[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49150-49159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23630]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 49151]]
SUMMARY: On May 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce published in the
Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review
and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel
concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey. The administrative review covers
one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United
States, Ekinciler. The new shipper review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, ICDAS. The
periods of review are October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998, in the
administrative review, and October 10, 1996, through July 31, 1998, in
the new shipper review.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We have considered the comments received in these
final results and have changed the results from those presented in the
preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, AD/CVD
Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1776
or (202) 482-0656, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the 1996-
1998 administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from
Turkey (64 FR 24578). The Department has now completed these
administrative reviews, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Reviews
The product covered by these reviews is all stock deformed steel
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated,
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Periods of Review
The period of review (POR) is October 10, 1996, through March 31,
1998, for Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S.
(collectively ``Ekinciler'') and October 10, 1996, through July 31,
1998, for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (ICDAS).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).
In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the
Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part
351 (1998).
Level of Trade and Constructed Export Price Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on sales in the
comparison market at the same level of trade as export price (EP) or
constructed export price (CEP). The NV level of trade is that of the
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on
CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level of
trade is also the level of the starting-price sales, which are usually
from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the
level of the constructed sales from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different level of trade and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the
CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).
Neither Ekinciler nor ICDAS claimed that it made home market sales
at more than one level of trade. Based on the information on the
record, no level of trade adjustment was warranted for either company.
For a detailed explanation of this analysis, see the memorandum
entitled ``Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey,'' dated April 30, 1999 (``the concurrence
memorandum'').
Regarding Ekinciler, in order to determine whether NV was
established at a level of trade which constituted a more advanced stage
of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP, we compared the
selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed
with respect to CEP transactions, which exclude those functions related
to economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to
section 772(d) of the Act. We found that Ekinciler performed
essentially the same selling functions in its sales offices in Turkey
for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, Ekinciler's sales in
Turkey were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and distribution
than the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents an F.O.B.
foreign port price after the deduction of expenses associated with U.S.
selling activities. Because we find that no difference in level of
trade exists between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset to
Ekinciler. For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum noted
above.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the
United States at less than NV, we compared the CEP or EP, as
appropriate, to the NV. Because Turkey's economy experienced high
inflation during the POR (over 70 percent), we limited, as is
Department practice, our comparisons to home market sales made during
the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred and did not apply the
``90/60'' contemporaneity rule (see, e.g., Notice of Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 63 FR 35191 (June 29,
1998) (affirming Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from
Turkey, 63 FR 6155, 6158 (Feb. 6, 1998)); and Certain Porcelain-on-
Steel
[[Page 49152]]
Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (Aug. 7, 1997)). This methodology minimizes
the extent to which calculated dumping margins are overstated or
understated due solely to price inflation that occurred in the
intervening time period between the U.S. and home market sales.
We first attempted to compare products sold in the U.S. and home
markets that were identical with respect to the following hierarchical
characteristics: grade, size, ASTM specification, and form. Where there
were no home market sales of merchandise that were identical in these
respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S.
products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market
based on the hierarchy of characteristics listed above.
Export Price/Constructed Export Price
For all U.S. sales by Ekinciler, we used CEP, in accordance with
section 772(b) of the Act. For all U.S. sales by ICDAS, we used EP, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.
A. Ekinciler
We based CEP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States. We made deductions from CEP for discounts, as
appropriate. We also made deductions for foreign brokerage and handling
expenses, inspection fees, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.
customs duties, discharge expenses (offset by despatch revenue),
wharfage expenses, sorting expenses, truck loading expenses, U.S.
warehousing expenses and insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.
inland insurance, where appropriate, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We based the amount of foreign brokerage and
handling expenses on the amount that Ekinciler paid to an affiliated
party, because we determined that these expenses were at arm's length.
For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum.
We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for
Exporters' Association fees, bank charges, credit expenses, U.S.
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, in
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We recalculated U.S.
credit expenses using the weighted average of the U.S. interest rates
reported in Ekinciler's response. This average rate was based on the
actual borrowing experience of Ekinciler's affiliated parties for their
U.S.-dollar-denominated loans. See Comment 4.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using
the expenses incurred by Ekinciler and its affiliate on their sales of
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.
B. ICDAS
We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight
expenses, ocean freight expenses, inspection fees, and loading charges,
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market
sales.
Both respondents made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in the
home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to
ensure that, on average, they were made at arm's-length prices, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To conduct this test, we compared
the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net
of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where
prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of
the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales were
made at arm's length (see 19 CFR 351.403(c) and the preamble to the
Department's regulations (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27355 (May 19, 1997)). Accordingly,
for Ekinciler, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to
the affiliated party that were made at arm's length. Regarding ICDAS,
we did not include in our analysis any sales made to affiliated parties
because they failed the arm's-length test. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.403(d), we based our analysis on the downstream sales of the
affiliates to their unaffiliated customers. See the memorandum entitled
``Arms-Length Test Performed in the Antidumping Duty Administrative New
Shipper Review on Rebar from Turkey'' from Irina Itkin to the File,
dated September 16, 1998.
A. Ekinciler
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ekinciler had made home
market sales at prices below their cost of production (COP) in this
(the first) review because the Department had disregarded sales below
the COP for this company in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9740 (Mar. 4, 1997) (Rebar
from Turkey). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to
determine whether Ekinciler made home market sales during the POR at
prices below their respective COPs.
We calculated the COP based on the sum of Ekinciler's cost of
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts
for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act. We relied on Ekinciler's information as submitted, except in the
specific instances discussed below.
(1) We considered Ekinciler to be the manufacturer of all rebar
which was rolled by unaffiliated subcontractors because we find that
Ekinciler controlled the production of this merchandise. This is
consistent with our treatment of Ekinciler's subcontracted production
in the LTFV investigation. See the memorandum entitled ``Antidumping
Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars
(Rebar) from Turkey--Determination of Who Is the Producer for Rebar
Rolled by Unaffiliated Subcontractors'' from James Maeder to Louis
Apple, dated April 30, 1999. See also Stainless Steel Flanges From
India; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
58 FR 68853 (Dec. 29, 1993); and
(2) We revised the calculation of depreciation expenses related to
the revaluation of fixed assets in order to use the index published by
the Turkish Ministry of Finance. See World Accounting, Orsini, Gould,
McAllister, & Parikh, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1998, page TRK-30.
[[Page 49153]]
As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices,
we requested that Ekinciler submit the product-specific costs of
manufacturing (COM) incurred during each month of the POR. We
calculated a POR-average COM for each product after indexing the
reported monthly costs during the POR to an equivalent currency level
using the Turkish Wholesale Price Index from the International
Financial Statistics published by the International Monetary Fund. We
then restated the POR-average COMs in the currency values of each
respective month.
We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices
of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the
Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below
the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home
market prices, less any applicable movement charges and selling
expenses.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections
773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of Ekinciler's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Ekinciler's
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such
cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded the below-cost
sales and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where
all sales of a specific product were at prices below the COP, we
disregarded all sales of that product.
In all cases, we found that comparison products existed for which
there were sales at prices above the COP. Accordingly, we based NV on
ex-factory, ex-warehouse or delivered prices to home market customers.
We excluded from our analysis home market re-sales by Ekinciler of
merchandise produced by unaffiliated companies. Where appropriate, we
added an amount for interest revenue received from home market
customers for delayed payment of invoices. Also where appropriate, we
made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight,
inland insurance, and off-site warehousing expenses, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We deducted home market packing costs
and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of
the Act.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise,
using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the
POR, as described above.
B. ICDAS
We based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated customers. We
made deductions for inland freight expenses (offset by freight
revenue), where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home
market credit expenses (offset by interest revenue), where appropriate,
and adding U.S. credit expenses, bank charges, and Exporters'
Association fees. We recalculated home market credit expenses using the
interest rates observed at verification. We included bank charges
related to short-term loans in our recalculation. See Comment 14.
In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency
conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago, 63 FR
9177, 9181 (Feb. 24, 1998) (Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago). See
Comment 13.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received case briefs from Florida Steel Corp.
and New Jersey Steel Corp. (the petitioners) and from both respondents.
We also received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and Ekinciler.
A. Ekinciler
Comment 1: Bank Charges Associated with Intra-Company Transfers.
During the POR, Ekinciler sold rebar to its U.S. affiliate, Ferromin,
which in turn resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers.
Ekinciler incurred certain bank charges related to the payment of the
transfer price by Ferromin, and it reported these bank charges in a
separate field in its U.S. sales listing. For purposes of the
preliminary results, the Department treated these bank charges as CEP
selling expenses and deducted them from CEP. Ekinciler argues that this
treatment was incorrect, because the charges in question were
associated with the payment between affiliated parties. As these
transactions were incurred in Turkey and not directly linked to the
sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser, Ekinciler asserts that they
are indirect expenses which should not be deducted from CEP.
Ekinciler maintains that the Department is prohibited from making
adjustments for expenses between affiliated parties under its
regulations. Specifically, Ekinciler cites 19 CFR 351.402(b), which
directs the Department to make no adjustment to the U.S. selling price
for expenses that are related solely to the sale to an affiliated
importer in the United States. Ekinciler notes that, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.402(b), the Department's practice is not to make such
adjustments. As support for this position, Ekinciler cites Porcelain-
On-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 26934 (May 18, 1999) (Mexican Cookware),
where the Department stated that indirect selling expenses incurred in
the home market relating to the sale to the affiliated purchaser are
not deducted from CEP.
In any event, Ekinciler asserts that it is the Department's
practice to consider any credit-related expenses associated with
transfers between affiliates as
[[Page 49154]]
indirect selling expenses. As support for this position, Ekinciler
cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 42942, 42949
(Sept. 17, 1992), which states:
These [bank charges] result from intra-company transfers which
occurred before the sale to the first unrelated party, and are not
directly tied to individual sales to unrelated customers. The
Department considers such expenses to be indirect selling expenses.
See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Color Television Receivers from Korea, 55 FR 26225 (July 27, 1990).
Ekinciler also cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Color Television Receivers from Taiwan, 49 FR 7628 (Mar. 1,
1984), where the Department found that interest expenses between
affiliated parties should be treated as indirect selling expenses
because they are intra-company expenses not directly related to sales
to unrelated U.S. buyers.
According to the petitioners, the bank charges in question are
direct selling expenses because they: (1) Are associated with the sale
to the first unaffiliated customer; and (2) can be directly tied to the
sale of the rebar in question. The petitioners assert that, under 19
CFR 351.402(b), the relevant factor in determining whether an expense
should be treated as part of the CEP deduction is where the economic
activity associated with the expense occurs. The petitioners assert
that, in this case, the relevant activity--the sale--occurred in the
United States after importation. Therefore, the petitioners contend
that the Department should deduct these expenses from CEP, or, barring
that, the Department should treat them as a circumstance-of-sale
adjustment to NV.
DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler. Contrary to the petitioners'
assertions, the bank charges in question are not associated with a sale
to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Rather, they relate
solely to transactions between Ekinciler and its affiliated U.S.
reseller. Moreover, because they cannot be tied directly to a sale to
the first unaffiliated purchaser, they are indirect selling expenses.
The Department's regulations provide explicit guidance on the
treatment of such expenses. Specifically, 19 CFR 351.402(b) states:
In establishing constructed export price under section 772(d) of
the Act, the Secretary will make adjustments for expenses associated
with economic activities in the United States that relate to the
sale to an unaffiliated purchaser, no matter where or when paid. The
Secretary will not make an adjustment for any expense that is
related solely to the sale to an affiliated importer in the United
States, although the Secretary may make an adjustment to normal
value for such expenses under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
This regulation is further explained in the preamble, which states:
The purpose of these changes is to distinguish between selling
expenses incurred on the sale to the unaffiliated customer, which
may be deducted under 772(d), and those associated with the sale to
the affiliated customer in the United States, which may not be
deducted. In addition, the phrase ``no matter where or when paid''
is intended to indicate that if commercial activities occur in the
United States and relate to the sale to an unaffiliated purchaser,
expenses associated with those activities will be deducted from CEP
even if, for example, the foreign parent of the affiliated U.S.
importer pays those expenses. Finally, the reference to adjustments
normal value reflects our agreement with the comment that the
Secretary may adjust for direct selling expenses (as well as assumed
expenses) associated with the sale to the affiliated importer under
the circumstance of sale provision * * *
62 FR at 27351.
We explained our current practice in this area in a recent decision
in Mexican Cookware. Specifically, we stated:
The Department's current practice, as indicated by the preamble
to the Department's new regulations, is to deduct indirect selling
expenses incurred in the home market from the CEP calculation only
if they relate to sales to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. We do not deduct from the CEP calculation indirect selling
expenses incurred in the home market relating to the sale to the
affiliated purchaser.
64 FR at 26942-43.
Consequently, in accordance with the Department's regulations and
current practice, we have made no adjustment for the bank charges in
question for purposes of the final results.
Comment 2: Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Turkey. The
petitioners contend that the Department should require Ekinciler to
report all indirect selling expenses incurred in Turkey to sell rebar
in the United States. According to the petitioners, it is implausible
that Ekinciler incurred no Turkish indirect selling expenses related to
U.S. sales.
Ekinciler notes that, under its regulations and practice, the
Department makes no adjustment for foreign indirect selling expenses.
See 19 CFR 351.402(b) and Mexican Cookware. Therefore, Ekinciler
asserts that, if the Department were to include these expenses in its
calculations, it would do so only in the calculation of CEP profit.
Ekinciler notes that this would result in the reduction of CEP profit,
which would be to Ekinciler's advantage.
DOC Position. We disagree with the petitioners. As Ekinciler
correctly notes, the expenses in question would be used only in the
calculation of CEP profit because, in accordance with the Department's
regulations, indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market
relating to the sale to the affiliated purchaser are not deducted from
the CEP calculation. See 19 CFR 351.402(b) and Mexican Cookware.
Therefore, even if Ekinciler had incurred indirect selling expenses in
Turkey related to U.S. sales, it was conservative for Ekinciler not to
report these expenses. Accordingly, we have not requested any
additional information from Ekinciler, nor have we based the amount of
these expenses on facts available.
Comment 3: Pre-Sale Freight and Warehousing Expenses. According to
the petitioners, the Department should deduct from NV neither any
freight expenses incurred on the transportation of merchandise from the
factory to Ekinciler's home market distribution warehouse nor the
warehousing expenses themselves. The petitioners contend that these
expenses should be treated as general expenses because they were
incurred prior to the sale to the first unaffiliated customer.
According to Ekinciler, its transportation and warehousing expenses
are incurred after the intra-corporate sale of the rebar to the
respondent's affiliated trading company and are subsumed in the price
to the unaffiliated customer. Ekinciler notes that both the Act and the
regulations allow these types of adjustments. Ekinciler cites the
preamble to the regulations at 62 FR 27410, which states that the
Department is to deduct from NV all movement and related expenses
incurred after the merchandise left the place of production.
DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler. Section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of
the Act directs the Department to reduce NV by the amount of any
expenses incident to bringing the foreign like product from the
original place of shipment (i.e., the production facility) to the place
of delivery. Moreover, under 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2), the Department
considers warehousing expenses incurred after the foreign like product
leaves the production facility to be movement expenses. Consequently,
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.401(e)(2), we have continued to treat the freight and warehousing
expenses in question as movement charges and deducted them
[[Page 49155]]
from NV for purposes of the final results.
Comment 4: Credit Expenses. For purposes of the preliminary
results, the Department based the U.S. interest rate on the weighted
average of the interest rates paid by Ekdemir (i.e., the Ekinciler
Group's rebar producer) and Ekdis (i.e., the Ekinciler Group's
international trading company) on their U.S.-dollar-denominated loans.
According to the petitioners, the Department should base the U.S.
interest rate only on the rates paid by Ekdemir because this rate is
the most reflective of Ekinciler's weighted-average short-term
borrowing experience in the currency of the transaction. The
petitioners contend that the Department should disregard Ekdis' U.S.-
dollar borrowings because Ekdis was not directly involved in making
sales to the United States. The petitioners further argue that the
Department should recalculate Ekdemir's U.S. interest rate using 365
days, rather than 360, in order to make this calculation consistent
with the calculation of the credit period.
Ekinciler agrees that the Department should not base the U.S.
interest rate on the weighted average of Ekdemir's and Ekdis' U.S.-
dollar borrowings. However, Ekinciler argues that the Department should
use the average short-term dollar lending rates calculated by the
Federal Reserve, because Ekinciler's U.S. subsidiary, Ferromin, had no
borrowings during the POR. Ekinciler asserts that this rate is
appropriate because the U.S. subsidiary was the party which would have
been required to finance the U.S. sales from the date of shipment from
the U.S. warehouse until the date of payment by the U.S. customer.
Ekinciler maintains that using the Federal Reserve rate would be
consistent with Department practice. To demonstrate this, Ekinciler
cites Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 12725, 12742 (Mar. 16,
1998) (Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada), where the Department
based the U.S. interest rate on Federal Reserve data for EP sales, even
though the respondent's U.S. subsidiary had actual U.S. dollar
borrowings.
Nonetheless, Ekinciler argues that, should the Department decide to
use its U.S.-dollar borrowings in Turkey, it would be inappropriate to
use only one of the two group companies' borrowing rates. Ekinciler
cites Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 15772, 15779
(Apr. 9, 1996), where the Department stated that calculating interest
expense based on a company's consolidated financial statements is
appropriate because the cost of capital is fungible.
Finally, Ekinciler maintains that the Department did, in fact, use
365 days in the calculation of U.S. credit. Therefore, Ekinciler
asserts that no further change is necessary.
DOC Position. We disagree with the petitioners and with Ekinciler,
in part, regarding the appropriate interest rate to use in the U.S.
credit calculations. As we stated in Import Administration Policy
Bulletin 98-2 (Feb. 23, 1998):
For the purposes of calculating imputed credit expenses, we will
use a short-term interest rate tied to the currency in which the
sales are denominated. We will base this interest rate on the
respondent's weighted-average short-term borrowing experience in the
currency of the transaction... In cases where a respondent has no
short-term currency borrowings in the currency of the transaction,
we will use publicly available information to establish a short-term
interest rate applicable to the currency of the transaction.
Contrary to Ekinciler's assertions, this bulletin does not indicate
that the source of the U.S. dollar-denominated short-term interest rate
must be a bank located in the United States. Rather, this bulletin
shows a clear preference for the actual borrowing experience of the
respondent.
In this case, there were three parties who were involved in the
sale of rebar to the United States. Since the U.S. subsidiary most
directly involved in selling the subject merchandise had no U.S. dollar
borrowings, and because we have a preference for using actual
experience where possible, we have continued to use the average of the
rates paid by the other parties involved in making the sale, rather
than the Federal Reserve rate. We disagree with the petitioners'
contention that we should base the U.S. interest rate solely on the
experience of Ekdemir, because Ekdis was also involved in the sale of
the subject merchandise.
Moreover, we find that the situation in Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Canada is factually distinguishable from the circumstances in this
case. In that case, unlike here, neither the respondent nor any
affiliated party involved directly or indirectly with the sale of the
subject merchandise had any borrowings in U.S. dollars (although in
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada the U.S. subsidiary had
borrowings in U.S. dollars, it was not involved in the sale of subject
merchandise). Thus, because the respondent had no actual U.S.-dollar-
denominated borrowings in that case, we determined that the use of the
Federal Reserve rate was appropriate. In contrast, the respondent in
this case does have actual U.S. dollar-denominated borrowings, and we
relied on these borrowings to determine the U.S. interest rate.
Regarding the calculation of the interest rate, we agree with the
petitioners. We find that Ekinciler's methodology understates the
annual interest rate, because Ekinciler misstated the portion of the
year to which the interest expense applied. Consequently, we have
recalculated the U.S. interest rate for purposes of the final results.
Comment 5: Packing Expenses According to the petitioners, the
Department should base the amount of Ekinciler's packing expenses on
facts available, because Ekinciler's response contains contradictory
statements which cannot be reconciled. Specifically, the petitioners
assert that Ekinciler made the following statements: (1) The reason the
packing material costs differ significantly from month to month is due
to changes in material prices and to varying packing requirements
depending upon the market in which the product is sold; and (2) packing
materials used for U.S. and Turkish sales are very similar, and,
consequently, the costs are nearly identical. Moreover, the petitioners
contend that Ekinciler failed to index its packing figures, and it also
did not include any expenses for packing labor or overhead in its
calculations.
Ekinciler argues that the Department should accept its packing
expenses as reported. Ekinciler maintains that the statements
identified by the petitioners are not contradictory because the
differences in packing requirements referenced above relate to third
country markets, rather than to the U.S. or home market. Ekinciler
asserts that the packing requirements for U.S. and home market sales
are virtually identical. Furthermore, Ekinciler notes that, contrary to
the petitioners' assertions, it accounted for the effects of inflation
in its packing calculations because it reported current costs for its
packing materials in accordance with standard Department practice.
Finally, regarding packing labor and overhead, Ekinciler notes that it
was not possible to segregate these costs from other labor and overhead
costs its accounting system. Nonetheless, Ekinciler contends that its
inability to report these expenses separately does not affect the
margin calculations because these expenses are: (1) extremely small;
(2) virtually the
[[Page 49156]]
same for the U.S. and home markets; and (3) captured in the reported
COM.
DOC Position. Ekinciler consistently described its packing expenses
in its response and correctly based the expenses reported on its
current cost of materials (i.e., the price of materials in the same
month as production). Moreover, we note that, while Ekinciler did not
index these costs itself, these costs were indexed in the computer
program used to calculate Ekinciler's margin for purposes of the
preliminary results.
Regarding labor and overhead, we find that, because the packing
process is essentially the same for the U.S. and home markets, there
would be no material difference in the amount of labor and overhead
allocated to the U.S. and home markets. Consequently, we have continued
to rely on the packing data reported by Ekinciler for purposes of the
final results.
Comment 6: Offset to Materials Costs. Ekinciler claimed an offset
to the materials costs reported in its response for certain materials
recovered during the production process (e.g., billet ends and slag).
According to the petitioners, Ekinciler understated the value of billet
ends because it valued them at the average shredded scrap purchase
price for the month in which they were created. The petitioners contend
that this approach is only valid if the billet ends are also used in
that month. According to the petitioners, the Department should use
facts available to account for this error.
In addition, the petitioners contend that the Department should
disallow Ekinciler's offset for slag. According to the petitioners,
slag cannot be reused in an arc furnace and is typically sold for use
in roadbeds and airport runways.
Finally, the petitioners contend that Ekinciler improperly valued
other scrap which was recovered during the production process.
According to the petitioners, the proper value is not the weighted
average of the domestic scrap purchases during the same month, but
rather the weighted average of Ekinciler's total scrap purchases within
the same month.
Ekinciler contends that the petitioners' argument regarding billet
ends is moot because billet ends are recycled daily. Nonetheless,
Ekinciler argues that the value of scrap used as an offset should be
valued when the scrap is generated, not when it is used. Ekinciler
further notes that, had it understated the value of billet ends as the
petitioners assert, the result would have been to overstate (not
understate) costs, because the offset would have been too low.
Moreover, Ekinciler asserts that the Department should also accept
its reported offset for slag. Ekinciler asserts that it is irrelevant
whether the slag is used internally by Ekdemir or sold to outside
purchasers for use in roadbeds. According to Ekinciler, because the
petitioners admit that slag has value, there is no question that
Ekinciler properly reported a value for the scrap that it recovered.
Finally, Ekinciler asserts that it provided a detailed description
of the various types of scrap and the means that it used to value them
in its supplemental questionnaire response. Ekinciler further asserts
that it based its reported scrap recovery on the company's monthly
records maintained in the ordinary course of business. Therefore,
Ekinciler asserts that the petitioners' comments should be disregarded.
DOC Position. Ekinciler's methodology for valuing scrap recovered
during the production process is reasonable. Specifically, Ekinciler
valued each month's recovered scrap at the average of the purchase
prices for scrap during the month. (See pages 21 and 22 of its March
16, 1999, supplemental response.) We do not agree with the petitioners
that Ekinciler valued certain types of recovered scrap at the weighted
average of the monthly domestic scrap purchases. This is the method by
which Ekinciler valued recovered scrap in its accounting system, not
the method by which it reported the value of such scrap to the
Department. Consequently, we have accepted Ekinciler's data as
reported.
Comment 7: Revaluation of Raw Materials Inventories. According to
the petitioners, Ekinciler's failure to revalue its monthly raw
materials inventories misstated the company's costs by failing to take
into account the impact of inflation.
Ekinciler contends that it reported the usage of raw materials at
the current monthly acquisition prices, as instructed in the
questionnaire. According to Ekinciler, because the petitioners
submitted no evidence to the contrary, the Department should disregard
the petitioners' unfounded assertion.
DOC Position. In cases involving significant inflation, it is the
Department's practice to require respondents to value raw materials
using the purchase prices obtained in the month of production. See,
e.g., Rebar from Turkey, Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from
Turkey, 62 FR 51629, 51631(Oct. 2, 1997), and Ferrosilicon from Brazil;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 59407,
59408 (Nov. 22, 1996). Because Ekinciler did so, we find that its costs
appropriately account for the effects of inflation. Consequently, we
have accepted these costs for purposes of the final results.
Comment 8: Value of Billets Purchased from an Affiliated Company.
The petitioners allege that Ekinciler may have understated the value of
certain billets purchased from an affiliated party in the home market.
According to the petitioners, the Department cannot find that the
transfer prices included a profit margin merely based on the fact that
the price paid to the affiliate exceeded the price that the affiliate
paid to its supplier. The petitioners note that the higher transfer
prices may account for all, or part of, the inflation that occurred
during the months between the affiliate's purchase and resale. The
petitioners do not suggest a method by which the Department should
adjust Ekinciler's billet costs.
Ekinciler maintains that it properly valued the billets in
question. Ekinciler notes that, in its questionnaire response, it
provided invoices showing that the transfer prices paid to the
affiliated party exceeded the affiliate's acquisition cost for the same
billet, and that the lag time between the purchase and resale was only
a few days. According to Ekinciler, not only is this entirely
consistent with the Department's practice, but it was not challenged by
the petitioners prior to the briefing stage. Consequently, Ekinciler
contends that the Department should accept its billet costs as
reported.
DOC Position. In determining whether a transaction occurred at an
arm's-length price, the Department compares the transfer price between
the affiliated parties and the market price between unaffiliated
parties. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review:
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United
Kingdom, 62 FR 2081, 2115 (Jan. 15, 1997).
In its questionnaire response, Ekinciler was able to demonstrate
adequately that the transfer price exceeded the affiliate's acquisition
price, paid to an unaffiliated supplier, for reasons unrelated to
inflation. Accordingly, we find that the transfer price is at arm's
length, and we have used the transfer price to value the billet
purchased from the affiliated party.
Comment 9: Billet Production Costs. According to the petitioners,
Ekinciler
[[Page 49157]]
inappropriately allocated fabrication costs in the melt shop using
total tonnage produced each month. The petitioners contend that the
Department should base Ekinciler's melt shop fabrication costs on facts
available because these costs should have been allocated based on
processing times. The petitioners provide no suggestions regarding the
appropriate source of facts available.
Ekinciler maintains that the Department should accept its costs as
reported. According to Ekinciler, because there is only one product
produced in the melt shop (i.e., billet), allocating total fabrication
costs over total production tonnage is reasonable.
DOC Position. Unlike in the rolling mill, production costs in the
melt shop do not vary by processing times. Rather, these costs vary
according to the number of tons produced. For example, the same amount
of electricity is consumed to produce a billet used in the production
of 14 mm rebar as for a billet used to make 32 mm rebar. Consequently,
we find that allocating fabrication costs using production quantity is
not only reasonable but appropriate, and we have continued to accept
Ekinciler's costs as reported for purposes of the final results.
Comment 10: Work-in-Process. According to the petitioners,
Ekinciler failed to report work-in-process at the end of its accounting
period. The petitioners assert that, although Ekinciler stated that
there are no unfinished units at the end of the accounting period, this
statement is contradicted by the fact that Ekinciler valued raw
materials using the weighted-average purchase price from the previous
month (adjusted for inflation) in cases where Ekinciler did not make
any purchases in the month when production occurred.
According to Ekinciler, it had no work-in-process at the end of the
accounting period. Ekinciler asserts that steel mills do not close
their accounting periods in mid-cast or in half-rolled bar, and that
the production cycle is so short that the production process is
completed by the end of the accounting period. Ekinciler further
contends that the statements referenced by the petitioners are not
contradictory because the petitioners confused several statements in
Ekinciler's response. Specifically, Ekinciler notes that the
petitioners appeared to confuse work-in-process (which was referenced
in the statement regarding unfinished units) and raw materials (which
was referenced in the statement regarding purchases). Accordingly,
Ekinciler asserts that the Department should disregard the petitioners'
comments.
DOC Position. We find that Ekinciler consistently described its
production process and valuation methodologies in its response.
Moreover, we find that Ekinciler appropriately valued the cost of
materials, because it based these costs on the company's purchases in
each month of the POR. Contrary to the petitioners' implication, the
Department's practice in cases involving high inflation is to base COP
on the current production costs incurred during each month of the POR.
See Rebar from Turkey, 62 FR at 9739 and Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR
30309, 30314 (June 14, 1996). For this reason, the valuation of work-
in-process is irrelevant to the dumping analysis in this case.
Accordingly, we have based our final results on the data in Ekinciler's
response.
Comment 11: General and Administrative Expenses (G&A). The
petitioners contend that Ekinciler improperly calculated G&A.
Specifically, the petitioners maintain that Ekinciler divided the G&A
of the group's rebar producer (i.e., Ekdemir) over the cost of sales of
all companies in the Ekinciler group. In addition, the petitioners
assert that Ekinciler improperly included Ekdemir's real estate taxes
and factory administrative costs in G&A. According to the petitioners,
these actions result in an allocation of rebar-related expenses to non-
subject merchandise.
Ekinciler contends that it did, in fact, allocate G&A over
Ekdemir's (and not Ekinciler's) cost of sales. According to Ekinciler,
the petitioners misread the headings in Ekinciler's G&A worksheets.
Ekinciler further contends that, contrary to the petitioners'
assertion, it classified factory administrative labor as part of
factory overhead. Regarding real estate taxes, Ekinciler asserts that
Ekdemir's corporate administrative offices are located at its mill,
and, therefore, these costs were properly reported as part of G&A. In
any event, Ekinciler notes that the amount of these taxes represents
less than 0.001 percent of Ekdemir's rolling mill costs, and,
consequently, any reallocation between G&A and COM would result in a de
minimis adjustment.
DOC Position. We have continued to accept Ekinciler's G&A as
reported for purposes of the final results. Ekinciler's G&A worksheets
clearly show that Ekdemir's G&A were allocated over Ekdemir's cost of
sales. See Exhibit 15 of the July 28, 1998, section A response and
Exhibit 30 of the March 16, 1999, supplemental response. Moreover,
Ekinciler's COM worksheets show that Ekinciler included supervisory
labor (the largest component of factory administrative costs) as part
of COM. See Exhibits 15 and 16 of the August 28, 1998, section D
response and Exhibit 25 of the March 16, 1999, supplemental response.
Regarding real estate taxes, while we agree with the petitioners
that the portion of the tax related to the rebar production facility
should have been included in fixed overhead (rather than G&A), we find
that reallocating these taxes in this case would have no material
impact on COM. According to section 777A(a)(2) of the Act, the
Department may decline to take into account adjustments which are
insignificant in relation to the price or value of the merchandise.
Consequently, in accordance with section 777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.413, we have not included these taxes in fixed overhead.
Comment 12: Financing Expenses. According to the petitioners, all
interest expenses incurred by Ekinciler should be included in COM. The
petitioners reason that the expenses incurred by Ekdemir and Ekdis
(i.e., the group trading company) constitute a large portion of the
interest expense reported by the Ekinciler Group for 1997 and in that
regard resemble a foreign exchange expense incurred by Ekdemir and
Ekdis in 1997. The petitioners speculate that these interest expenses
relate to the acquisition of raw material outside Turkey and, thus, are
associated with the purchase of raw materials. Moreover, the
petitioners assert that Ekinciler failed to include gains and losses
related to accounts payable transactions in COM, despite the
Department's explicit instructions to do so. Therefore, the petitioners
argue that the Department should also include all foreign exchange
gains and losses in COM.
In addition, the petitioners contend that the Department should
disallow offsets to financing expenses for financing income and foreign
exchange income because Ekinciler failed to show why the former offset
was appropriate and the latter was earned by entities which have no
relationship to rebar.
Ekinciler contends that it properly included in COM all costs
incurred on the purchase of materials, including bank fees and exchange
losses on the purchase of materials. Ekinciler asserts that any other
interest costs or exchange losses on payables are classified in the
normal course of business as part of financing expenses and were
treated as
[[Page 49158]]
such for purposes of Ekinciler's responses.
Regarding the offset for short-term interest income, Ekinciler
asserts that the Department's practice is to allow offsets to financing
expenses for financial income earned on short-term investments of
working capital. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the
United Kingdom, 64 FR 30688, 30710 (June 8, 1999) (Sheet and Strip from
the UK). Ekinciler asserts that it submitted substantial evidence that
its financial income was earned on short-term uses of working capital.
Therefore, Ekinciler asserts that its interest expense factor properly
included an offset for this income.
Regarding the offset for foreign exchange gains, Ekinciler asserts
that the Department's long-standing treatment of financing expenses is
to base the calculation of such expenses on the consolidated corporate
entity, due to the fungible nature of financing. Ekinciler notes that,
in accordance with this policy, the Department specifically instructed
Ekinciler to base its financing expenses on the combined expenses of
all companies in the Ekinciler Group. Accordingly, Ekinciler asserts
that the petitioners are misguided in contending that exchange gains
earned by other entities in the group are irrelevant.
DOC Position. We agree with Ekinciler that it is the Department's
practice to classify interest expenses incurred by a company as
financing expenses and to calculate the expenses on a consolidated
basis. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan, 64 FR
30574, 30592 (June 8, 1999). It is also the Department's practice to
grant offsets to financing expenses when respondents are able to
demonstrate that such offsets are related to short-term interest
income. See, e.g., Sheet and Strip from the UK. Because Ekinciler
calculated its financing expenses in accordance with the Department's
practice, we have accepted it for purposes of the final results.
Regarding the petitioners' allegation that Ekinciler improperly
excluded exchange losses related to accounts payable transactions from
COM, we find no evidence that this has occurred. Accordingly, we have
made no adjustment to COM for exchange losses for purposes of the final
results.
B. ICDAS
Comment 13: Currency Conversion. The Federal Reserve Bank does not
track or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Consequently, for
purposes of the preliminary results, the Department made currency
conversions using exchange rates published by the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service. ICDAS argues that the Department should use the
exchange rates published by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
for purposes of the final results because these rates better reflect
commercial reality in Turkey.
ICDAS acknowledges that the Department generally uses the Dow Jones
News/Retrieval Service rates in cases where Federal Reserve Bank rates
are not available, including currency conversions in Turkish cases.
However, ICDAS argues that the Department has the discretion to use a
source other than the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service when the rates
in question are not published by the Federal Reserve Bank, since
neither section 773A of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.415 prescribes the
precise source to be used in currency conversions.
ICDAS asserts that the Department is not precluded from using the
Central Bank rates, despite the fact that it did not raise this
exchange rate issue in previous filings, since the rates consist of
publicly available data which the Department may add to the record at
any time during the proceeding. As support for this position, ICDAS
cites the Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part: Dynamic Random
Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabyte or Above From the Republic
of Korea, 62 FR 39809, 39810 (July 24, 1997) (DRAMS from Korea);
Certain Cased Pencils From The People's Republic of China; Amended
Final Results Of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR 36491,
36492 (July 8, 1997) (Pencils from China); and Live Swine From Canada;
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR
12243, 12250 (Mar. 16, 1994) (Live Swine from Canada).
The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to use
the rates published by the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service because it
is a well-established, reliable source of commercially available
exchange rates and ICDAS has provided no evidence to show that the
Central Bank rates are more reflective of commercial reality. Moreover,
the petitioners assert that the use of the Dow Jones News/Retrieval
Service rates would be consistent with Department practice. As support
for their position, the petitioners cite to Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad & Tobago, where the Department rejected the respondent's
argument to use a source other than the Dow Jones News/Retrieval
Service in the absence of rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
The petitioners further argue that the Department is prohibited
from using the Central Bank rates because they constitute new factual
information. The petitioners maintain that ICDAS' reliance on the cases
cited above is misplaced, because the facts in those cases are not
analogous to the facts in the instant review. Specifically, the
petitioners note that in DRAMS from Korea, the Department reviewed
current market conditions at the time of the final results, which could
not have been incorporated into the parties' filings prior to that
time, while in Pencils from China the Department re-opened the
administrative record to accept new factual information in conjunction
with a remand, not a new shipper review. The petitioners assert that
Live Swine from Canada makes clear that it is exceptional for the
Department to accept new factual information after the date of the
preliminary results of review.
DOC Position. In our exchange rate model, it is the Department's
normal practice to use exchange rates provided by the Federal Reserve
Bank. When the Federal Reserve does not provide exchange rates, the
Department uses exchange rates obtained from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service because this service is a well-established, reliable
source of commercially available exchange rates. See, e.g., Notice of
Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 63 FR 68429 (Dec. 11, 1998)
(affirming Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 63
FR 42373 (Aug. 7, 1998)), Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago, Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 61 FR 69067 (Dec. 31,
1996), and Rebar from Turkey. For this reason, we find that the
exchange rates obtained from the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service are a
reasonable alternative to those obtained from the Federal Reserve.
In this case, although ICDAS has asserted that the Turkish Central
Bank rates are more reflective of commercial reality in Turkey, it has
provided no evidence to support this assertion. Consequently, we find
that ICDAS has provided inadequate reasons for the Department to depart
from its established practice of using the Dow Jones rates, and we have
continued to
[[Page 49159]]
use these rates for purposes of the final results.
Comment 14: Calculation of the Home Market Short-Term Interest
Rate. For purposes of the preliminary results, the Department adjusted
the calculation of ICDAS'' short-term home market interest rate to
exclude bank commissions. ICDAS argues that the Department should
include these bank commissions in the calculation of the home market
short-term interest rate, because the commissions are part of the total
cost of borrowing. In support of its position, ICDAS cites the
following cases in which the Department included bank fees/charges in
its calculation of the short-term borrowing rate: Certain Corrosion
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon
Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in Part, 64 FR 2173,
2178-79 (Jan. 13, 1999) (Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Canada); Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR
781, 801 (Jan. 7, 1998) (Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea); and Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Large Power Transformers From Italy, 52 FR 46806, 46811 (Dec. 10, 1987)
(LPTs from Italy).
The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to
exclude the bank commissions in question from the calculation of the
home market short-term interest rate because there is no evidence on
the record to indicate that these bank commissions were related to the
loan in question or that they were part of the total costs to ICDAS of
home market short-term borrowing.
DOC Position. According to the information gathered at
verification, the commissions in question are directly related to the
amount that the bank charged ICDAS for borrowing money. See Exhibit 16
to the ICDAS sales verification report. Therefore, because we find that
these commissions are part of the total cost borrowing of ICDAS, we
have revised our calculation of ICDAS' short-term home market borrowing
rate to include bank commissions. See Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Canada; Cold Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea; and LPTs from Italy.
Final Results of Review
As a result of comments received, we have revised our analysis and
determine that the following margins exist for the respondents during
the period October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998 (for Ekinciler),
and October 10, 1996, through July 31, 1998 (for ICDAS):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekinciler Holding A.S./Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S.......... 0.30
ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S........... 9.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to
the total entered value of those sales. These rates will be assessed
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the
POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs
Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries
for any importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions
directly to the Customs Service.
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of these administrative and new
shipper reviews, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rate for the ICDAS will be the rate stated above, and
the cash deposit rate for Ekinciler will be zero; (2) for previously
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or
the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the
all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Administrative Protective Order
Procedures; Procedures for Imposting Sanction for Violation of a
Protective Order, 63 FR 24391, 24402 (May 4, 1998). Timely notification
of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These administrative and new shipper reviews are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 3, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23630 Filed 9-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
