Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Extruded Rubber Thread from Indonesia

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-803]

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

Extruded Rubber Thread from Indonesia

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell Morris or Eric B. Greynolds,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482-1775 or (202) 482-6071, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

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

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

the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce

(``Department'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351

(April 1998).

Final Determination

We determine that extruded rubber thread (``ERT'') from Indonesia

is being sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''),

as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins are shown

in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

Since the publication of our preliminary determination in this

investigation (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Extruded

Rubber Thread from Indonesia; 63 FR 59279, (October 27, 1998),

(``Preliminary Determination'')), the following events have occurred:

In December 1998, we verified the sales questionnaire response from

Globe Manufacturing Company (``Globe''), an affiliated selling agent of

P.T. Bakrie Rubber Industries (``Bakrie''), a foreign respondent.

Between January 7 through January 31, 1999, we verified the sales and

cost questionnaire responses of the foreign respondents, Bakrie and

P.T. Swasthi Parama Mulya (``Swasthi'').

[[Page 14691]]

Petitioner, North American Rubber Thread Co., Ltd., and

respondents, Bakrie and Globe, submitted case briefs on February 26,

1999, and rebuttal briefs on March 2, 1999. Swasthi submitted a case

brief on February 26, 1999, and a rebuttal brief on March 3, 1999. No

party requested a public hearing for this investigation.

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is ERT from

Indonesia. ERT is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained by

extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any cross

sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inches or 140

gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter.

ERT is currently classified under subheading 4007.00.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). Although the HTS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description

of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 1997, through

December 31, 1997.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of ERT from Indonesia to the United

States were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price

(``EP'') or the constructed export price (``CEP'') to the normal value

(``NV''), as described below in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed

Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated

weighted-average EPs and CEPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

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

products covered by the description in the ``Scope of Investigation''

section of this notice, produced in Indonesia by the respondents and

sold in the home market during the POI, to be foreign like products for

purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market

to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar

foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the

Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product

comparisons, we relied on the following criteria (listed in order of

preference): gauge and color. In our preliminary determination we also

made product comparisons using ends in our model match. At verification

we learned that ends are not relevant to the product price of ERT. We

also verified that there are no costs associated with the ends.

Therefore, for purposes of the final determination, we have eliminated

ends as a model match characteristic.

Level of Trade

In the preliminary determination, we determined that all

comparisons are at the same level of trade for both respondents and an

adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not

warranted. We find no basis to change this determination for the final

determination.

Export Price

As in the preliminary determination, for Swasthi we used EP

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

merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in

the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not

otherwise indicated.

We based EP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we

made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for foreign

inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs

duty, and brokerage and handling. We also made a deduction, where

appropriate, for rebates.

In the course of preparing for verification, Swasthi discovered

minor errors in its questionnaire responses. Swasthi reported these

corrections to its questionnaire responses on the first day of

verification. Upon examination of these minor corrections, we made the

following revisions to Swasthi's U.S. sales database: (1) accepted a

revised sales database which amended various fields (see Comment 4 in

the ``Analysis of Comments Received'' section for further discussion);

(2) revised the brokerage expenses (see Swasthi's Sales Verification

Report); (3) revised the rebate calculation, where appropriate (see

Swasthi's Sales Verification Report); and (4) recalculated imputed

credit costs in the home and U.S. market in order to account for

changes in the interest rates (see Swasthi's Sales Verification

Report).

Constructed Export Price

For all sales by Bakrie, we used the CEP methodology, in accordance

with section 772(b) of the Act, because the first sale of subject

merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation

into the United States. We based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where

appropriate, for discounts. We also made deductions for the following

movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight, containerization

expenses (expenses for loading the merchandise into the container),

foreign brokerage and handling, international freight (including marine

insurance, U.S. inland insurance, U.S. freight to the affiliated

reseller), U.S. customs duties, and freight to U.S. customer. In

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling

expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United

States, including direct selling expenses (credit cost) (see Comment

7), inventory carrying costs (see Comment 7), other indirect selling

expenses.

Finally, during our verification of Globe, we learned that Globe

incorrectly based its inventory carrying costs and indirect selling

expenses on a nine-month period rather than on the entire POI. Thus,

based on our verification findings, we revised the inventory carrying

costs and indirect selling expenses in Bakrie's U.S. sales database in

order to account for the entire POI. In addition, we revised the

international freight expenses incurred in the United States and the

inland freight expenses from the warehouse and created a new field in

order to account for marine insurance expenses that were omitted from

Bakrie's original section C response. For further discussion on the

above-mentioned revisions, see Globe's Verification Report. In

addition, we recalculated Bakrie's imputed credit expenses in the home

and U.S. market in order to account for changes in the interest rates

that we discovered at verification (see Bakrie and Globe's Sales

Verification Report).

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 greater than five percent 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 POI.

[[Page 14692]]

Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.

As discussed in the preliminary determination, the Department found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that both Bakrie's and

Swasthi's sales in the home market were made at prices below the cost

of producing the subject merchandise. As a result, the Department

initiated an investigation to determine whether Bakrie and Swasthi had

made home market sales during the POI at prices below their respective

cost of production within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

Section 782(c)(2) of the Act provides that the Department must attempt

to provide guidance to small responding companies. Because both

respondents are small companies in Indonesia, acting on their own

behalf, the Department has attempted to provide guidance in the course

of responding to antidumping questionnaires. This, in turn,

necessitated granting time to respond to the questionnaires. Due to

these extensions, the Department was unable to include a cost of

production (``COP'') analysis of either respondent's home market sales

in the preliminary determination. However, we are including a COP

analysis of Bakrie's and Swasthi's home market sales in this final

determination.

Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below for each company:

1. Bakrie

A. Calculation of COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of

Bakrie's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and

administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

B. Test of Home Market Prices. We used the respondent's weighted-

average COP for the POI. We compared the weighted-average COP figures

to home market sales of the foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales

had been made at below-cost prices within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities, and whether the below-cost prices would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-

specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any

applicable movement charges and direct selling expenses. We did not

deduct indirect selling expenses from the home market price because

these expenses were included in COP.

C. Results of COP Test. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given

product were at prices less than 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 a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at

prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in

``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because

we compared prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI, 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, we disregarded the

below-cost sales.

Based on our COP test, we found that Bakrie had no above-cost home

market sales for matching purposes. (For further discussion, see the

Calculation Memorandum to the File, dated March 18, 1999). Therefore,

NV was based upon constructed value, pursuant to section 773(b)(1).

D. Calculation of CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act,

we calculated CV based on the sum of Bakrie's cost of materials,

fabrication costs, SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We used

Bakrie's actual selling expenses incurred in Indonesia on home market

sales. Because Bakrie had no above-cost home market sales and, hence,

no actual company-specific profit data available for its home market

sales, we calculated profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B) of

the Act. Specifically, section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act permits the

Department to use any other reasonable method to determine profit.

Therefore, we used Swasthi's profit rate as facts available under

section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act (see Comment 2).

E. Price to CV Comparisons. For price to CV comparisons, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We

deducted from CV the weighted-average home market direct selling

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

selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act.

2. Swasthi

A. Calculation of COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of

Swasthi's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home market SG&A and packing costs in

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

B. Test of Home Market Prices. On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable

movement charges and direct selling expenses. We did not deduct

indirect selling expenses from the home market price because these

expenses were included in the G&A portion of COP.

C. Results of COP Test. Based on our COP test and the methodology

for disregarding below-cost sales described above for Bakrie, we found

that Swasthi had sufficient above-cost home market sales for matching

purposes. (For further discussion, see the Calculation Memorandum to

the File, dated March 18, 1999). Therefore, for matching purposes, U.S.

sales were compared to home market prices for all comparisons and CV

was not required.

D. Price to Price Comparisons. We calculated NV based on packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated customers and prices to affiliated

customers where the sales were made at arm's length. Where appropriate,

we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for

foreign inland freight in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B). In

addition, where appropriate, we adjusted for differences in

circumstances of sale (``COS'') for credit expenses, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C). We made COS adjustments by deducting from the

starting price credit expenses. In addition, in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs. We made adjustments, where appropriate,

for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

As in the preliminary determination, we made currency conversions

into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, ignoring

fluctuations, in accordance with section 773A of the Act.

Section 773A of the Act directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars

unless the daily rate is a fluctuation. It is the Department's practice

to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs

from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as

the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we

determine a fluctuation to have existed, we

[[Page 14693]]

substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the

information submitted by the respondents for use in our final

determination. We used standard verification procedures, including

examination of relevant accounting and production records and original

source documents provided by respondents. Our verification results are

outlined in detail in the public versions and are on file in Room B-

099, the Central Records Unit, of the Department of Commerce.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received comments from the petitioner, and the

two respondents, Bakrie and Swasthi. We also received rebuttal comments

from the petitioner, Bakrie, Swasthi, and Globe.

Comment 1: Averaging Periods to Account for the Effect of Time on

Price Comparability. Petitioner requests that the Department depart

from its standard use of a single weighted-average price and use two

six-month averaging periods to calculate the dumping margin in this

investigation to ensure that the currency conversion methodology does

not distort the Department's calculations of the dumping margins.

Petitioner, in this case, cites the identical arguments for applying

two six-month averaging periods discussed in the Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from Indonesia, 63 FR 72268, 72272 (December 31, 1998)

(``Preserved Mushrooms''). See Preserved Mushrooms at Comment 1.

According to Globe, the petitioner has misinterpreted the

Department's decision regarding the application of two six-month

averaging periods to calculate the dumping margin in this

investigation. Globe argues that in the Preserved Mushrooms case, the

Department chose not to use shorter averaging periods because they were

of no consequence in that case. Accordingly, because the POI in this

investigation is identical to the POI in Preserved Mushrooms, Globe

contends that the Department should also not alter the averaging period

and continue to average prices over the entire POI.

Swasthi also disagrees with the Petitioner's assertion that the

Department should use two-averaging periods. Swasthi argues that

dividing the POI into two parts would require the use of two sets of

costs and sales data for each of the periods. Swasthi notes that the

Department has only the costs and sales information regarding calendar

year 1997, and does not have the information available to consider the

Petitioner's proposed two-six month averaging period. On this basis,

Swasthi contends that the Department should follow the practice as

applied in Preserved Mushrooms by basing the price comparison on a

single averaging period for all of calendar year 1997.

DOC Position. We agree with petitioners that separate averaging

periods should be used. Under section 777A(d)(1)(A) of the Act , the

Department has wide latitude in calculating the average prices used to

determine whether sales at less than fair value exist. More

specifically, under 19 C.F.R. 351.414(d)(3), the Department may use

shorter averaging periods where normal value varies significantly over

the POI. In this case, such a change is evidenced by the steady,

significant decline in the rupiah's value that began about August 1997

and continued through the end of the POI. From August through December,

the end of the POI, the rupiah's value decreased by more than 50

percent in relation to the dollar. Consequently, it is appropriate to

use two averaging periods to avoid the possibility of a distortion in

the dumping calculation. We disagree with Globe's claim that the use of

averaging periods is not warranted because the POI is the same as the

POI in Preserved Mushrooms. Whereas we declined to use two averaging

periods in that case because doing so would have had no effect, thus

rendering the issue moot, in this case the use of two averaging periods

would affect our determination. As noted above, in our view, using a

single averaging period would result in a distortion of the dumping

calculation. We also disagree with Swasthi's assertion that we would

need additional information in order to use two averaging periods. In

accordance with our normal requirements, respondents reported

individual sales transactions, and we simply segregated sales by

period. Further, no additional or different cost information is

required. The use of two averaging periods for margin calculation

purposes does not affect whether the reported cost data are

appropriate.

Comment 2: Calculated Profit. Petitioner argues that, should the

Department find in its COP analysis that respondents made no sales

above the cost of production, the Department should resort to the use

of constructed value as NV, and apply, as the profit rate, a rate of

22.69 percent as used in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Melamine Institutional Dinnerware Products From

Indonesia, 62 FR 1719, (January 13, 1997) (``Melamine Dinnerware'').

Swasthi argues that its home market sales are profitable, and

therefore the Department should use, if necessary, Swasthi's actual

profit rate and not the rate of a plastic tableware manufacturer.

Swasthi continues to state that a profit rate of another industry is

irrelevant for an analysis involving the extruded rubber thread

industry.

Bakrie did not comment on this issue.

DOC Position. We disagree with Petitioner. According to section

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department has various methodologies for

calculating profit where profit does not exist. The Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d

Cong., 2nd Sess. (1994) (SAA) at 841, states that if a company has no

home market profit on sales of the foreign like product or has incurred

losses in the home market, the Department is directed to find an

alternative home market profit. The statute also infers that a positive

profit amount must be included in the calculation of constructed value

by mandating the use of profit from any sales above the costs of

production (even one sale) and provides alternative methods for

determining profit when no sales are found to be above the cost of

production.

Because Bakrie had no above-cost home market sales and, hence, no

actual company-specific profit data available for its home market sales

of the foreign like product, we calculated profit in accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Specifically, section

773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act permits the Department to use any other

reasonable method to determine profit. We note that Bakrie's audited

1997 financial statement indicated no profit during the POI. However,

because Swasthi is another producer/exporter of the subject merchandise

in Indonesia and did report a profit for the POI, we are applying, as

facts available, its profit rate under section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the

Act. Therefore, we do not need to resort to other alternatives for a

surrogate profit ratio.

Comment 3: Treatment of Bakrie's Audited Financial Statement as

Public. Petitioner contends that the Department should treat Bakrie's

1997 audited financial statement as public information, as opposed to

business proprietary information, based on the fact that Bakrie had to

report such information to the Indonesian government.

[[Page 14694]]

Bakrie did not comment on this issue.

DOC Position. We disagree with Petitioner. Pursuant to section

351.105 of the Department's regulations, the Secretary normally will

consider as business proprietary, at the request of the submitter,

specific business information the release of which to the public would

cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the submitter. At

the time of Bakrie's questionnaire submission, Bakrie requested that

its financial statement be treated as proprietary. Bakrie's financial

statement is not a public document. Petitioner's argument that the

financial statement should be a public document because Bakrie has

acknowledged that it must provide a copy of its financial statement to

the government of Indonesia is not pertinent to Bakrie's request for

proprietary treatment of the document. The fact that Bakrie's financial

statement might be disclosed to a government entity does not in and of

itself demonstrate that such information is public. For example,

companies must file a tax return with the government, but this fact

does not mean that company tax returns are public documents. Therefore,

we continue to treat Bakrie's financial statement as a business

proprietary document.

Comment 4: Use of Facts Available in Swasthi's Sales Responses.

Petitioner argues that, at the beginning of the verification process,

Swasthi provided updated information regarding returns, discounts,

commissions, payment dates, packing expenses, product codes, sales

dates and inland freight costs for both U.S. and Indonesian sales,

which essentially constituted a new questionnaire response. Petitioner

asserts that, because such data constitutes untimely new information

which should have been provided in the questionnaire responses, the

Department should disregard this new data and adjust Swasthi's sales

data using facts available.

Swasthi states that the revisions should be included in the

Department's final determination because the Department was able to

reconcile the revisions during verification.

DOC Position. The revisions Swasthi provided to the Department at

verification amount to corrections of certain errors Swasthi made in

its questionnaire responses. The errors in question were neither

significant nor pervasive. On the first day of verification, Swasthi

presented a revised Section B and C database. The revisions were the

direct result of errors discovered in the course of preparing for the

Department's verification. Furthermore, the revised sales databases

were reconciled and formed the basis of the Department's verification

report. Because it is the Department's practice to accept minor

corrections at verification, we have accepted these corrections for

purposes of this final determination.

Comment 5: Conversion of Correct Units of Measure of Imputed Credit

Cost in the United States. Swasthi alleges that its imputed credit cost

for sales incurred in the United States at the preliminary

determination was reported in U.S. dollars per kilogram instead of U.S.

dollars per pound. Swasthi contends that this resulted in an

overstatement of imputed credit cost to be deducted from the gross

sales prices. Swasthi requests that the Department recalculate its

imputed credit cost in the United States based on the fact that the

Department verified that the imputed credit was reported in U.S.

dollars per pound.

Petitioner did not comment on this issue.

DOC Position. In both the preliminary determination and in this

final determination, we calculated imputed credit costs for Swasthi's

U.S. sales based on a cost per-pound basis. This was done because the

U.S. sales price is made on a per-pound basis. Therefore, the proper

credit costs were used in both the preliminary and final

determinations.

Comment 6: Loan from Shareholders. Petitioner argues that the

Department should impute an interest expense on loans received from

related parties and that this is consistent both with related party

transaction provisions in the statute and with the Department's normal

practice. Specifically, petitioner states that Swasthi received loans

from shareholders bearing a non-arm's length interest rate. Petitioner

notes that it is the Department's practice to calculate the interest

cost for loans from affiliated parties, e.g., shareholders, based on

the interest rate the loan recipient is paying unaffiliated parties.

See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Industrial

Phosphoric Acid from Belgium, 63 FR 55087, 55089, (October 18, 1998).

According to petitioner, the COP the Department uses in its margin

calculations should reflect the fair market cost of this type of loan.

Swasthi refutes petitioner's allegations by stating that its

shareholders do indeed charge market interest rates on the loans; and

that the cost of such loans were included as reported costs in its COP

and CV databases. Swasthi notes that the Department stated in its

verification report that there were no discrepancies in Swasthi's COP

and/or CV databases. Thus, Swasthi contends, petitioner's comment on

this issue should be disregarded.

DOC Position. We agree with Petitioner. It is the Department's

practice to include imputed interest expenses in the computation of CV

and COP on loans received from affiliated parties, if not included in

the interest expense calculation. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Shop Towels from Bangladesh, 60 FR 48966,

(September 21, 1995). The Department will normally impute an interest

expense on transactions when the rate charged by a related party lender

does not reflect a fair market rate. In this case, we do not consider

the respondent's shareholder loans to be reflective of the fair market

borrowing rate since such loans typically involve some cost to the

borrower. The Department determined that Swasthi received loans from

its shareholders, but the interest on those loans was not included in

the calculation of Swasthi's COP and CV. Therefore, we calculated an

annual imputed interest expense for the loan by multiplying the

outstanding loan balance by the annual borrowing rate in rupiah as

shown in the 1997 audited financial statement. The resulting per annum,

annual imputed interest expense of the loan was added to Swasthi's

reported interest expense, and the revised interest expense was then

divided by the cost of goods sold to obtain a revised interest expense

ratio which was used in the calculation of the COP (see, the

Calculation Memorandum to the File dated March 18, 1999).

Comment 7: Imputed Credit and Inventory Carrying Costs. Bakrie

argues that its U.S. and home market prices should not be adjusted for

imputed credit costs and inventory carrying costs incurred in the home

and United States because imputed credit costs are included in its

interest expense for purposes of its COP calculation. Thus, Bakrie

contends that the Department double-counted its interest expense

because these expenses are included in COP and are also deducted from

the home market sales price.

DOC Position. We did not double-count Bakrie's expenses. When

conducting the COP test for Bakrie's home market sales, the COP

includes the company's actual financial expenses. In conducting the COP

test, we do not deduct imputed inventory carrying costs and home market

credit costs from HM prices because the COP already includes the

company's actual financial expenses. Thus, there is no double-counting

of Bakrie's interest expenses. We do not perform the cost

[[Page 14695]]

test for U.S. sales. Therefore Bakrie's comment with respected to U.S.

costs is moot.

Comment 8: Exclusion of Globe's Assistance in Bakrie's Reported

COP. Petitioner contends that the Department should adjust Bakrie's

reported COP to account for Globe's contribution to the joint venture

which Petitioner asserts was not reflected in Bakrie's reported COP.

DOC Position. We disagree with Petitioner. Globe's contribution to

the joint venture was already included in Bakrie's reported COP and CV

databases. For further discussion, see the Calculation Memorandum to

the File dated, March 18, 1999.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are

directing the Customs Service to begin suspension of liquidation for

Swasthi of all entries of subject merchandise that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final determination in the Federal Register. We are

also directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation

for Bakrie of all entries of subject merchandise from Indonesia, that

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

November 3, 1998 (the date of publication of the preliminary

determination in the Federal Register). The ``All Others'' rate applies

to all exporters of extruded rubber thread not specifically listed

below. The Customs Service shall continue to require a cash deposit or

posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the normal

value exceeds the U.S. price as shown below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

Weighted-

average

Exporter/manufacturer margin

percentage

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

P.T. Bakrie Rubber Industry................................ 28.29

P.T. Swasthi Parama Mulya.................................. 44.86

All Others................................................. 31.54

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

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine

whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material

injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or

canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the

Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs

officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered for consumption on or after the effective date of

the suspension of liquidation.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

This notice serves as 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 with 19 CFR 355.34(d). Failure to

comply is a violation of the APO.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: March 18, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-7371 Filed 3-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P