[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2648-2653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-834-805]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium Alloys From the Republic of
Kazakstan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorothy Tomaszewski at (202) 482-0631,
or Erik Warga at (202) 482-0922, Office of Antidumping Investigations,
Import Administration, International
[[Page 2649]]
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20230.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by
the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department regulations are to
the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations,
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Final Determination
We determine that beryllium metal and high beryllium alloys
(``beryllium'') from the Republic of Kazakstan (``Kazakstan'') are
being sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). The estimated margins are shown in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the preliminary determination on August 21, 1996 (61 FR
44293, August 28, 1996 (``preliminary determination'')), the following
events have occurred:
In October 1996, we verified the respondents' questionnaire
responses. Additional publicly available information on surrogate
values was submitted by petitioner and respondents on November 15,
1996, and November 22, 1996. Petitioner and respondents submitted case
briefs on November 29, 1996 and rebuttal briefs on December 6, 1996. A
public hearing was held on December 9, 1996. At the Department's
request, additional information was filed by petitioner and respondents
on December 10, 1996, and December 12, 1996. On December 19, 1996, and
December 23, 1996, the Department received surrogate factor data from
the Foreign Commercial Service Office in Lima, Peru.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation is beryllium metal and high
beryllium alloys with a beryllium content equal to or greater than 30
percent by weight, whether in ingot, billet, powder, block, lump,
chunk, blank, or other semifinished form. These are intermediate or
semifinished products that require further machining, casting and/or
fabricating into sheet, extrusions, forgings or other shapes in order
to meet the specifications of the end user. Beryllium and high
beryllium alloys within the scope of this investigation are
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') 8112.11.6000, 8112.11.3000, 7601.20.9075, and 7601.20.9090.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is
dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 1995, through
December 31, 1995.
Separate Rates
Respondents made no claim for receiving a separate rate. Therefore,
lacking any information to support a conclusion that a separate rate is
appropriate, the Department assigned a single Kazakstan-wide rate to
all producers and exporters.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of beryllium from Kazakstan to the
United States were made at less than fair value, we compared Export
Price (``EP'') to the Normal Value (``NV''), as specified in the
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Export Price
We calculated 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.
Although respondents have a U.S. subsidiary, Beryllium Metals
International Ltd. (``BMI''), calculation of constructed export price
(``CEP'') under section 772(b) is not otherwise warranted for purposes
of the final determination based on the facts of this investigation. It
has been the Department's longstanding and well-recognized practice
that a transaction will be considered an export price sale, despite the
involvement of an affiliate in the United States where: (1) The
merchandise in question was shipped directly from the manufacturer to
the unrelated buyer, without being introduced into the physical
inventory of the related selling agent; (2) this was the customary
commercial channel for sales of this merchandise between the parties
involved; and (3) the related selling agent in the United States acted
only as a processor of documentation and a communication link with the
unrelated buyer. (See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof,
Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany (61 FR 38166, 38175,
July 23, 1996)). Verification findings confirm that the merchandise is
not taken into the physical inventory of the U.S. subsidiary. Because
there has only been one sale, we conclude that there is no ``customary
commercial channel.'' Therefore, we are continuing to disregard this
criterion for purposes of this final determination. Finally,
verification findings confirmed the limits on BMI's authority to
finalize sales and that BMI is acting solely as a processor of
documentation and communications link (see November 8, 1996,
verification report at page 6). Therefore, we conclude that the sale in
question is properly characterized as an EP sale.
We calculated EP based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as appropriate, based on
the same methodologies in the preliminary determination with the
following exceptions: we made minor corrections to certain movement
charges pursuant to verification findings.
Normal Value
When the Department is investigating imports from a non-market
economy (``NME''), section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base NV
on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a comparable
market economy that is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise. Therefore, as in the preliminary determination, we
calculated NV based on factors of production reported by the Kazak
Joint-Stock Company of Ulba Metallurgical Plant (``Ulba''), the sole
Kazakstani producer of subject merchandise.
To calculate NV, the verified per-unit factor quantities were first
multiplied by Peru values; the resulting products were then summed. We
then added amounts for overhead, general expenses (including interest)
(``SG&A''), profit, and, packing expenses incident to placing the
merchandise in condition packed and ready for shipment to the United
States.
We made adjustments to the reported factors of production to
reflect actual production experience for 1991 and 1993, based on
verification findings.
Valuation of Factors
As in our preliminary determination, we have relied on Peru as the
primary surrogate country in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act. Accordingly, we have continued to calculate NV using Peru prices
for the Kazakstani producer's factors of
[[Page 2650]]
production. We have obtained and relied on publicly-available
information wherever possible.
Except as noted below, we applied surrogate values to the factors
of production in the same manner as in our preliminary determination.
For a complete discussion of surrogate values, see the Calculation
Memorandum, dated January 10, 1996. Surrogate overhead was based on the
experience of a silicomanganese producer in Brazil; SG&A and profit
were based on the experience of an aluminum producer in Peru; and
packing expenses were based on 1995 Peru import statistics data.
Kazakstan-Wide Rate
Kazakstan identified what we believe to be the only Kazakstani
exporter, Kazak Joint-Stock Company of Atomic Energy and Industry
(``KATEP''), and producer, Ulba, that sold beryllium to the United
States during the POI. Both have responded in this investigation. We
compared the respondents' sales data with U.S. import statistics for
time periods including the POI and found no indication of unreported
sales. Accordingly, we have based the Kazakstan-wide rate on the
weighted-average of the margins calculated in this proceeding,
excluding zero or de minimis margins, if any.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by 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.
Interested Party Comments
Comment 1: Use of Respondents' Verified Data
Petitioner argues that the discrepancies uncovered at verification
between the factor information submitted and the factor information
verified, as well as the discovery of information never reported, would
support a decision by the Department to reject respondents' data in
favor of basing the final determination on facts otherwise available
(i.e., the information submitted in the petition).
Respondents assert that the Department has no basis for rejecting
its sales and factors of production information on the record.
According to respondents, all sales and production data were submitted
in a timely manner to the Department and verified. While its reported
factor data was modified during verification, respondents argue that
these revisions should not be rejected as ``untimely'' because the
revisions were a result of adjusting reported standard factor input
information to reflect actual factor input information. Finally,
respondents argue that even if its revised factor information was
deemed untimely, the verified data should nevertheless be used as
``facts otherwise available.''
DOC Position
Certain minor discrepancies in respondents' reported sales and
factors of production data were discovered during verification. While
the Department is always concerned over such discrepancies, we did not
identify any attempt to mislead the Department or to distort
information on the record, nor does the record indicate that
respondents did not cooperate to the best of their ability.
Accordingly, such errors will be corrected individually by the
Department using revised information and do not warrant an overall
application of adverse facts available for the final determination.
(See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 61 FR
18558 (April 26, 1996).) The details of these errors and steps taken to
correct them are set forth in the January 10, 1997, Final Determination
Calculation Memorandum.
Comment 2: Selection of Appropriate Surrogate Country
Petitioner argues that the Department should select Brazil as the
primary surrogate country because (1) Brazil is comparable to Kazakstan
in economic development and (2) Brazil is one of the few sources of the
primary factor input required in the production of beryllium, beryl
ore.
Respondents counter that, since the preliminary determination, no
new information has been placed on the record to justify the change in
the surrogate country for Kazakstan from Peru to Brazil.
DOC Position
We agree with respondents and continue to use Peru as the primary
surrogate country for purposes of valuating Kazakstan's factors of
production. Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to
value the NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible,
in one or more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the NME and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. As noted in the
preliminary determination, Peru is at a level of economic development
comparable to Kazakstan in terms of per-capita gross national product
(``GNP'') levels and distribution of the labor force in the varying
sectors of the economy. Brazil's 1993 per-capita annual income was
$2930 versus $1560 for Kazakstan and $1490 for Peru. Even though Brazil
is endowed with the primary material input (beryl ore) used to produce
beryllium, Brazil does not produce beryllium.
As discussed in the preliminary determination, none of the
potential surrogate countries produces merchandise comparable to the
subject merchandise. Indeed, Kazakstan and the United States are the
only known producers of beryllium. Absent information on a market
economy country which produces beryllium and is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of Kazakstan, the Department continues
to use Peru as the primary surrogate country based on its comparable
level of economic development for purposes of the final determination.
Comment 3: Use of 1995 Surrogate Country Factor Data
Respondents argue that the Department must determine whether the
factor values based on the 1995 UN data are broadly consistent with
other measures of market value to ensure that the factor values used in
the final margin calculation constitute a reasonable representation of
the costs that a NME producer would face if it were to produce in a
market economy. In particular, respondents identify five Peru values
used in the preliminary determination which they allege to be
unreasonable when compared to various broader benchmarks.
Petitioner notes that if the Department were to perform such an
exercise, this analysis should be applied in a consistent manner for
all direct material factors.
DOC Position
For the final determination, we have used Peru import statistics
based on 1995 UN trade data as the primary source of surrogate factor
values. The Department's analysis indicates, however, that several
factor values derived from the 1995 Peru import statistics appear to be
not reasonable. For example, the unit value based on 1995 Peru import
statistics for one material factor is over twenty times the weighted-
average unit value based on import statistics from the five countries
identified by the Department as
[[Page 2651]]
appropriate surrogates for Kazakstan (see preliminary determination).
In order to assess whether material factor values derived from the
1995 Peru import statistics are reasonable for the purpose of
approximating the factor costs in Kazakstan, we compared all 1995 Peru
material values to the weighted-average unit value based on import
statistics from all five appropriate surrogate countries (see June 10,
1996, Memorandum from David Mueller, Director, Office of Policy, to
Gary Taverman, Division I Director, Office of Antidumping
Investigations). Where differences between the unit value figures
appeared unreasonable, we resorted to the weighted-average based on the
five surrogate countries' data. (See January 10, 1996, Calculation
Memorandum for further details).
Comment 4: Time Period for Factors of Production
Respondents state that Ulba produced the subject merchandise
through 1991 and had several months of production of subject
merchandise in 1993; however, Ulba ceased production of subject
merchandise at the end of 1993. Respondents note that the factors of
production used in 1991 differ from those used in 1993. Under these
circumstances, respondents argue that the Department should use 1991
factor input data to calculate normal value because 1991 data reflects
input usages applied for an entire year of uninterrupted production
and, therefore, better reflects actual production experience.
Respondents also contend that 1991 data be used because it is closest
to the year that the subject merchandise sold during the POI was
produced. In contrast, respondents argue, 1993 factor data (the last
calendar year in which there was significant production) is an
unreliable indicator of respondents' production process because the
Kazakstani production facility was in the process of shutting down;
therefore, the 1993 usages were unusually high when compared to usage
rates during previous years.
Petitioner argues that the Department should use the 1993 data
because these factor quantities best reflect the factors that
respondents would have used if they had produced beryllium during the
POI. Petitioner asserts that contemporaneity is an important factor in
determining which year's factors to use. According to petitioner, the
fact that production data for 1993 reflects higher usage levels in
comparison to 1991 is not a result of irregular production for that
year; rather, it is the particular chemistry of inputs used in any
particular year that will affect input usage. Therefore, petitioner
maintains that the factors of production should be based on the
production information closest in time to the POI--1993.
DOC Position
The subject merchandise sold to the United States during the POI
was produced long before the POI (although the actual time period of
production is unknown). Not only is it unclear when the merchandise
imported during the POI was produced, there is no evidence of which
factors were used. Therefore, we must choose between the two years for
which we have factor information, both of which are long removed from
the period of production.
Where necessary information is not available on the record, and
where a respondent has cooperated to the best of its ability, Section
776 of the Act directs the Department to use non-adverse facts
available in place of unavailable information. In these circumstances,
we do find it significant that the 1993 period is closer in time to the
POI. Therefore, we determine that the use of 1993 factor input data is
appropriate in calculating normal value.
Comment 5: Overhead and SG&A
Petitioner contends that its production experience as a beryllium
producer is the only reasonable basis on which to value factory
overhead and SG&A for a beryllium producer. In support of this
argument, petitioner notes that (1) no data exists for either factory
overhead or SG&A from a Peru producer of subject merchandise and (2)
the Department determined that there is no other product comparable to
beryllium in terms of production processes or inputs. Given these
circumstances, petitioner asserts that the only market-economy producer
of beryllium available for valuing these costs is the U.S. producer
(i.e., petitioner).
Additionally, petitioner argues that its overhead costs do not
account for expenses incurred for certain materials used by
respondents, although the Department believed these expenses were
included in the petitioner's overhead rate for the preliminary
determination. Finally, petitioner contends that the Department should
adjust petitioner's reported overhead rate to account for capacity and
utilization.
Respondents counter that the information on the record concerning
petitioner's calculation of its overhead and SG&A rates confirms that
the factory overhead and SG&A rates that petitioner reported are
unreasonably high. According to respondents, it appears that
petitioner's calculation of its overhead and SG&A rates included line
item expenses irrelevant to the production of subject merchandise. In
the event that the Department decides to use petitioner's information,
respondents recommend that the Department consider (1) the clerical
error noted by petitioner in calculating its overhead rate and (2) the
respondents' revised calculation of the SG&A rate based on petitioner's
financial data for 1994 and 1995.
DOC Position
In evaluating appropriate surrogate factor rates for SG&A and
overhead, it is important to note that information does not exist on
overhead and SG&A figures from a beryllium producer in a country that
is economically comparable to Kazakstan. As discussed above and in the
preliminary determination, the only known beryllium producer in the
world, other than the Kazakstani producer, is the U.S. petitioner. The
Department's regulations provide clear instructions that U.S. surrogate
values are to serve only as a last resort (see 19 CFR 353.52(b)). This
is true even when such values are not available from an industry
producing the same merchandise (see 19 CFR 353.52(b)(1)).
Given that the only source of industry-specific overhead and SG&A
rates is the petitioner, we considered the economic comparability of
the surrogate country to Kazakstan an important criterion for selecting
appropriate surrogate factor data to approximate Kazakstan's overhead
and SG&A rates. While the specific processes differ, the complexity and
duration of the production processes for different light metals are
comparable and thus, unlikely to generate differences in overhead and
SG&A between the beryllium industry and other light metals industries.
Therefore, in this case, we determine that overhead and SG&A figures
based on production experience of a light metal industry (e.g.,
aluminum, silicomanganese) in an appropriate surrogate country are a
reasonable approximation of Kazakstan's overhead and SG&A costs
incurred in the production of beryllium. For SG&A and profit, we
applied ratios based on financial data from a Peru aluminum producer.
Absent detailed overhead data from Peru, we applied an overhead ratio
based on financial data from a silicomanganese producer in Brazil for
the final determination. While Brazil, as noted earlier, is not among
the five countries most similar to Kazakstan in terms of economic
development, we determine that it is comparable, and far
[[Page 2652]]
more similar to Kazakstan than is the United States. Moreover, the
regulations, at 19 CFR 353.52(b)(2), indicate that even a foreign
country which is not a level of economic development comparable to the
home market country is preferable to the United States as a source of
surrogate value information.
Comment 6: Basket-Product-Category Import Statistics
Petitioner contends that the Department should apply product-
specific world-market prices to value beryllium-containing material
inputs rather than data on Peru imports under broad basket categories.
Because there is no beryllium producer or beryllium industry in Peru,
petitioner notes that it is highly unlikely that Peru import statistics
used to value beryllium-containing material inputs in the preliminary
determination contain any imports of beryllium-containing materials.
Instead, petitioner recommends the use of world market prices based on
U.S. import statistics which provide more representative values
available for the beryllium-containing inputs.
Respondents counter that the Department should reject petitioner's
alternative source of data to calculate surrogate values for beryllium-
containing materials. According to respondents, the Department's policy
and practice provide no justification to abandon data obtained from the
primary surrogate country because some alternative country (i.e., the
United States) offers more product-specific price information. Further,
with respect to the U.S. Geological Survey (``USGS'') data used to
value beryl ore in the preliminary determination, respondents maintain
that petitioner did not provide any reason to question the accuracy of
this data source. Therefore, respondents recommend continued use of
USGS data for valuing beryl ore in the final determination.
DOC Position
We agree, in part, with petitioner. For those beryllium-containing
inputs for which we used UN import statistics based on basket product-
categories in the preliminary determination, we used for the final
determination 1995 import statistics from the European Union with more
product-specific categories as data which more accurately reflects the
values for these inputs.
With respect to the USGS value for beryl ore, the unit value based
on USGS data is specific to the particular material input used in the
production process. Further, there is no information on the record to
dispute the validity of this data. Therefore, we continued to rely on
the USGS data for valuing beryl ore in the final determination.
Comment 7: Incorrect Surrogate Values for Certain Material Inputs
Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly valued a
certain material input using import data for a different material. For
the final determination, petitioner urges the Department to use 1994
U.S. data specific to the material input in question to value the
material input.
DOC Position
We agree, in part, with petitioner. Verification findings indicated
that two varying types of the material in question were used in the
production of beryllium from Kazakstan. It was possible to identify
product categories that correspond to each type of material input.
Given that data corresponding to the materials from the primary
surrogate country is available for consideration, the use of U.S. data
suggested by petitioner was not required. Therefore, for the final
determination, we are valuing the two material inputs based on 1995
Peru import data with corresponding product categories.
Comment 8: Adjustment to the Surrogate Labor Rate
Petitioner contends that the surrogate labor rate used in the
preliminary determination was understated and should be adjusted to
account for (1) normal hours and days worked in Peru; (2) salary
bonuses mandated by law in Peru; and (3) a skilled level of labor, as
used in the beryllium industry in Kazakstan.
DOC Position
We agree with petitioner and have adjusted the labor rate used at
the preliminary determination to account for (1) normal hours and days
worked in Peru and (2) annual salary bonuses mandated by law. As noted
in Price Waterhouse's publication, Doing Business in Peru, eight hours
is a normal work day in Peru with a work week not exceeding 48.11
hours. In order to avoid overstating the number of hours worked per
day, we based our calculation of number of hours worked per day on a
six-day work week to reflect an eight-hour work day. Additionally,
annual salary bonuses mandated by Peruvian law were not reflected in
the labor rate used in the preliminary determination. Therefore, we are
also adjusting the labor rate in the final determination to reflect
this portion of labor cost.
However, we continued to use the International Labor Organization's
(``ILO'') earnings per day rate as the base for the labor rate because
it is a labor rate for manufacturing specific to the non-ferrous basic
metal industry in Peru. The Price Waterhouse ``skilled'' average
monthly wages in Peru, recommended by petitioner as a preferable rate
to the ILO rate because it is a skilled labor rate, is not specific to
any industry. Further, it is not clear whether the average monthly
wages are gross or net of employee contributions; it is clear from
information on the record that the ILO rate reflects gross earnings
(i.e., employee's contributions are included in this earnings figure).
Therefore, we continued to use the ILO rate as the base labor rate for
the final determination.
Comment 9: Circumstance-of-Sale Adjustments
Petitioner contends that the Department is required by the Act to
adjust normal value to account for differences in circumstances of
sale. In particular, petitioner argues that imputed credit expenses and
the value of a price markup between the Kazakstani producer and its
U.S. subsidiary should be added to NV.
Respondents counter that verification findings show that payment
for the reported sale was received from the U.S. customer in advance of
the payment terms agreed to in the sales contract; therefore, there is
no basis on which to calculate imputed credit expenses for the reported
U.S. sales transactions. Additionally, respondents assert that
petitioner's request to adjust NV to account for an alleged commission
payment should also be denied because there is no evidence on the
record that a commission was made at arm's length.
DOC Position
We agree with respondents. Section 773 (a) (6) (C) of the Act
allows NV to be increased or decreased for differences in circumstances
of sale as long as ``it has been established to the satisfaction of the
administering authority'' that such adjustments are warranted. (See,
also Notice of Final Determination: Bicycles from the PRC, 61 FR 19031,
19032 (April 30, 1996)).
An adjustment to NV for imputed credit expense is not warranted in
this case. Because such expenses are usually included in the financial
statements used as the basis for calculating SG&A, it is assumed any
credit expense is captured in the SG&A figure calculated under the
factors of production methodology, unless demonstrated otherwise. (See,
Sulfanilic Acid from the
[[Page 2653]]
PRC: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 53702, 53709 (1996) and Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Helical Spring Lock
Washers from the PRC, 58 FR 48833, 48839 (1993)).
Further, the price markup reflected in sales invoice documentation
between the Kazakstani producer and its U.S. subsidiary is considered
an intra-company transfer and does not warrant any adjustment to NV. As
respondents correctly note, the Department generally allows adjustments
only for commission payments to unaffiliated parties; however, in this
case, the Kazakstani producer and the U.S. subsidiary are considered to
be affiliated parties for purposes of this investigation. (See, also,
Federal Mogul Corp. v. United States, 918 F. Supp. 386, 413-414 (CIT
1996)). Therefore, no adjustment to NV for commissions is warranted
because the record does not provide any information to suggest that any
commission payment from the Kazakstani producer to its U.S. subsidiary
was made at arm's length.
Comment 10: U.S. Sales Transactions in the Final Margin Calculation
Petitioner asserts that all U.S. sales transactions involving
Kazakstani beryllium invoiced and shipped during the POI should be
included in the final margin calculation. In particular, petitioner
argues that the Department should continue to consider the sale of
certain off-specification beryllium as part of the reported U.S. sale
transaction because verification findings confirmed that the price
adjustments at issue were post-sale price adjustments, rather than new
sales occurring outside the POI. In support of this argument,
petitioner notes that respondents stated for the record that the date
of sale was unaffected by any modifications to the sale contract after
shipment. Finally, petitioner argues that the Department should include
the unreported U.S. sales transaction discovered at verification.
Respondents assert that the sale of the off-specification material
did not meet the specifications of the sales contract within the POI
but was only shipped at the same time as the POI contract's
merchandise. According to respondents, because of the lengthy
negotiations following the shipment of the off-specification
merchandise, the final sale (and agreement to price) of this
merchandise was not formally concluded until after the POI.
Additionally, respondents argue that the unreported U.S. sale
discovered at verification constitutes a sample shipment of
insignificant quantity of merchandise outside of the scope of the
investigation (i.e., not characterized as ingot, billet, powder, lump,
chunk, blank, or other semi-finished form). Therefore, respondents
recommend the Department to disregard this sale for purposes of the
final margin calculation.
DOC Position
We agree with petitioner and continue to include the reported sales
of off-specification merchandise with post-sale price adjustments in
the final margin calculation. Verification findings indicated that the
merchandise in question was sold pursuant to the sales contract and
invoice issued during the POI.
With respect to the unreported sale discovered at verification,
respondents are correct in characterizing this sale as a transaction of
insignificant quantity. Therefore, we have excluded this transaction
from the final margin calculation.
Comment 11: Verified International Freight and Customs Expenses
For the final determination, petitioner asserts that the Department
should adjust export price for (1) line item expenses omitted from
reported international freight charge and (2) under-reported Customs
duties payments.
DOC Position
We agree with petitioner and used the verified international
freight and Customs duties charges in the final margin calculation.
Comment 12: Inflation Adjustment for Non-Contemporaneous Data
Respondents maintain that in the preliminary determination the
Department erred in converting 1994 values to 1995 values by
multiplying U.S. dollar-denominated prices by foreign currency
inflation rates without adjusting for changes in the value of the
foreign currency relative to the U.S. dollar. Respondents argue that,
where appropriate, the Department should account for both foreign
currency inflation and exchange rate fluctuations.
DOC Position
We agree with respondents and, where appropriate, adjusted factor
values to account for both foreign currency inflation and exchange rate
fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and the foreign currency.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(1) and 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act,
we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation
of all entries of beryllium from Kazakstan, that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after August 28, 1996
(the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the
Federal Register). 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 export price as shown below. These suspension
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulba Metallurgical Plant/KATEP.............................. 16.56
Kazakstan-Wide Rate......................................... 16.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kazakstan-Wide rate applies to all entries of subject
merchandise except for entries from exporters that are identified
individually above.
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.
This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the
Act.
Dated: January 10, 1997.
Robert LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-1258 Filed 1-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
