charges in

its calculation of the short-term borrowing rate: Certain Corrosion

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon

Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in Part, 64 FR 2173,

2178-79 (Jan. 13, 1999) (Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Canada); Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

781, 801 (Jan. 7, 1998) (Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Korea); and Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;

Large Power Transformers From Italy, 52 FR 46806, 46811 (Dec. 10, 1987)

(LPTs from Italy).

The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to

exclude the bank commissions in question from the calculation of the

home market short-term interest rate because there is no evidence on

the record to indicate that these bank commissions were related to the

loan in question or that they were part of the total costs to ICDAS of

home market short-term borrowing.

DOC Position. According to the information gathered at

verification, the commissions in question are directly related to the

amount that the bank charged ICDAS for borrowing money. See Exhibit 16

to the ICDAS sales verification report. Therefore, because we find that

these commissions are part of the total cost borrowing of ICDAS, we

have revised our calculation of ICDAS' short-term home market borrowing

rate to include bank commissions. See Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel

Flat Products from Canada; Cold Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Korea; and LPTs from Italy.

Final Results of Review

As a result of comments received, we have revised our analysis and

determine that the following margins exist for the respondents during

the period October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998 (for Ekinciler),

and October 10, 1996, through July 31, 1998 (for ICDAS):

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

Margin

Manufacturer/producer/exporter percentage

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

Ekinciler Holding A.S./Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S.......... 0.30

ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S........... 9.67

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to

the total entered value of those sales. These rates will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the

POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs

Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries

for any importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less

than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for

all shipments of certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of these administrative and new

shipper reviews, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the ICDAS will be the rate stated above, and

the cash deposit rate for Ekinciler will be zero; (2) for previously

investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will

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

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

the 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 (4) the cash deposit rate for all

other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the

all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 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 the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). See Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Administrative Protective Order

Procedures; Procedures for Imposting Sanction for Violation of a

Protective Order, 63 FR 24391, 24402 (May 4, 1998). Timely 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.

These administrative and new shipper reviews are issued and

published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: September 3, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-23630 Filed 9-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P