[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49080-49085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24601]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-703]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 11, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy. This
review covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise. The period
of review is August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997. Based on our
analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the
preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the section
``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, Office of
AD/CVD Enforcement 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4162 and (202) 482-3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to Department of Commerce (the Department)
regulations are to the regulations provided in 19 CFR Part 351, as
published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).
Background
This review covers sales of granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin
(PTFE resin) made during the period of review (POR) by Ausimont SpA/
Ausimont USA (Ausimont). On May 11, 1998, the Department published the
preliminary results of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polytetrafluoroethylene
Resin from Italy, 63 FR 25826 (Preliminary Results). On June 10, 1998,
we received a case brief from Ausimont. On June 17, 1998, we received a
rebuttal brief from the petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company.
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this review is granular PTFE resin, filled
or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from
Italy to the United States. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Italy; Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty
Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE
dispersions in water and fine powders. During the period covered by
this review, such merchandise was classified under item number
3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS). We are providing this HTS number for convenience and Customs
purposes only. The written description of the scope remains
dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We calculated constructed export price (CEP) and normal value (NV)
based on the same methodology used in the preliminary results, except
as follows.
1. We made a correction to the calculation of CEP profit. See our
response to Comment 3, below.
2. We corrected clerical errors regarding home market selling
expenses, as detailed in the Memorandum from Analyst to File: Final
Results Analysis Memorandum (September 8, 1998) (Final Results Analysis
Memorandum).
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. As noted above, we received comments from Ausimont
and rebuttal comments from the petitioner.
Comment 1: Ordinary Course of Trade
Ausimont argues that its sales of PTFE wet reactor bead in the home
market should not be used for comparison to U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise because such sales were not made in the ordinary course of
trade. Ausimont argues that the factors the Department considered
relevant in determining whether a sale is outside the ordinary course
of trade in Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. U.S., 946 F. Supp. 11, 16 (CIT
1996) (Thai Pineapple), are also relevant
[[Page 49081]]
to sales of wet reactor bead. These factors include differences in
customers, terms of sales, volume of sales, frequency of sales, sales
quantity, sales price, profitability, and market demand. Ausimont
maintains that all of these factors are present in the instant review,
except that the customer that purchased the PTFE wet reactor bead also
purchased granular PTFE resin from Ausimont during the POR. According
to Ausimont, the above factors applied to this case establish the non-
ordinary-course-of-trade nature of home market reactor bead because:
(1) The volume of wet reactor bead sales, in terms of number of
transactions, was very low compared with total PTFE resin sales; (2)
the profits for the wet reactor bead sales were abnormally high when
compared with the average profit for PTFE resin sales; (3) there is
virtually no market demand for wet reactor bead (in this respect
Ausimont notes that no such sales occurred in the prior review period);
(4) sales of wet reactor bead were made at prices that differ
significantly from the average gross unit price of granular PTFE resin;
(5) the terms of sale differed as well, as evidenced by documents the
Department collected during verification; and (6) the mean average
quantity of PTFE wet reactor sales is unusual in that it is
significantly higher than that of granular PTFE resin sales (Ausimont
claims in addition that this fact would permit the exclusion of such
sales under the ``usual commercial quantities'' provision of the Act at
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)).
The petitioner responds that the Department should continue to
include home market sales of wet reactor bead for the following
reasons: (1) The Act contains a clear preference for price-to-price
comparisons; (2) Ausimont provided information on such sales throughout
the information-gathering stage of this review and at verification
without indicating that it believed such sales were made outside the
ordinary course of trade; (3) the evidence to which Ausimont cites in
its case brief does not meet the burden of proof for disregarding such
sales, as set forth in Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 932 F.
Supp. 1488, 1497-1498 (CIT 1996) (Koyo); and (4) the record shows that
Ausimont's home market wet reactor bead sales are in fact similar in
many respects to other home market sales, based on the factors cited in
Ausimont's case brief (e.g., market demand and customers).
DOC Position: The information on the record before us does not
provide a sufficient basis to exclude Ausimont's home market sales of
wet reactor bead as outside the ordinary course of trade. While we have
given full consideration to the arguments made in Ausimont's case
brief, these arguments concern a case record that was compiled in the
absence of any claim by Ausimont, prior to the filing of its case
brief, that the wet reactor bead sales that it reported in its home
market database were made outside the ordinary course of trade. In
considering Ausimont's claim in light of this record evidence, we find
that the respondent has not met its burden of establishing that such
sales are inappropriate for use in our analysis.
Our general preference in determining normal value is to rely upon
home market sales of the foreign like product prior to resorting to
constructed value. See section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. While we do not
include in our analysis home market sales made outside the ordinary
course of trade (per section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act), the
evidentiary burden of establishing the non-ordinary-course-of-trade
nature of home market sales is on the party making such a claim. See,
e.g., Murata Mfg. Co. v. United States, 820 F. Supp 603 (CIT 1993)
(Murata).1 With respect to comparisons to merchandise that
is further manufactured after importation into the United States, the
relevant home market sales to be considered for price-based matches are
those of products identical or similar to the subject merchandise as
imported into the United States. In this case, U.S. further-
manufactured sales involved imported wet reactor bead that was further
processed into finished PTFE resin; as such, the relevant home market
sales for purposes of price-based matches are those of wet reactor
bead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this case, the CIT stated that ``Plaintiff must bear its
burden by proving that the sales used in Commerce's calculation are
outside the ordinary course of trade and it must satisfy this burden
by providing the information to Commerce in a timely fashion in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(a)(1)(ii) (1992).'' Murata at 607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ausimont reported such sales in its initial home market sales
listing specifically for the purpose of matching them to sales of wet
reactor bead imported into the United States. See Ausimont section A-D
questionnaire response, Exhibit B-2 (November 6, 1997). In doing so,
Ausimont did not claim that such sales were inappropriate for any
reason. Subsequently, in addressing the general matching methodology in
our supplemental questionnaire, we indicated our intent to use the
reported home market sales of wet reactor bead in our analysis,
providing additional matching instructions regarding sales of wet
reactor bead as follows:
Please note that the above-referenced data [concerning general
product matching variables] is also required in the U.S. and
comparison market sales listings for wet reactor bead products in
both markets. Ensure that you have provided home market sales of all
products that can be matched to reactor bead that is further
manufactured in the United States and provide a complete description
of the home market products and sales that you believe are the most
appropriate comparisons to wet reactor bead imported into the United
States.
See section A-C supplemental questionnaire at 3-4 (February 23, 1998)
(emphasis added).
In response, Ausimont stated that it had ``provided home market
sales of all products that can be matched to the reactor bead that is
further-manufactured in the United States. * * * The appropriate home
market reactor bead code is provided with each individual further-
manufactured sales transaction in Ausimont's U.S. sales listing.'' See
Ausimont section A-D supplemental response at 9-10 (March 16, 1998)
(emphasis added). As in its initial response, Ausimont made no claim
that such home market sales were inappropriate for use in our analysis
for any reason, much less that such sales were inappropriate
specifically because they were made outside the ordinary course of
trade. In fact, the plain language of Ausimont's response to our
supplemental questionnaire clearly indicated the company's expectation
that such sales would be used, and were appropriate for use, as price-
based matches for U.S. further-processed sales of imported wet reactor
bead. Thus, at no time during the information-gathering stage of this
review did Ausimont provide any evidence, or make any claim, regarding
the exclusion of such sales as outside the ordinary course of trade.
Prior to and during verification, we again indicated our intent to
use home market sales of wet reactor bead in our analysis, selecting
certain such sales for detailed examination. See DOC verification
outline, Appendix 1 (March 25, 1998). At verification, Ausimont
officials discussed these sales in depth without making any claim that
they were made outside the ordinary course of trade.
Accordingly, given the statutory preference for price-to-price
matches, and in the absence of information indicating that the relevant
home market sales were inappropriate for use in our analysis, we
determined in the preliminary results that home market sales of wet
reactor bead are the most appropriate basis for establishing normal
value with respect to U.S. sales
[[Page 49082]]
involving imported wet reactor bead that was further processed prior to
sale.
For these final results, we have given full consideration to the
record evidence that Ausimont cites in support of its contention that
home market sales of wet reactor bead were made outside the ordinary
course of trade. However, as shown below, this evidence is insufficient
to establish a basis for the respondent's claim. While we agree with
certain of the facts presented by Ausimont (e.g., that the number of
sales transactions involving wet reactor bead is low relative to the
total number of transactions involving finished PTFE resin), on balance
we find that the facts surrounding these sales do not establish that
they were made outside the ordinary course of trade. See Koyo at 1497-
1498 (``Commerce cannot exclude sales allegedly outside the ordinary
course of trade unless there is a complete explanation of the facts
which establish the extraordinary circumstances rendering particular
sales outside the ordinary course of trade.''). Our examination of the
record evidence as it applies to the ordinary-course-of-trade issue is
detailed below.
We agree with Ausimont that the frequency of wet reactor bead
sales, in terms of the number of transactions, and the volume of such
sales, in terms of total quantity sold, represent small percentages of
total home market sales. However, while sales of PTFE wet reactor bead
may represent a small portion of the overall sales, the absolute amount
of such sales is not insignificant. As Ausimont itself has noted, and
as further discussed below, the quantities involved in these sales are
in fact larger on average than for other sales. Further, we note that
the number of sales or volume sold are not in and of themselves
definitive factors in determining whether the sales in question are in
the ordinary course of trade. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes
and Tubes from India, 56 FR 64,753 (1991), and Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR
31,411, 31,423 (June 9, 1998).
Regarding Ausimont's claim that the average quantity of such sales
is higher than that of other sales, we agree that the average quantity
sold of wet reactor bead is generally higher than the average quantity
sold of granular PTFE resin. However, the information on the record
provides an insufficient basis for determining whether this difference
in the average quantity between the sales of PTFE wet reactor bead and
granular PTFE resin is in fact attributable to circumstances rendering
the sales in question extraordinary or unrepresentative of normal
sales. Further, while the average quantity of wet reactor bead sales is
generally higher than that of finished PTFE resin, our examination of
the range of quantities involved in individual sales of both wet
reactor bead and finished PTFE resin does not indicate that the
quantities involved in wet reactor bead sales were so unusual as to
render such sales inappropriate for our analysis. Finally, the fact
that home market sales of wet reactor bead were made in quantities
higher than average does not support a conclusion that a normal value
based on the price of such sales would be unreasonably high. For these
reasons, we also reject Ausimont's claim that its home market wet
reactor bead may be excluded pursuant to the ``usual commercial
quantities'' provision of the Act. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the
Act and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. v. United States, 798 F. Supp. 716, 718
(CIT 1992) (as with the ``ordinary course of trade'' provision, the
party seeking exclusion of sales based on the ``usual commercial
quantities'' provision has the burden of proving such exclusion is
warranted, and the Department's inclusion of a home market sample sale
was appropriate where the respondent did not demonstrate that the
quantity involved in this sale was unusual).
We also disagree with Ausimont that the remaining factors we
considered in Thai Pineapple are supported by the information on the
record of this review with respect to home market sales of wet reactor
bead. Ausimont's contention that PTFE wet reactor bead was sold at
aberrational prices is not persuasive because the comparison it makes--
the average selling price of wet reactor bead versus that of finished
PTFE resin--does not take into account the fact that these are
different products for which there is no reasonable expectation of
similar selling prices; wet reactor bead is sold as an intermediate
product, at prices that we would expect to differ from those of
finished PTFE resin.
With respect to the profit earned on wet reactor bead sales,
Ausimont's comparison of the profit related to wet reactor bead sales
and that for granular PTFE resin sales does not take into account the
fact that profits made on the sales of certain models of resin were in
fact higher than that of the wet reactor bead sales. Further, the
identification of sales as having high profits does not necessarily
render such sales outside the ordinary course of trade. See Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from
France, et al., 62 FR 54043, 54066 (October 17, 1997).
With respect to market demand, Ausimont's claim regarding the
absence of past home market sales of this merchandise focuses entirely
on the immediately prior review, without addressing the fact that the
respondent has in fact sold wet reactor bead in the home market in
previous segments of this proceeding. See, e.g., public version of
Ausimont's February 13, 1995 questionnaire response (submitted in
conjunction with the 1993-94 review and included in relevant part as
Attachment 2 to the Final Results Analysis Memorandum in this review)
at A-5 (``Ausimont SpA produces and sells PTFE wet reactor bead to
home-market customers in Italy'') and at B-3 (indicating that
Ausimont's response contained a sale-by-sale listing of ``all virgin
granular and filled PTFE resin and wet reactor bead sold in Italy'').
Regarding terms of sale, while we agree with Ausimont that selected
verification exhibits we collected during our verification show that
the terms of certain wet reactor bead sales were different from those
of certain sales of finished PTFE resin, we did not examine or collect
these exhibits for this purpose and Ausimont officials did not discuss
such differences at verification. As such, we are unable to conclude
from these documents that the terms of sale involving wet reactor bead
generally differed significantly from those of other sales of finished
PTFE resin products or that different terms of sale are not generally
applicable to all sales.
Finally, as Ausimont notes, Ausimont's sales of PTFE wet reactor
bead were made to the same customer who also purchased finished PTFE
resin products.
As shown above, Ausimont has failed to explain the facts that
establish the extraordinary circumstances rendering the claimed sales
outside the ordinary course of trade, as required by Koyo. Compare
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343, 50345 (September
27, 1993) (where home market sales were excluded as outside the course
of trade where such sales involved sample merchandise sold to testing
labs in ``extremely small quantities'' at ``prices substantially higher
than the prices of the vast majority of the sales reported,'' and where
such sales were not for consumption but for evaluation and were not
made to the respondent's
[[Page 49083]]
ordinary customers). In light of this analysis, we find that the
circumstances that would render home market wet reactor bead sales
outside the ordinary course of trade are not present in this review.
Therefore, we have continued to use these sales as a basis for
comparison with U.S. sales for purposes of these final results.
Comment 2: Level-of-Trade Adjustment
Ausimont argues that, if the Department determines that sales of
PTFE wet reactor bead in the home market are made in the ordinary
course of trade and in the usual commercial quantities, it should make
a level-of-trade adjustment for comparisons involving such sales.
First, Ausimont contends that its home market sales of wet reactor bead
are made at a more advanced level of trade than that involved in sales
of this product to its U.S. affiliate, noting the following selling
activities and expenses involved in home market sales but not on sales
to Ausimont USA: rebates, early payment discounts, inventory
maintenance, warranty expenses, and technical service expenses. With
respect to the calculation of the proposed adjustment, Ausimont
acknowledges that it does not sell to unaffiliated home market
customers at two levels of trade, but claims that it technically sells
in Italy at two levels: (1) sales of wet reactor bead to unaffiliated
home market customers, and (2) sales to Ausimont USA, which Ausimont
claims are made in Italy based on the terms of sale involved. Ausimont
requests that the Department make a level-of-trade adjustment based on
the price differences at these two levels; for the prices charged at
level 2, Ausimont suggests that the Department use the transfer price
charged to Ausimont USA. In the alternative, Ausimont proposes that the
Department calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on the
difference between the prices charged at level 1 and the constructed
value of wet reactor bead. Finally, Ausimont requests a CEP-offset
adjustment to normal value in the event that no level-of-trade
adjustment is made.
The petitioner responds that: (1) Ausimont's level-of-trade
adjustment claim was not made at any point prior to the filing of its
case brief; (2) Ausimont's response clearly indicates that there is a
single level of trade in each of the home and U.S. markets; (3)
Ausimont's proposed calculations are incorrect because they rely on
transfer prices and constructed value, neither of which the Department
takes into account in the level-of-trade analysis; and (4) Ausimont's
request for a CEP offset in the event that no level-of-trade adjustment
is made ignores the fact that the Department did in fact calculate such
an offset for the preliminary results.
DOC Position: As in the preliminary results, we find that there is
no basis for calculating a level-of-trade adjustment and that a CEP
offset is appropriate for all sales comparisons, including those
involving wet reactor bead. While we agree with Ausimont that its home
market sales of wet reactor bead (and all other reported home market
sales) are made at a more advanced level of trade than that involved in
the sale from Ausimont to Ausimont USA, we disagree that a level-of-
trade adjustment may be calculated based on the difference between home
market sales prices and either: (1) the transfer price involved in the
sale to Ausimont USA, or (2) the constructed value of wet reactor bead.
Both the Act and the Department's regulations (at sections 773(a)(7)
and 19 CFR 351.412, respectively) require that any such adjustment be
based on the price differences between different levels of trade in the
country in which normal value is determined. It would be inappropriate
to use transfer price or constructed value in lieu of home market sales
prices where there is no home market level of trade that is equivalent
to the CEP level of trade. Under these circumstances, our practice is
to make a CEP-offset adjustment when comparisons are made to home
market sales at a level of trade more advanced than that of the CEP.
See Preliminary Results, 63 FR 25826, 25827; see also 19 CFR
351.412(f). We have followed that practice and have granted a CEP
offset for all comparisons.
Comment 3: CEP Profit
Ausimont argues that the Department erred in calculating CEP profit
because it improperly included imputed credit and inventory carrying
expenses in the pool of U.S. selling expenses to which the CEP-profit
rate was applied. According to Ausimont, in order to make a fair
allocation of profits to U.S. sales, the Department must either exclude
imputed credit and inventory carrying expenses from the pool of U.S.
selling expenses to which the CEP-profit rate is applied or include
such expenses in the total selling expenses it uses to calculate the
CEP-profit rate.
The petitioner did not comment on this issue.
DOC Position: Ausimont's claim involves two aspects of the CEP-
profit calculation: (1) whether to include imputed expenses in the
total expenses we use to calculate the CEP-profit rate, and (2) whether
to include imputed expenses in the pool of U.S. selling expenses to
which we apply this rate. As explained below, our established practice,
in accordance with sections 772(d) and 772(f) of the Act, is to
calculate the profit rate based on actual costs (without regard to
imputed expenses) and to apply this rate to U.S. selling expenses
inclusive of imputed expenses.
The preamble to Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
rule, 19 CFR Part 351, published at 62 FR 27295 (May 19, 1997)
(Preamble), address the first issue (the calculation of the CEP-profit
rate based on actual costs, without regard to imputed expenses)
directly. In response to a comment that we should include imputed
expenses in the total selling expenses used to derive total profit, we
stated: ``We have not adopted this suggestion, because the Department
does not take imputed expenses into account in calculating cost.
Moreover, normal accounting principles permit the deduction of only
actual booked expenses, not imputed expenses, in calculating profit.''
Preamble at 27354. This policy is also described in a recent policy
bulletin. See Import Administration Policy Bulletin number 97/1, issued
on September 4, 1997, concerning the Calculation of Profit for
Constructed Export Price Transactions, at 3 and note 5.
Our practice of excluding imputed expenses from the CEP-profit rate
calculation is explained further in Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081, 2127 (January 15, 1997)
(AFBs):
Sections 772(f)(1) and 772(f)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act state that
the per-unit profit amount shall be an amount determined by
multiplying the total actual profit by the applicable percentage
(ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses) and that the total
actual profit means the total profit earned by the foreign producer,
exporter, and affiliated parties. In accordance with the statute, we
base the calculation of the total actual profit used in calculating
the per-unit profit amount for CEP sales on actual revenues and
expenses recognized by the company. In calculating the per-unit cost
of the U.S. sales, we have included net interest expense. Therefore,
we do not need to include imputed interest expenses in the ``total
actual profit'' calculation since we have already accounted for
actual interest in computing this amount under section 772(f)(1).
Regarding the second issue (the inclusion of imputed expenses in
the U.S. selling expense pool to which the
[[Page 49084]]
profit rate is applied), as we explained in AFBs:
When we allocated a portion of the actual profit to each CEP
sale, we have included imputed credit and inventory carrying costs
as part of the total U.S. expense allocation factor. This
methodology is consistent with section 772(f)(1) of the statute
which defines ``total United States Expense'' as the total expenses
described under section 772(d)(1) and (2). Such expenses included
both imputed credit and inventory carrying costs.
Id. See also Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 7392, 7395 (February 13,
1998).
Accordingly, we have followed this practice in these final results
by calculating a CEP-profit rate based on actual costs (without regard
to imputed expenses) and applying this rate to a U.S. selling expense
pool inclusive of such expenses. We note that, while Ausimont's comment
suggests that we followed this practice in the preliminary results, we
in fact calculated the CEP-profit rate incorrectly by including imputed
credit expenses in the total expenses we used to calculate this rate.
We have corrected this error for these final results.
Comment 4: Rebates
Ausimont argues that the Department erred in excluding from its
margin calculation all rebate expenses reported for one of its home
market customers. Ausimont maintains that the Department's verification
report states incorrectly that the rebates for that customer were
reported erroneously based on a finding that the customer did not meet
the minimum purchasing requirements to qualify for rebates during the
POR. According to Ausimont, the sales transactions selected for
examination by the Department during verification show that the
customer in question qualified for two types of rebates: one that is
based on purchasing a certain quantity on a quarterly basis, and
another that is based on purchasing a certain quantity on a yearly
basis. Ausimont states that the verification documentation collected by
the Department at verification includes the quarterly and yearly rebate
agreements for that customer, as well as internally generated documents
showing that the customer met the quarterly and yearly minimum
purchasing requirements reflected in the rebate agreements. Ausimont
maintains that the verification documents accepted by the Department
are proof of the legitimacy of the rebates reported for the customer.
Therefore, Ausimont argues that the Department's deletion in the
database of all rebates reported for that customer is an error that
should be corrected. Ausimont acknowledges, however, that it was unable
to locate the quarterly rebate agreement for one of the sales
transactions the Department examined during verification. According to
Ausimont, the Department could consider this particular rebate as
unverified.
The petitioner responds that Ausimont's claim conflicts with the
Department's verification report, which states explicitly that this
customer did not qualify for the rebate. Petitioner also states that,
while the verification exhibits to which Ausimont referred in support
of its claim contain copies of rebate agreements, such agreements do
not show that the customer qualified for the rebates under the
agreement or that the rebates were actually paid.
DOC Position: We agree with Ausimont that certain exhibits we
collected at verification contain rebate agreements for the customer in
question, as well as internally generated documents indicating that the
customer qualified for the rebates. However, during the Department's
verification, Ausimont was unable to provide any evidence showing that
the customer in fact received rebate payments for meeting the minimum
quantity stipulated in the quarterly and/or yearly rebate
agreements.2 The only information we have on the record with
respect to the quantity sold to that customer is Ausimont's reported
home market sales database, which does not support Ausimont's
contention that the customer met the minimum purchasing requirements to
qualify for either the quarterly or yearly rebates. Therefore, we have
continued to exclude Ausimont's reported rebates for that customer from
the margin calculation for purposes of these final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to Office Director from Case Analysts:
Verification of the Responses of Ausimont SpA and Ausimont U.S.A. in
the 1996/97 Administrative Review of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
Resin from Italy at 8-9 (May 4, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1,
1996, through July 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ausimont S.p.A.......................... 8/1/96-7/31/97 45.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212 (b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject
merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. We will
direct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties by applying the
assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)
of the Act: (1) For Ausimont, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
listed above; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or
exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment
of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in
which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this
proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that
established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final
results of review or in the most recent final results in which that
manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous
segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation (50 FR 26019, June 24, 1985). These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This notice also is 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
[[Page 49085]]
with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 4, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-24601 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
