94-10993. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide From the Netherlands  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-10993]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: May 6, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    International Trade Administration
    [A-421-805]
    
     
    
    Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
    Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide From the 
    Netherlands
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6,1994.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Katt or Michael Ready, Office 
    of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International 
    Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
    Constitution Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
    0498 or (202) 482-2613, respectively.
    
    FINAL DETERMINATION: We determine that imports of aramid fiber formed 
    of poly-phenylene terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid fiber) from the 
    Netherlands are being, or are likely to be, 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 weighted-
    average margins are shown in the ``Continuation of Suspension of 
    Liquidation'' section of this notice.
    
    Case History
    
        Since our preliminary determination on December 9, 1993 (58 FR 
    65699, December 16, 1993), the following events have occurred:
        On December 16, 1993, we received a request from the sole 
    respondent in this investigation, Aramide Maatschappij V.O.F. (Arami) 
    and Akzo Fibers, Inc. (the U.S. selling agent) (collectively Akzo) to 
    postpone the final determination in this investigation until 135 days 
    after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. On 
    December 22, 1993, we did so and postponed this final determination 
    until May 2, 1994 (58 FR 69329, December 30, 1993).
        On February 23, 1994, petitioner (E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & 
    Company) requested that references to tire cord fabric be deleted from 
    the scope of the investigation. On April 21, 1994, petitioner revised 
    its previous request, asking that tire cord fabric be expressly 
    excluded from the scope of this investigation. (See ``Scope of the 
    Investigation'' section of this notice, below.) Akzo submitted 
    supplemental responses to sections B (third-country sales), C (United 
    States sales) and D (cost of production/constructed value) of the 
    questionnaire, revisions and corrections to its sales responses, and/or 
    revised computer tapes in December 1993, as well as February, March and 
    April of 1994.
        We conducted verification of Akzo's sales and cost questionnaire 
    responses in the Netherlands and the United States in February and 
    March of 1994, respectively.
        Akzo and petitioner submitted case and rebuttal briefs on March 28 
    and 31, 1994, respectively. At Akzo's request, a public hearing was 
    held on April 1, 1994.
    
    Scope of the Investigation
    
        The products covered by this investigation are all forms of poly 
    para-phenylene terephthalamide aramid fiber from the Netherlands. These 
    consist of PPD-T aramid in the form of filament yarn (including single 
    and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or dry), spun-laced and spun-based 
    nonwovens, chopped fiber and floc. Tire cord fabric is excluded from 
    the class or kind of merchandise under investigation. PPD-T aramid 
    fiber is classifiable under subheadings 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040, 
    5402.32.3000, 5503.10.0000, 5601.30.0000 and 5902.10.0000 of the 
    Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
    HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
    written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
    
    Changes to the Scope of the Investigation
    
        Prior to our preliminary determination, petitioner requested that 
    we clarify that ``tire cord fabric'' constructed of PPD-T aramid fiber 
    is included within the scope of this investigation. After considering 
    comments from both parties, we preliminarily determined that this 
    product is included within the scope of this investigation (58 FR 
    65699, December 16, 1993). We also invited comments from interested 
    parties on this issue. Subsequent to the preliminary determination, 
    petitioner requested that tire cord fabric be expressly excluded from 
    the scope of this investigation. Also, Akzo submitted arguments 
    opposing the inclusion of tire cord fabric. We have therefore excluded 
    tire cord fabric from the class or kind of merchandise covered by this 
    investigation.
        Petitioner also requested that the term ``nonwovens'', as used in 
    the description of the scope of the investigation, be clarified to 
    include only spun-based and spun-laced nonwovens composed of PPD-T 
    aramid fiber. We have made this clarification.
        Finally, at the request of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 
    we have replaced the words ``this includes'' with the words ``these 
    consist of'' to further clarify the products covered by this 
    investigation.
    
    Class or Kind
    
        Prior to our preliminary determination, Akzo argued that this 
    investigation should involve at least three classes or kinds of 
    merchandise: Yarn, staple fiber and pulp. After considering extensive 
    comments from both parties, we preliminarily determined that the 
    products covered by this investigation constitute a single class or 
    kind of merchandise, and three such or similar categories. (See 
    Preliminary Concurrence Memorandum, dated December 9, 1993, on file in 
    room B-099 of the main building of the Department of Commerce). In our 
    preliminary determination, we invited additional comments from 
    interested parties on this issue. However, no additional evidence 
    supporting a finding of three classes or kinds has been submitted. In 
    addition, no comments in opposition to our preliminary determination 
    have been filed. We therefore continue to find that the products 
    covered by this investigation constitute a single class or kind of 
    merchandise.
    
    Period of Investigation
    
        The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 1993, through June 
    30, 1993.
    
    Such or Similar Comparisons
    
        We made fair value comparisons using the following such or similar 
    categories: (1) Yarn; (2) staple fiber; and (3) pulp. Where we were not 
    able to compare U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise, we made 
    similar merchandise comparisons on the basis of the criteria defined in 
    Appendix V to the antidumping duty questionnaire, on file in room B-099 
    of the main building of the Department of Commerce. In accordance with 
    19 CFR 353.58, we made comparisons at the same level of trade, where 
    possible.
    
    Fair Value Comparisons
    
        To determine whether Akzo's sales to the United States of PPD-T 
    aramid fiber were made at less than fair value, we compared the United 
    States price (USP) to the foreign market value (FMV), as specified in 
    the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of 
    this notice.
    
    United States Price
    
        We calculated USP according to the methodology described in our 
    preliminary determination, with the following exceptions:
        1. We included certain sales in our calculation of USP which Akzo 
    contends were pursuant to a long-term contract negotiated prior to the 
    POI. (For a further discussion of these sales, see comment 1 below.)
        2. We increased U.S. indirect selling expenses by the amount of G&A 
    expenses allocated to the aramid fibers business unit of Akzo Fibers 
    Inc. by its parent company, Akzo America Inc. (see comment 6 below).
        3. We recalculated inventory carrying costs incurred in the 
    Netherlands on U.S. sales to reflect the short-term borrowing rate of 
    Arami, (i.e., the actual producer and seller of subject merchandise), 
    (see comment 8 below).
        4. We used the date of the start of the Dutch sales verification 
    for all missing payment dates.
    
    Foreign Market Value
    
        As stated in our preliminary determination, we determined that the 
    home market was not viable for any of the three such or similar 
    categories. We selected Germany as the third country market for sales 
    of yarn and staple fiber, and Japan as the third country market for 
    sales of pulp. We calculated FMV as noted in the ``Price-to-Price'' and 
    ``Price to Constructed Value (CV)'' sections of this notice.
    
    Cost of Production
    
        Petitioner alleged that Akzo's third country sales were made at 
    prices below the cost of production (COP). On the basis of petitioners' 
    allegations, we gathered and verified data on production costs.
         We compared Akzo's third country prices to the COP as explained in 
    our preliminary determination.
         In order to determine whether third country prices were above the 
    COP, we calculated the COP based on the sum of Arami's (i.e., the 
    actual producer and seller of subject merchandise) submitted costs of 
    materials, fabrication, general expenses, and packing, except in the 
    following instances where the costs were not appropriately quantified 
    or valued:
        1. We recalculated interest expense based solely on Arami's 
    financial statements (see DOC position for comment 12);
        2. We included certain non-operating expenses in general and 
    administrative (G&A) expenses (see DOC position for comment 17); and
        3. We disallowed Arami's claimed reduction in fixed overhead for 
    certain intercompany charges (see DOC position for comments 14 and 15).
         Accordingly, we increased its submitted cost of manufacturing.
    
    Price-to-Price Comparisons
    
        For those products for which we had an adequate number of sales at 
    prices equal to or greater than the COP, we based FMV on third country 
    prices. We calculated FMV using the methodology described in our notice 
    of preliminary determination, with the following exceptions:
        1. We recalculated inventory carrying costs incurred in the 
    Netherlands on German and Japanese sales and German credit expenses to 
    reflect the short-term borrowing rate of Arami (see comment 7 below).
        2. We used the average credit days of all transactions with a 
    reported shipment and payment date for sales missing both a shipment 
    and payment date. We have inserted the date of the start of the Dutch 
    sales verification for those sales with missing payment dates only.
        3. We corrected a clerical error in the calculation of third 
    country indirect selling expenses.
    
    Price to CV Comparisons
    
        For those products without an adequate number of sales at prices 
    above the COP, we based FMV on CV. We calculated CV based on the sum of 
    the cost of materials, fabrication, general expenses, and U.S. packing 
    cost. In accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B) (i) and (ii) of the Act 
    we: (1) Included the greater of Arami's reported general expenses or 
    the statutory minimum of ten percent of the cost of manufacture (COM), 
    as appropriate and; (2) for profit, we used the higher of the statutory 
    minimum of eight percent of the sum of COM and general expenses or the 
    actual profit incurred as calculated on a market specific basis (see 
    Comment 18). As a result, for the German market we used actual profit 
    and for the Japanese market we used the statutory minimum of eight 
    percent. We calculated CV based on the methodology described in the 
    calculation of COP above, with the following exceptions:
        1. In the financing calculation, we included additional interest 
    expense based on market value (See Comment 13).
        2. We corrected a clerical error in the calculation of third 
    country profit.
         In instances where we compared Akzo's U.S. prices to CV, we made 
    deductions, where appropriate, for the weighted-average third country 
    direct selling expenses. We also deducted the weighted-average third 
    country indirect selling expenses. We limited this adjustment by the 
    amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
    accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
    
    Final Determination of Critical Circumstances
    
        Petitioner alleged that ``critical circumstances'' exist with 
    respect to imports of PPD-T aramid fiber from the Netherlands. Pursuant 
    to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.16, we have analyzed the 
    allegations using the Department's standard methodology as discussed in 
    our preliminary determination, except that for purposes of determining 
    whether there have been massive imports we compared imports in five-
    month periods rather than four-month periods (see DOC position for 
    comment 4). Accordingly, we find that critical circumstances do not 
    exist.
    
    Currency Conversion
    
        We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates 
    in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
    Reserve Bank of New York.
    
    Verification
    
        As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information 
    provided by Akzo by using standard verification procedures, including 
    the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection 
    of original source documentation containing relevant information.
    
    Interested Party Comments
    
        Certain comments cannot be discussed in this notice due to their 
    business proprietary nature. The comments which have been excluded do 
    not lend themselves to public summarization, and therefore have been 
    discussed in the business proprietary version of the Final Concurrence 
    Memorandum dated May 2, 1994 (Final Concurrence Memorandum), on file in 
    room B-099 of the main building of the Department of Commerce.
        Comment 1: Petitioner argues that the Department of Commerce (the 
    Department) should include in its calculation of U.S. price Akzo's 
    shipments during the POI made pursuant to a long-term agreement 
    negotiated prior to the POI. Petitioner contends that the particular 
    terms and circumstances of Akzo's agreement with this customer do not 
    create a binding commitment on the part of either the buyer or seller 
    and therefore do not create an enforceable sales contract.
         Akzo argues that these shipments were pursuant to a long-term 
    contract established prior to the POI and therefore are properly 
    excluded from the U.S. database. Akzo further argues that certain terms 
    and circumstances of the agreement should not prevent it from being 
    considered a contract with a date of sale prior to the POI because the 
    two parties acted upon and adhered to the contract. Finally, respondent 
    points out that the Department confirmed at verification that all sales 
    to this customer during the period of the contract were at the contract 
    price.
        DOC Position: In order for this agreement to be considered a long-
    term contract established prior to the POI, the agreement must fix both 
    the price and quantity. At verification we examined all invoices to the 
    customer for sales pursuant to the agreement during its effective 
    period. Although we found that all sales were made at the specified 
    price, we also found that the quantity purchased was substantially less 
    than the amount specified in the contract.
        Therefore, we conclude that the quantity was not fixed by the terms 
    of the agreement because the quantities actually purchased over the 
    period of the agreement were unrelated to those specified by the 
    agreement. For this reason, we determine that the date of the agreement 
    does not constitute the date of sale. Accordingly, we have used the 
    date of shipment as the date of sale and have included all shipments to 
    this customer during the POI in our calculation of U.S. price.
        Comment 2: Petitioner argues that the Department should include in 
    its calculation of U.S. price Akzo's shipments during the POI pursuant 
    to a supply agreement which was signed prior to the POI but modified 
    during the POI. Petitioner asserts that the modification to the 
    agreement, in effect, created a new agreement with a date of sale 
    within the POI.
         Akzo argues that the contract modification did not alter the 
    essential terms of the contract. Therefore, according to Akzo, all POI 
    shipments pursuant to this agreement have a date of sale prior to the 
    POI and thus are properly excluded from the U.S. sales database.
        DOC Position: We agree with Akzo. We verified that the essential 
    terms of the contract, the price and quantity, were not altered as a 
    result of the modification. Therefore, we consider Akzo's agreement 
    with this customer to be a long-term contract with a date of sale prior 
    to the POI. Consequently, the shipments in question were properly not 
    reported.
        Comment 3: Petitioner argues that Akzo's shipments made pursuant to 
    supply contracts with two customers during the POI should be reported 
    as U.S. sales, if not already reported.
         Akzo contends that these sales have been reported.
        DOC Position: The sales in question were reported.
        Comment 4: Petitioner argues that the Department should find that 
    imports of subject merchandise were massive over a relatively short 
    period of time and that consequently, critical circumstances exist in 
    this investigation under 735 (a)(3)(B) of the Act. In its analysis, 
    petitioner compared shipments to the United States with a base period 
    prior to the filing of the petition of May-July, 1993, with shipments 
    to the United States in the post-petition comparison period of August-
    October, 1993. Using this comparison, petitioner found that imports had 
    increased during the comparison period by more than 15 percent, the 
    Department's benchmark.
         Akzo argued that imports were not massive, and that the 
    petitioner's methodology was not consistent with the practice of the 
    Department.
        DOC Position: We agree with Akzo. In this case, the petition was 
    filed on July 2, 1993. It is the Department's standard policy, in cases 
    where the petition is filed during the first half of the month, to 
    include the month of filing in the post-petition comparison period, not 
    the base period, as petitioner suggests (See, e.g., Certain Portable 
    Electronic Typewriters from Singapore, 58 FR 43337 (1993)). 
    Additionally, although 19 CFR 353.16(g) requires that we examine at 
    least three months, it is the Department's practice to examine the 
    longest period for which information is available up until the 
    preliminary determination (See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
    Steel Plate from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37216 (1993)). When the five 
    month period subsequent to and including the month that the petition 
    was filed is compared to the previous five months, we find that imports 
    were not at levels we consider massive.
        Comment 5: Petitioner argues that certain sales of scrap (which 
    were excluded from our analysis in the preliminary determination 
    because the quantity involved was insignificant) should be included in 
    the calculation of U.S. price for the following reasons: (1) The fact 
    that the quantities are small is irrelevant; (2) other sales of the 
    merchandise in question are included in the cost of production 
    calculations; and (3) according to product specifications in Akzo's 
    invoices, the merchandise in question is clearly a form of PPD-T aramid 
    fiber which is subject to investigation.
        Akzo argues that the Department properly excluded sales of scrap 
    from its preliminary determination because the quantities sold in the 
    United States were small and there were no similar sales of scrap in 
    the comparison third country markets. Additionally, Akzo asserts that 
    exclusion of scrap sales is consistent with the treatment of non-prime 
    material in the recent carbon flat steel cases, where the Department 
    disregarded sales of second quality merchandise in the U.S. market 
    where there were no similar sales in the home market and they 
    constituted an insignificant portion (less than five percent) of the 
    respondent's total U.S. sales, (Final Determination of Sales at Less 
    Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled and Certain Cold-Rolled Steel from 
    the Netherlands, 58 FR 37199, 37201 (July 9, 1993)).
        Akzo further argues that petitioner's reliance on the product 
    designations on the invoices is misplaced because scrap is generated as 
    part of the beaming (i.e., repacking) process in the United States.
        DOC Position: We agree with Akzo. The volume of scrap sales is 
    insignificant and there are no comparable third country sales. 
    Therefore, we have continued to exclude these sales from our 
    calculations. In addition, at verification we verified that most of the 
    scrap is tailings generated by the U.S. repacking operation and that, 
    invoice descriptions notwithstanding, the product is sold as waste and 
    the customer has no recourse to quality claims.
        Comment 6: Petitioner argues that we should not exclude certain 
    (G&A) expenses incurred by Akzo America, Inc. in the calculation of 
    indirect selling expenses for purposes of the ESP deduction from U.S. 
    price. Petitioner further argues that it is long-standing Department 
    practice to consider G&A expenses incurred by the U.S. selling arms of 
    a foreign producer to be indirect ``selling expenses'' for purposes of 
    this deduction.
        Akzo argues that it has captured all expenses of the selling 
    affiliate, Akzo Fibers, in its calculation of indirect selling 
    expenses. In addition, Akzo asserts that it has captured all selling-
    related expenses which were allocated to the aramid fiber business unit 
    of Akzo Fibers by Akzo America. Akzo contends that all remaining G&A 
    expenses carried on the books of Akzo America are not associated with 
    the selling function at Akzo Fibers and therefore are properly not 
    included in the calculation of U.S. indirect selling expenses.
        DOC Position: We agree with petitioner. Akzo America is the parent 
    company that provides administrative, accounting and finance services 
    for all of Akzo's North American subsidiaries. In addition, there is no 
    evidence that it provides any services for Akzo N.V. (its parent 
    company in the Netherlands) other than to facilitate the activities of 
    the subsidiaries in the United States. Therefore, all expenses incurred 
    by Akzo America, including those classified on its books as G&A, are 
    indirectly related to the selling activities of the subsidiaries. 
    Consequently, we have included in the calculation of U.S. indirect 
    selling expenses the amount of Akzo America's G&A expenses which have 
    been allocated to the aramid fibers business unit of Akzo Fibers.
        Comment 7: Petitioner argues that certain other G&A expenses listed 
    on the June 1993 financial statement of Akzo America have not been 
    allocated to any of the North American subsidiaries and that the 
    representative portion attributable to the aramid fiber business unit 
    should be included in the calculation of indirect selling expenses for 
    purposes of the ESP deduction from U.S. price.
        Akzo argues that these G&A costs are the same G&A expenses which 
    are the subject of Comment 6 above.
        DOC Position: We agree with petitioner that the G&A expenses of 
    Akzo America should be included in the calculation of indirect selling 
    expenses for purposes of the ESP deduction from U.S. price (see comment 
    6). However, we agree with Akzo that these G&A costs are the same G&A 
    expenses which are the subject of Comment 6 (see memorandum to the 
    file, dated April 22, 1994). Therefore, no additional increase to U.S. 
    indirect selling expenses is necessary.
        Comment 8: Petitioner argues that in calculating the Dutch portion 
    of U.S. inventory carrying costs, the Department should use the short-
    term borrowing rate of Arami (i.e., the actual producer and seller of 
    the subject merchandise), rather than the rate of Akzo N.V., the parent 
    company. Petitioner asserts that Arami's borrowing rate is appropriate 
    because Arami is the company which actually financed the inventory and 
    is a separate corporate entity from Akzo N.V.
        Akzo argues that Akzo N.V.'s short-term borrowing rate should be 
    used in calculating the Dutch portion of the inventory carrying cost 
    for the same reasons it argues that Akzo N.V. and Arami should be 
    consolidated for determining a financial expense ratio for CV and COP. 
    (See the discussion below at Comment 11). Respondent also argues, in 
    the event that the Department decides not to collapse the two companies 
    and uses Arami's short-term borrowing rate in calculating U.S. 
    inventory carrying cost, that the Department should also use Arami's 
    short-term borrowing rate in the calculation of inventory carrying 
    costs incurred in the Netherlands on sales made in Japan and Germany 
    and in the calculation of German credit.
        DOC Position: As noted in our response to Comment 11 below, we have 
    determined that it is not appropriate to collapse Arami and Akzo N.V. 
    Therefore, we agree with petitioner and have used the short-term 
    borrowing rate of Arami in calculating the inventory carrying costs 
    incurred in the Netherlands on U.S., German and Japanese sales. We have 
    also applied Arami's rate in the calculation of German credit expense, 
    as suggested by Akzo.
        Comment 9: Petitioner argues that Akzo's U.S. customs duty 
    calculation may be incorrect because there are discrepancies between 
    the list of customs entries for subject merchandise entering Akzo's 
    warehouses in the United States during the POI and the list of all 
    shipments to the United States provided by Akzo in connection with the 
    critical circumstances allegation.
        Akzo argues that petitioner has erroneously assumed that the 
    entries included in the two lists should correspond exactly. In fact, 
    respondent argues, the list of shipments includes additional entries 
    that did not enter Akzo's warehouse but were transferred directly to 
    U.S. customers, entries made after the POI, and invoices that were 
    cancelled.
        DOC Position: We agree with Akzo. The two lists will not correspond 
    exactly. One list represents the volume of subject merchandise entering 
    Akzo's U.S. warehouses during the POI, while the other represents the 
    volume of subject merchandise shipped from the Netherlands during the 
    POI. In addition, at verification we determined that the list of 
    entries used for Akzo's U.S. duty calculation was complete and 
    accurate.
        Comment 10: Akzo argues that the Department made clerical errors in 
    its calculation of the ESP offset and difference in merchandise 
    adjustment in its preliminary determination.
        DOC Position: We agree with respondent. We have corrected these 
    errors in our final determination. Also, see our response to Comment 
    18.
        Comment 11: Petitioner argues that Arami and Akzo N.V. should not 
    be consolidated for COP or CV calculations. Petitioner states that 
    while they were clearly related, Akzo N.V. held only a 50 percent 
    equity interest in Arami and their operations were never consolidated 
    for financial reporting or any other purposes. According to both Dutch 
    and U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), consolidation 
    is required when one company holds more than a 50 percent equity 
    interest in another company. Petitioner asserts that the reorganization 
    of the Arami joint venture should not be factored into the Department's 
    cost analysis because this development occurred after the POI. 
    Petitioner claims that if the Department departed from its practice of 
    investigating costs and prices during the POI, it would constitute an 
    arbitrary departure from established practice as well as an invitation 
    for post-POI cost and price manipulation by foreign producers.
        Petitioner maintains that the Department's reason for collapsing 
    transactions between related parties which do not reflect ``arm's 
    length'' costs is to eliminate any substantial risk of price and cost 
    manipulation between those companies. Petitioner states that the legal 
    and operational structure of Arami was designed so that its operations 
    would not be consolidated under Dutch law. Additionally, petitioner 
    asserts that the actual cost of producing aramid fiber is more 
    accurately reflected by Arami's own books and records instead of its 
    records consolidated with the Akzo Group. Petitioner contends that the 
    companies in the cases cited by Arami do not relate to this case 
    because the companies met the requirements for consolidation and should 
    have been consolidated under GAAP (i.e., equity ownership was greater 
    than 50 percent).
        Arami claims that Akzo N.V. exerted significant control over its 
    operation not only in 1993, but in all preceding years. Arami states 
    evidence of this close interrelationship is illustrated by its 
    financing transactions as well as evidence of organizational and 
    operational control. Arami argues that it is the Department's practice 
    to combine financing activities of companies where one company exerts 
    significant control over the other company. It also claims that this is 
    in keeping with the Department's position on fungibility of capital. 
    Arami has informed the Department that Akzo Fibers Aramide B.V., a 
    wholly-owned subsidiary of Akzo N.V., increased its equity interest in 
    Arami to 95 percent effective December 31, 1993. Arami concludes that, 
    based on the fungibility of capital, increased equity ownership and 
    significant control, the Department should consolidate Arami with Akzo 
    N.V. for cost of production and constructed value purposes. Arami 
    states that it was consolidated with Akzo N.V. for balance sheet 
    reporting purposes as of December 31, 1993, and would be fully 
    consolidated on both the income statement and balance sheet in the 
    fiscal year 1994.
        Additionally, Arami claims that in previous cases, the Department 
    has combined the parent and subsidiary's costs even though 
    consolidation did not occur in the normal course of business. In citing 
    the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
    Carbon Steel Butt-weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand (pipe fittings), 57 
    FR 21065 (1992), respondent quotes the Department as saying: ``* * * it 
    is the Department's policy to combine the financing activities of a 
    parent and subsidiary when the parent exercises control over the 
    subsidiary (i.e. meets the requirements for consolidation).'' 
    Respondent also cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
    Fair Value: Ferrosilicon from Brazil (Ferrosilicon), 59 FR 732 (1994), 
    to further support its claim.
        DOC Position: We agree with petitioner, and have not consolidated 
    Arami and Akzo N.V. for purposes of this antidumping investigation. The 
    corporate reorganization which was effective December 31, 1993, was not 
    considered by the Department because it occurred subsequent to the POI.
        Each of the joint venture partners had equal control over decisions 
    involving Arami's operations until the new agreement was signed in 
    1994. Under Dutch GAAP, if a company does not have equity ownership of 
    greater than 50 percent, but still has control over another company, it 
    is required to consolidate. Since Arami was not consolidated with Akzo 
    prior to reorganization, we can reasonably conclude that Akzo did not 
    have sufficient control over Arami to warrant consolidation under Dutch 
    GAAP. Therefore, consolidation of Arami and the Akzo N.V. for 
    antidumping purposes based on a significant control argument is 
    unwarranted.
        In the two cases cited by Arami, the GAAP of those countries 
    required consolidation when one company owned more than 50 percent of 
    another. In the Pipe Fittings case, the Japanese parent company, Awaji 
    Sangyo K.K. Company Ltd. (ASK) owned more than 50 percent of Awaji 
    Sangyo Co. Ltd., (AST) of Thailand. Although ASK and AST did not 
    prepare consolidated financial statements, the Department in its cost 
    verification report (April 4, 1992, pg.3) noted ``* * * the operations 
    should have been consolidated in accordance with generally accepted 
    accounting principles.'' In Ferrosilicon, the parent company owned 
    greater than 50 percent of Minasligas, its subsidiary under 
    investigation. Brazilian and U.S. GAAP require consolidation when the 
    equity interests exceed 50 percent. In each of those cases, control was 
    indicated by equity ownership and GAAP required consolidation. In 
    contrast to the above cases, Arami did not meet the requirements for 
    consolidation. For further analysis of this issue, see the Final 
    Concurrence Memorandum.
        Comment 12: Since Arami was not consolidated with Akzo N.V. during 
    the POI, petitioner asserts interest expense should be calculated based 
    solely on Arami's 1992 audited financial statements. Petitioner argues 
    that the Department must disregard the reorganization finalized 
    subsequent to the POI which resulted in Arami being consolidated with 
    Akzo N.V. for balance sheet purposes. In addition, petitioner states 
    this consolidation did not affect the income statement encompassing the 
    POI.
        Arami argues that the combined 1992 financial statement data of 
    Arami and Akzo N.V. is the correct basis for computing interest expense 
    because Akzo N.V. exerts significant control over Arami's operations 
    and capital is fungible. Arami argues that the consolidation for 
    balance sheet purposes as of December 31, 1993, affects the entire 
    fiscal year 1993.
        DOC Position: We disagree with respondent. A company's balance 
    sheet presents a snapshot of its assets and claims on those assets 
    (liabilities and equity) as of a specific point in time (i.e., 12/31/
    93). An income statement reports a company's performance over a 
    specified period of time (i.e., 1/1/93-12/31/93). Arami's operating 
    results were not consolidated with the results of the Akzo N.V. Group 
    in 1993. Based on the Department's decision not to consolidate Arami 
    with Akzo N.V., we calculated interest expense for COP and CV based 
    solely on Arami's financial statements. For further analysis of this 
    issue, see the Final Concurrence Memorandum.
        Comment 13: Petitioner asserts that interest on loans provided by a 
    related party should be included in the calculation of Arami's 
    financing costs for COP and CV purposes. Petitioner states that 
    according to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in IPSCO, 
    Inc. v. U.S., 965 F.2d 1056 (1992), cost of production is linked to 
    constructed value. Thus, the petitioner states that the constructed 
    value provision authorizing the Department to disregard related party 
    transactions which are not arms-length in nature can be applied to cost 
    of production calculations. Petitioner asserts that Arami's argument 
    for consolidation does not eliminate the costs associated with these 
    loans. Furthermore, the year end reorganization does not modify costs 
    incurred during the POI. Petitioner contends that consolidation did not 
    affect the income statement for the period January 1 through December 
    31, 1993.
         Arami claims that as a result of the new joint venture agreement 
    signed in 1994, Arami's balance sheet was consolidated with that of 
    Akzo N.V., eliminating all related party loans. Therefore, the 
    Department cannot impute an interest cost to loans that do not exist as 
    of December 31, 1993. Arami claims its 1992 audited financial statement 
    data should be used in calculating interest expense, but adds that the 
    significant change in Arami's corporate structure must be considered. 
    Arami continues that if the Department determines consolidation is 
    unwarranted, and decides imputation of interest expense is necessary 
    for CV, it should not impute interest for COP. Arami argues that the 
    Department's long standing policy is to compute COP based on a 
    company's actual costs, thus, there is no basis on which to impute 
    interest for COP.
        DOC Position: According to section 773(e)(2) of the Act, for CV, if 
    a transaction between related companies does not fairly reflect the 
    market value, the Department may determine that element of value using 
    the best evidence available. In this case, we found that the loans in 
    question were at below-market interest rates. Thus, we included the 
    interest incurred on the loans provided by Arami's related party in the 
    calculation of financing costs for CV purposes.
        We determined that no related party financing adjustment is 
    necessary for COP purposes. In determining actual costs of production, 
    the Department normally adheres to the GAAP of the respondent's home 
    country. Under Dutch GAAP, economic activities are normally 
    consolidated for all companies that have direct or indirect ownership 
    greater than 50 percent. In accordance with ITA's standard practice, 
    the supplier's actual costs of production should be used to value 
    inputs acquired from companies that are directly or indirectly related 
    by more than 50 percent. Inputs acquired from companies that have 
    direct or indirect ownership of 50 percent or less, should normally be 
    valued using transfer prices (i.e., purchaser's actual cost). 
    Accordingly, for COP purposes, we used Arami's transfer prices.
        For further analysis of these issues, see the Final Concurrence 
    Memorandum.
        Comment 14: Petitioner states that certain charges were paid by 
    Arami for services rendered by related Akzo companies. Since certain of 
    these charges are used to approximate the price charged in an arm's 
    length transaction and were actual costs incurred, Petitioner states it 
    is appropriate to include these costs in the cost of manufacturing.
        Arami claims certain of these charges are intracompany transactions 
    which do not represent true costs and will be discontinued in 1994, 
    therefore, these costs should be excluded from the cost of 
    manufacturing for both COP and CV purposes.
        DOC Position: We disagree with respondent. These charges relate to 
    intercompany transactions between Arami and another company, which 
    represent actual costs incurred by Arami and recorded on its books 
    during the POI. Arami incorrectly categorized these costs as 
    intracompany transactions which relates to transactions between 
    divisions within a company. The fact that this charge may be 
    discontinued in 1994 does not mean the costs should be excluded for 
    1993. Accordingly, we included these charges in Arami's COP and CV 
    calculations.
        Comment 15: Petitioner states that certain costs incurred by Akzo 
    N.V. prior to the POI and recorded in Arami's 1992 audited financial 
    statements in accordance with GAAP should be included in the COP. 
    Petitioner states that this expense should be either charged to U.S. 
    sales as a selling expense or to all sales as a general and 
    administrative expense.
        Akzo argues that these costs incurred by Akzo N.V. do not represent 
    true costs for Arami during the POI. The accrual on Arami's books for 
    this cost has not been paid to Akzo N.V. and the expense will no longer 
    be charged in 1994. Therefore, this intercompany transaction should be 
    excluded from the submitted cost of manufacturing.
        DOC Position: Since this expense relates to the general production 
    activity of Arami, we included it in Arami's general and administrative 
    expense calculation for COP and CV purposes. This expense represents an 
    actual cost recorded on Arami's books during the POI and the fact that 
    the expense will no longer be charged in 1994 is not relevant.
        Comment 16: Petitioner asserts that the Department should disallow 
    a certain adjustment to Arami's fixed overhead costs for grants because 
    it is not recorded in Arami's cost accounting system and the reduction 
    in costs attributed to this adjustment distorts Arami's true cost of 
    manufacturing. Petitioner notes that if the Department allows this 
    reduction, we should self-initiate a countervailing duty investigation.
        Arami claims that it properly adjusted its fixed overhead costs by 
    a certain amount because this adjustment is recorded in Arami's 
    financial accounting system, and is included in its audited financial 
    statements. Arami notes that inclusion of this adjustment in no way 
    distorts Arami's costs, because it reflects amounts actually incurred. 
    Additionally, Akzo notes that because not all grants are 
    countervailable, the Department should resist petitioner's statements 
    requesting self-initiation of a countervailing duty investigation.
        DOC Position: This adjustment reflects actual costs incurred by 
    Arami as recorded on its books in accordance with GAAP, and was 
    properly included in its submitted COP and CV. We believe subsidies are 
    more properly handled in the context of the countervailing duty law. 
    Petitioner is free to submit a countervailing duty petition. Should 
    such a petition be submitted and meet the requirements of the 
    countervailing duty regulations (19 CFR 355.12), the Department would 
    initiate such an investigation. However, no justification has been 
    presented here for a departure from the Department's general policy of 
    not self-initiating countervailing duty investigations.
        Comment 17: Petitioner claims that several other non-operating 
    expense items should be included in G&A costs because each of these 
    expenses relate to the aramid fibers business. Petitioner asserts all 
    G&A expenses related to the subject merchandise should be included in 
    cost of production and constructed value.
        Arami claims that no additional adjustment to G&A expense for non-
    operating expenses is warranted. Arami asserts that two of the expenses 
    noted by petitioner are already included in the submitted G&A 
    calculation. Additionally, Arami contends that the related party 
    provision included in other non-operating expenses is an intracompany 
    payment and has no relevance in the context of this dumping 
    investigation.
        DOC Position: We adjusted the G&A calculation to include the 
    related party payment and two other non-operating expense items noted 
    in the cost verification report which were associated with the general 
    operations of Arami. The related party payment is an actual cost 
    incurred by Arami and recorded on its books in accordance with GAAP. 
    Two of the other non-operating expenses mentioned by the petitioner are 
    already included in submitted G&A costs, thus no adjustment is 
    necessary.
        Comment 18: Arami contends that for purposes of constructed value, 
    the Department should calculate a weighted-average profit figure for 
    pulp sales in Japan and yarn and staple sales in Germany.
        DOC Position: We disagree with Arami. We believe that it is 
    appropriate to calculate all selling expenses and profit specific to 
    the market in which the products in question were sold rather than 
    average profit across two or more countries. Consequently, we 
    calculated one average profit for pulp sold in Japan and another for 
    yarn and staple sold in Germany.
        However, we corrected a clerical error in the calculation of profit 
    noted by Arami which resulted in double counting.
    
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
    
        We are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend 
    liquidation of all entries of PPD-T aramid fiber from the Netherlands 
    that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
    after December 16, 1993, the date of publication of our preliminary 
    determination in the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall 
    require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated 
    amount by which the FMV of the merchandise subject to this 
    investigation exceeds the U.S. price, as shown below. This suspension 
    of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The 
    weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Weighted- 
                  Producer/manufacturer exporter                   average  
                                                                    margin  
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Akzo.......................................................        55.84
    All Others.................................................        55.84
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ITC Notification
    
        In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
    U.S. International Trade Commission of our determination.
    
    Notification to Interested Parties
    
        This notice also 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 353.34(d). Failure to 
    comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is published 
    pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4).
    
        Dated: May 2, 1994.
    Susan G. Esserman,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 94-10993 Filed 5-5-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/06/1994
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Document Number:
94-10993
Dates:
May 6,1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: May 6, 1994, A-421-805