[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page ] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-31805] [Federal Register: December 28, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [A-475-813] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy Agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. Effective Date: December 28, 1994. For Further Information Contact: Kate Johnson or Irene Darzenta, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4929 or 482-6320, respectively. Final Determination We determine that stainless steel bar (SSB) from Italy is not being, nor is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated de minimis margins are shown in the ``Discontinuance of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is SSB. For purposes of this investigation, the term ''stainless steel bar'' means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot- rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold- finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentions, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075 and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (POI) is July 1 to December 31, 1993. Case History Since publication of the notice of preliminary determination on August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39736), the following events have occurred. On August 5, 1994, Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. (Valbruna) submitted its response to Section D of the Department's questionnaire. It supplemented this response on October 3, 1994. On August 9 and 10, 1994, Valbruna and petitioners, respectively, requested the opportunity to participate in a hearing, if held. None was held. Also, on August 10, 1994, Valbruna alleged that the Department made certain ministerial errors in its preliminary margin calculations. On August 11, 1994, petitioners submitted comments and rebuttal regarding these ministerial errors. With respect to these allegations, on September 13, 1994, we published a notice of amended preliminary determination correcting the ministerial errors in the preliminary margin calculations (59 FR 46961). On August 12, 1994, Foroni S.p.A. (Foroni) tentatively requested a hearing in this investigation. It withdrew its request on October 26, 1994. Verification of Valbruna's and Foroni's responses took place in August and October, 1994. Case and rebuttal briefs were submitted on November 17, and 23, 1994, respectively. At the Department's request, Valbruna and Foroni submitted revised computer tapes correcting certain minor clerical errors found at verification on November 22 and 30, 1994, respectively. Product Comparisons We have determined that all products covered by this investigation constitute a single category of such or similar merchandise. We made fair value comparisons on this basis. In accordance with the Department's standard methodology, we first compared identical merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise comparisons on the basis of the criteria defined in Appendix V to the antidumping questionnaire, on file in Room B-099 of the main building of the Department of Commerce. Consistent with our preliminary determination, we altered the order of the SSB grades specified within the grade criteria of Appendix V to account for certain other SSB grades which Foroni sold during the POI, but which were not taken into account in Appendix V. We also reversed the order of the size and shape criteria in Appendix V. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of SSB from Italy to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States price (``USP'') to the foreign market value (``FMB''), as specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.58, we made comparisons at the same level of trade, where possible. We made revisions to both respondents' reported data, where appropriate, based on verification findings. United States Price Foroni All of Foroni's U.S. sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United States. Therefore, we based USP on exporter's sales prices (ESP), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we calculated ESP based on FOB warehouse and FOB port prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign brokerage, ocean freight (including foreign inland freight and loading/unloading charges), U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, U.S. import duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and export processing fees. For those sales of subject merchandise with FOB U.S. port sales terms, we made no deduction for the U.S. inland freight charges reported in respondent's U.S. sales listing. We also deducted credit expenses, warranty expenses, product liability premiums, and commissions paid to an employee, in accordance with section 772(e)(2) of the Act. We recalculated credit expenses to account for updated shipment and payment information which we reviewed at verification. For sales with missing shipment and payment dates, we calculated credit using the average credit days outstanding for all other sales in the U.S. databases. We also deducted U.S. indirect selling expenses, including pre-sale warehousing costs incurred in the United States, advertising, and inventory carrying costs. We recalculated certain indirect selling expenses, including advertising and pre-sale warehousing expenses, in accordance with verification findings. In addition, we made no adjustment for U.S. packing expenses because Foroni claimed, and we verified, that the subject merchandise is not packed for shipment to the customer. We also made an adjustment to USP for the value-added tax (VAT) paid on the comparison sales in Italy in accordance with our practice, pursuant to the Court of International Trade's (CIT) decision in Federal-Mogul Corp. and The Torrington Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 93-194 (CIT October 7, 1993). (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Calcium Aluminate Cement, Cement Clinker and Flux from France. 59 FR 14136, March 25, 1994). Valbruna For Valbruna, we based USP on both ESP and purchase price (PP), in accordance with section 772 of the Act, because Valbruna made sales both before and after importation into the United States. We calculated both PP and ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers. In accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act, for both PP and ESP sales we made deductions, where appropriate, for ocean freight (including foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, marine insurance and foreign brokerage and handling), U.S. import duties, U.S. merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and containerization expenses (including drayage, stripping, and storage expenses). We added freight income (i.e., freight charges paid by the customer but not included in the gross price) to both ESP and PP sales. For ESP sales only, we further deducted credit expenses, in accordance with section 772(e)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we deleted the affected invoice from the database. We also deducted indirect selling expenses incurred in Italy on sales to the United States, as well as indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States, and inventory carrying costs. We recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States to reflect verification findings. With regard to the reported warranty expenses applicable to one U.S. sales invoice, we made no adjustment because we determined that these expenses were not characteristic of ``warranty'' expenses; rather, they reflected a return to merchandise. Finally, we made an adjustment to USP for the VAT paid on the comparison sales in Italy in accordance with our practice, as described above for Foroni. Foreign Market Value In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of SSB in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales of SSB to the volume of third country sales of SSB in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that both respondents had viable home markets with respect to sales of SSB during the POI. Foroni We calculated FMV based on ex-factory prices charged to unrelated customers in the home market. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a)(2), we deducted credit expenses. We also deducted home market indirect selling expenses capped by the sum of U.S. commissions and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs), in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.56(b). We made adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise (difmer), in accordance with section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act. We recalculated difmers to take into account quality control expenses, which we verified were related to production. We adjusted for VAT in accordance with out practice for those home market sales for which we verified that VAT applied. (See the ``United States Price'' section of this notice.) In addition, we made no adjustment for U.S. packing expenses because Foroni claimed, and we verified, that the subject merchandise is not packed for shipment to the customer. Valbruna We calculated FMV based on packed prices charged to related and unrelated customers in the home market. We included arm's-length sales to related customers, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.45. We excluded from our analysis sales of secondary merchandise, which we verified were not made in the ordinary course of trade. We deducted cash discounts. We added freight income (i.e., freight charges paid by the customer but not included in the gross price) to both ESP and PP sales. In light of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (CAFC) decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement V. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Department no longer can deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to its inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Instead, we will adjust for those expenses under the circumstances-of-sale provision of 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a) and the ESP offset provision of 19 C.F.R. 353.56(b)(2), as appropriate. Accordingly, in the present case, we deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the circumstances-of-sale provision of 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a). This adjustment included home market inland freight (including inland insurance) from respondent's factory or service centers to its home market customers. We adjusted for pre-sale movement charges in the ESP offset. For comparison to ESP sales, we also deducted credit expenses and home market commissions from FMV. We considered pre-sale warehousing expenses incurred by Valbruna's service centers and inventory carrying costs related to pre-sale warehousing at these service centers to be direct selling expenses (see Comment 10 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice). Accordingly, we deducted these expenses. We then deducted home market indirect selling expenses (including pre-sale movement charges) capped by the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs. For comparison to PP sales, we made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit expenses, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.56(a)(2). We also deducted home market commissions from FMV and added to FMV the U.S. indirect selling expenses capped by the amount of home market commissions. Furthermore, we made no adjustment for the claimed imputed VAT expenses (see Comment 4 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice). For both ESP and PP sales, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for difmers, in accordance with section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act. We adjusted the VAT in accordance with our practice for those home market sales for which we verified that VAT applied. (See the ``United States Price'' section of this notice, above.) Cost of Production Petitioners alleged that Valbruna made home market sales during the POI at prices below the cost of production (COP). Based on petitioners' allegation, and in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we concluded that we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales were made below COP. Thus, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Valbruna made home market sales of subject merchandise at prices below its COP. In order to determine whether home market prices were below COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, we performed a product-specific cost test, in which we examined whether each home market product sold during the POI was priced below the COP of that product. We calculated COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, general expenses and packing costs, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.51(c). (See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from Korea (59 FR 58826; November 15, 1994)) (Saccharin from Korea). We compared the COP for each product to the home market price, net of movement expenses and discounts. We relied on submitted COP data except in the following instances. We recalculated cost of manufacturing (COM) to exclude the change in inventory adjustment claimed by respondent (see Comment 14 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice). We also recalculated general and administrative and interest expenses based on the adjusted COM. In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we also examined whether Valbruna's home market sales were made below COP in substantial quantities over an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices that would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. To satisfy the requirement of section 773(b)(1) of the Act that below cost sales be disregarded only if made in substantial quantities, the following methodology was used: For each product where less than ten percent, by quantity, of the home market sales made during the POI were made at prices below the COP, we included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each product where ten percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales made during the POI were priced below COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were priced below COP, provided that the below cost sales of that product were made over an extended period of time. Where we found that more than 90 percent of the respondent's sales of a particular product were at prices below the COP and were made over an extended period of time, we disregarded all sales of that product and calculated FMV based on constructed value (CV), in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to determine whether below-cost sales had been made over an extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which below-cost sales occurred for each product to the number of months in the POI in which that product was sold. If a product was sold in three or more months of the POI, we did not exclude below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales in at least three months during the POI. When we found that sales of a product only occurred in one or two months, the number of months in which the sales occurred constituted the extended period of time; i.e., where sales of a product were made in only two months, the extended period of time was two months, where sales of a product were made in only one month, the extended period of time was one month. (See Saccharin from Korea and Preliminary Results and Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan (58 FR 69336, 69338, December 10, 1993)). Valbruna provided no indication that the disregarded sales were at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal course of trade. (See 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2)). Currency Conversion We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 C.F.R. 353.60. Verification As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we conducted verification of the information provided by Foroni and Valbruna by using standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant sales, cost and financial records, and selection of original source documentation. Interested Party Comments Foroni Comment 1: Foroni argues that its failure to report a relatively small portion of U.S. sales was unintentional and does not warrant the application of adverse BIA. It contends that given the Department's thorough review of these sales at verification, this error does not cast any doubt on the reliability of Foroni's overall response. Foroni states that the Department verified that the gross prices indicated on these invoices were comparable to those observed for reported sales of the same products. Furthermore, Foroni asserts that its underreporting of these sales resulted in the overestimation of U.S. selling expenses and, hence, an exaggerated dumping margin. Foroni believes that if the Department must substitute information for these sales, it should base such information on the overall weighted-average margin calculated for Foroni. At worst, Foroni believes the Department should use the highest margin found for any U.S. sale. Foroni argues that if other information or BIA is applied in these circumstances it should be based on either of the above-mentioned approaches, particularly where the petition contained no information or allegations regarding Foroni. Petitioners assert that in calculating final dumping margins, the Department should make certain adverse inferences based on Foroni's failure to report all sales. Petitioners argue that, with regard to the statement in the verification report concerning the gross prices of these omitted sales, gross prices are not used in the dumping analysis. Petitioners state that only after deductions to U.S. price are made and the identical or most similar home market comparison sale is selected can a dumping margin be calculated. Furthermore, according to petitioners, because of the number of adjustments to USP and FMV, transaction margins can and do vary widely. Petitioner sales believe that the omission of a portion of U.S. sales could have a dramatic effect on Foroni's dumping margin. Petitioners argue that the Department should assign the highest calculated non-aberrational margin to these unreported sales. DOC Position During our sales reconciliation at verification, company officials explained that all sales records generated prior to the point of invoicing are manually maintained, and that in order to compile a listing of U.S. sales made during the POI based on the reported date of sale methodology (i.e., purchase order date), company officials were required to search their invoice files for all invoices generated during and after the POI pursuant to purchase orders issued within the POI. To ensure that Foroni had accurately reported all sales to the Department including those that may have been invoiced after the POI pursuant to purchase orders within the POI, we conducted a manual search of the company's 1994 invoiced file. During this exercise, the Department discovered certain invoices related to subject merchandise ordered within the POI which had not been reported in the U.S. sales listing. We established the total unreported quantity and value. Upon close examination, the verifiers concluded that the gross prices indicated on these invoices were comparable to those for reported sales of the same products. When questioned, company officials stated that they were previously unaware of this apparent omission. The officials speculated that they had misplaced certain purchase orders in the warehouse (at the time respondent prepared its response these orders had not been filled). The officials further explained that, for example, with regard to one misplaced purchase order, which accounted for the majority of the unreported sales quantity, it had taken between five and eight months to fill the order. Once the purchase order was filled, however, the relevant invoices issued were filed in the company's 1994 invoice book, in accordance with the company's normal business practice. Consequently, our audit of the company's 1994 invoice book revealed these unreported sales. Given the unique circumstances noted above, we determine that application of an adverse BIA rate to the subject sales is unwarranted. Although the Department was under no obligation to accept or review these sales during verification, in this case the verifiers reviewed the invoices for these sales and concluded that the prices for these sales were similar to those for reported sales of the same products. In light of the circumstances surrounding the omission, the limited number of transactions involved, and the overall accuracy of Foroni's response, the Department determines that it is reasonable to fill this gap with a neutral surrogate. See Replacement Parts for Self-Propelled Bituminous Paying Equipment from Canada; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 58 FR 15481, 15482 (March 23, 1993). Accordingly, we have assigned Foroni's overall weighted- average calculated margin to these unreported sales. Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the Department should reject Foroni's assignment of unique grade codes and control numbers to sales of 316LUG and 316LN (because they are most similar to 316L, which is the product sold in the United States), and should account for any differences in the products through a difmer adjustment as opposed to a change in control number. According to petitioners, although Foroni argues that the chemical composition of these grades is different than for 316L, chemical composition is not one of the six principal matching criteria in Appendix V of the Department's questionnaire. Accordingly, petitioners assert that Foroni should not be permitted to change the Department's matching hierarchy at such a late point in the proceeding. Foroni requests that, for the final determination, the Department assign a unique grade code to the three unique products previously misidentified by Foroni. Foroni contends that its failure to assign unique grade codes to home market sales of grades 25.22.2, 316LUG, and 316LN was an inadvertent error. Foroni argues that, contrary to petitioners' contention, the chemical composition of each grade of SSB is precisely what differentiates it from any other grade. Foroni further argues that it is not in any way attempting to alter the Department's matching criteria, but rather to comply with them. Respondent states that petitioners' claim that grades 315LUG and 316LN should not have unique grade codes because these sales are most similar to sales of 316L is irrelevant because U.S. sales of 316L can be compared to sales of identical merchandise in Italy. Foroni states that it did not sell grades 316LUG or 316LN in the U.S. market during the POI. Finally, Foroni claims that the Department reviewed these product identification errors and verified the information provided by Foroni. DOC Position: We agree with respondent and have corrected the misidentified grade codes in the revised home market sales listing provided by respondent on November 30, 1994. We reviewed the information provided by Foroni regarding the different chemical compositions and material costs of each product prior to, as well as during, verification and determined that grades 316LUG and 316LN are in fact chemically different from grade 316L. Based on our review of the chemical compositions and material costs as stated above, we determined that these products are not the most similar to grade 316L sold in the United States. Furthermore, we disagree with petitioners' contention that Foroni is attempting to alter the matching hierarchy. Grade, which takes into account chemical composition, is in fact one of the matching criteria in Appendix V of the questionnaire. Comment 3: Petitioners argue that the Department should not accept the updated shipment, payment and quantity information collected at verification, which represents information for nine percent of the total U.S. transactions, because this information was submitted subsequent to the Department's deadline for submission of factual information. Petitioners believe that in filling in these missing dates, the Department should make certain adverse assumptions. For example, petitioners argue that the Department should assume that the payment date is the date of the final determination for purposes of calculating credit. Foroni argues that certain minor clerical errors, as well as verified updated information, should be substituted in Foroni's sales data prior to the final determination. Foroni states that, in any event, the Department has requested that Foroni submit a revised sales listing on computer disk to include this data. DOC Position: We agree with respondent and have allowed it to revise its U.S. sales listing to reflect the actual shipment/payment dates and quantity data for the subject U.S. transactions where the information had previously been missing or estimated. Respondent presented the updated information at issue in the context of minor clerical errors found in preparation for verification and the accuracy of this information was verified. Valbruna Comment 1: Petitioners believe the home market sales for which Valbruna reported limited data (``File 2'' sales) should be included in the Department's final analysis. Valbruna requested that these sales be excluded from the analysis based on its representations that the sales would not be ``similar'' because the difmer exceeds 20 percent. Petitioners note that the Department required Valbruna to provide worksheets showing a difmer in excess of 20 percent for all these sales and that respondent did not provide the worksheets. Petitioners also compare the first four product characteristics for File 2 sales to the home market sales that Valbruna did report as comparable merchandise to SSB sold in the United States (``File 1'' sales). According to petitioners, this comparison shows that several products are identical (based on the first four matching criteria) to subject merchandise reported by Valbruna. Accordingly, petitioners contend that File 2 sales should be included in the Department's analysis because certain products in this file are in fact identical to sales reported in File 1. Respondent counters with the following arguments. First, at verification Valbruna demonstrated that there were no sales in File 2 within the first five identical or most similar matches for Valbruna's reported U.S. sales. Second, since the File 2 sales would never match to a U.S. sale based on product characteristics, there was no need to provide worksheets showing that the size of the difmer exceeds 20 percent. Third, petitioners' analysis of the File 1 and File 2 is flawed because the analysis takes into account only four of the six matching criteria that Valbruna reported and which the Department used in its preliminary determination. DOC Position: We verified the fact that these sales would not be used for matching purposes. Therefore, consistent with our preliminary determination, we have continued to disregard the sales in File 2 for purposes of our margin calculation. With regard to petitioners' argument that Valbruna failed to provide worksheets showing difmers in excess of 20 percent for sales in File 2, our letter of April 1, 1994, to Valbruna stated that we would require worksheets for any sales not reported solely because of the size of the difmer (as opposed to those that did not match to a U.S. sale based on product characteristics). As respondent states, and as we verified, because the sales in File 2 would never match to U.S. sales based on the six product characteristics specified in Appendix V of the questionnaire issued in this case, there was no need for respondent to provide worksheets. Finally, concerning petitioners' argument that a comparison of File 2 sales to U.S. sales shows several products with identical matches, we agree with respondent that this argument is incorrect because petitioners based their analysis on only the first four product characteristics as opposed to the six point characteristics that the Department required for matching purposes in Appendix V of the questionnaire. As explained above, when all of the matching characteristics are considered, the sales in question would not be used for matching purposes. Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the Department should revise its dumping calculations to account for home market sales that are exempt from VAT. Petitioners state that VAT was not collected on a portion of the sales reported in Valbruna's sales listing. Petitioners note, however, that the Department increased the price on all U.S. sales to account for the VAT paid on comparison sales in Italy. Furthermore, petitioners contend that Valbruna is inconsistent in its reporting of customers that were exempt from VAT. Petitioners request that the Department:Adjust the U.S. price for the VAT only if the VAT was paid on the comparison sales in Italy; Adjust the U.S. price only to the extent that the VAT is included in weighted-average FMV; or Treat all home market sales to ``export-oriented'' companies as tax-exclusive sales and do not adjust the price for any U.S. sales compared to such home market sales. Respondent maintains that petitioners' argument is based on the incorrect inference that VAT-exempt sales were incorrectly reported. Respondent further maintains that it was not inconsistent in its reporting of customers that were exempt from VAT because the exemption is only allowed up to a specified ceiling. According to Valbruna, customers can elect to use or not use their exemption on specific sales; therefore, it is not unusual for a customer to pay VAT on some sales and not on others. Accordingly, respondent believes that petitioners' requests should be denied. DOC Position: Prior to verification, respondent revised its home market sales listing to account for VAT-exempt sales based on its discovery of this information while preparing for verification. During verfication we examined sales to which VAT applied as well as VAT- exempt sales and determined that respondent correctly reported this information. Accordingly, we have adjusted for VAT on home market sales to which it applies and have made an adjustment to the USP only if the VAT was paid on comparison home market sales. Comment 3: Petitioners state that the Department should deduct cash discounts on home market sales before calculating adjustments for home market commissions, credit, direct selling expenses, inventory carrying charges and imputed VAT. Petitioners claim that the Department noted in its home market verification report that cash discounts were not considered in these calculations. Respondent states that, pursuant to the Department's request, it submitted a revised computer tape on November 22, 1994, in which it appropriately accounted for cash discounts in calculating the adjustments listed above. DOC Position: We agree with both parties. We used respondent's revised sales listing, which properly accounts for cash discounts in calculating the above-referenced adjustments, for purposes of the final margin calculations. Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department should adjust FMV for the imputed cost or income associated with the timing difference between respondent's payment of the VAT and receipt of the VAT payment from the customer. Respondent argues taht the imputed VAT cost or income is a bona fide adjustment in accordance with the circumstance of sale provisions of the antidumping statute. Respondent states that there is no discernible difference between the applicability of these provisions to credit expense incurred on payment of sales and the applicability of these provisions to credit expense incurred on VAT payments. Additionally, respondent states that the Department verified the income or expense incurred by Valbruna for financing its customers' VAT payments. Therefore, according to Valbruna, petitioners' claim that the opportunity cost was not verified is incorrect unless petitioners do not consider these amounts to be opportunity costs. According to respondent, petitioners' argument that imputed VAT cost or income should be based on the net VAT paid is irrelevant because Valbruna is virtually exempt from paying VAT taxes on raw materials and services purchased in connection with the production of merchandise. Petitioners contend that the Department did not verify whether there is an opportunity cost associated with Valbruna's VAT payments to the government. Petitioners also state that VAT law allows an offset to the VAT payment due the government for VAT paid for raw materials and services purchased in connection with production of merchandise. Therefore, according to petitioners, the imputed VAT cost or income claimed by Valbruna should be based on the net VAT paid and not the total VAT on the sale. In addition, petitioners believe that Valbruna should report a theoretical VAT opportunity cost for sales to the United States if Valbruna claims imputed VAT costs for its Italian sales. Petitioners argue that, unless the Department calculates opportunity costs for all associated charges, an adjustment for VAT opportunity costs alone would be incomplete. Additionally, petitioners maintain that allowing adjustments for some of these opportunity costs but not for others would provide respondents with an opportunity to manipulate dumping calculations by claiming only those opportunity costs that would benefit a respondent. DOC Position: We agree with petitioners and have not allowed this adjustment, in accordance with the Department's policy outlined in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 3253 (January 8, 1993). In that case, the Department noted that ``virtually every charge or expense associated with price-to-price comparisons is either prepaid or paid for at some point after the cost is incurred. Accordingly, for each pre- or post-service payment,there is also an opportunity cost (or gain). Thus, to allow the type of adjustment suggested by respondent would imply that in the future the Department would be faced with the impossible task of trying to determine the opportunity cost (or gain) of every freight charge, rebate and selling expense for each sale reported in a respondent's database.'' (See also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Calcium Aluminate Cement, Clinker and Flux from France, 59 FR 14136, 14146, March 25, 1994). The wording of the Department's regulation providing for circumstance of sale adjustments supports this interpretation. Section 353.56(a)(2) identifies the type of expenses or differences in circumstances of sale which the Department normally adjusts for. These include credit terms and similar expenses which a producer chooses to incur or which become necessary due to the producer's business activities. The regulations contain no indication that the Department should consider granting an adjustment to account for a government imposed tax such as the VAT, or for any other type of so-called ``opportunity cost.'' Similarly, the CIT has affirmed the Department's rejection of the claim that a circumstance of sale adjustment is warranted to offset the effect of accounts payable and imputed expenses incurred between the seller and its suppliers. Independent Radiomic Workers of America v. United States, Slip Op. 94-144 at 11 (CIT September 16, 1994); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 839 F. Supp. 881, 885-86 (CIT 1993). Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, the CIT relied upon the Court of Appeals' decision in Daewoo Electric Co. v. United States, 6 F. 2d 1511, 1518-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993), to hold that the Department is simply ``not required to reach the level of precision in quantifying circumstance of sale adjustments which [the party] believe[d] is required.'' Federal-Mogul, 839 F. Supp. at 886. The same conclusion applies to the present investigation. Comment 5: Petitioners maintain that Valbruna did not report all ocean freight costs. Petitioners cite the Department's verification report which states that ``one of Valbruna's two shipping companies separately reports, as a different line item on the same invoice, freight charges and document processing fees.'' Petitioners believe that the document processing fees which have been separately reported have not been accounted for in Valbruna's ocean freight costs and, therefore, these fees should be deducted from USP for the affected sales. Valbruna officials claim that all ocean freight costs borne by Valbruna have been accounted for. Respondent also states that the Department explicitly verified ocean freight expenses and found no discrepancies. DOC Position: We agree with respondent. We have no reason to believe that document processing fees were not properly accounted for simply because they were sometimes separately reported. We verified ocean freight expenses (including document processing fees) and found no discrepancies. Therefore, we have deducted ocean freight charges as reported. Comment 6: Petitioners point out that the Department's home market verification report states, ``We noted that bank expenses were not included in the calculation of the U.S. interest rate. Moreover, the methodology used to calculate the home market rate was different (from) that used to calculate the U.S. rate.'' Petitioners add that Valbruna's home market interest rate calculation includes ``non-interest'' loan expenses while Valbruna did not include such expenses in its U.S. interest rate calculation. Petitioners contend the Department should revise Valbruna's home market interest rate calculation (and all fields, such as credit, that employ the interest rate) by using the actual rates charged by banks, exclusive of any ``bank expense'' deductions, and should ensure that the home market interest rate calculation otherwise is consistent with the interest rate used for U.S. sales. Respondent maintains that it included bank expenses in its U.S. interest rate calculation. Accordingly, respondent claims that its methodology for calculating its home market interest rate did not differ from the methodology used to calculate its U.S. interest rate. DOC Position: We incorrectly noted in our verification report that bank charges were not included in the calculation of the U.S. interest rate. Therefore, petitioners' comments are moot. We used the home market and U.S. interest rates as reported and verified in our calculations. Comment 7: Petitioners assert that Valbruna improperly reported part of its credit expenses on PP sales by reporting as inventory carrying costs the financing expenses for the period from the date of shipment from Vicenza to the date of entry at the U.S. port. Petitioners argue that the credit period for PP sales should begin on the date the SSB was shipped from the plant in Italy and should include time in transit to the U.S. port. Petitioners state that Valbruna's failure to properly report credit expenses for its PP sales resulted in an understatement of the circumstance of sale adjustment to FMV for differences in credit expenses. Respondent contends that it properly reported U.S. credit expenses for PP sales. Valbruna explains that it finances PP sales for the time the merchandise is on the water while Avesta Sheffield, Inc. (ASI), which markets Valbruna's SSB products in the United States, finances these sales from the date the merchandise is shipped from the U.S. port to the date of receipt of payment. Valbruna explains that separate interest rates were used to calculate the credit costs during each of these shipping phases; therefore, credit expenses is reported under two variables in the U.S. database. DOC Position: We have considered both the reported credit expenses, and the costs reported by respondent as inventory carrying costs for PP sales, as credit expenses in accordance with our normal practice of calculating the credit period from the time the merchandise leaves the factory until it reaches the customer. Furthermore, with regard to the Valbruna's use of separate interest rates for each segment of this expense, we used the two U.S. rates as reported because we verified that a portion of the credit period is financed by Valbruna and the remainder is financed by ASI. Comment 8: Petitioners argue that the Department should adjust respondent's credit calculation to correct for inconsistencies in the method respondent used to determine the U.S. and home market credit periods. Petitioners note that the bank deposit date marks the end of the credit period for U.S. sales while the date the funds were actually credited to Valbruna's account marks the end of the credit period for home market sales. Since finds in the home market are usually credited to the account three days after the deposit date, petitioners believe the Department should either add three days to the credit period for all U.S. sales or deduct three days from the credit period for all home market sales. Respondent maintains the Department's verification reports show that the U.S. and home market credit periods were determined using consistent methods. Respondent notes that the Department's home market verification report explicitly states that Valbruna reported the date of receipt of payment as the date that funds were actually credited by the bank into its account. Respondent further notes that in the U.S. sales verification report the Department traced the reported date of receipt of payment to the date funds were actually credited by the bank. Thus, respondent believes the Department should reject petitioners' argument. DOC Position: We agree with respondent that the credit periods were consistently reported. During the ESP as well as home market verifications we examined payment documentation for numerous sales and confirmed that in both markets respondent reported date of payment as the date funds were actually credited to its account by the bank. Therefore, we have used the reported and verified payment dates in both the U.S. and home market credit calculations. Comment 9: During our review of individual sales transactions during the U.S. verification, we noted a reduction in sales price for one transaction. Petitioners contend that if ASI allowed this price reduction then it is likely that they allowed other price reductions. Petitioners argue that the Department should reduce the price of other sales, where appropriate, by the amount of the price reduction discovered at verification. Furthermore, petitioners contend that there may be similar price reductions because the above-mentioned price reduction was discovered from a review of only a few sales. (For further amplification of petitioners' position see proprietary Concurrence Memorandum dated December 16, 1994). Valbruna maintains that ASI does not offer any such reductions in price to its U.S. customers. Respondent explains that ASI reviewed its sales records for such reductions in price and, to the best of its knowledge, it allowed no other price reductions during the POI. Respondent also maintains that the Department examined numerous sales transactions and found no trace of any other price reductions. Respondent notes that it has revised its U.S. sales listing to properly account for this price reduction. (for further amplification of respondent's position see proprietary Concurrence Memorandum dated December 16, 1994). DOC Position: Based on our review of numerous sales at verification, we have no reason to believe that Valbruna offered such price reductions to other customers. At verification we reviewed respondent's cash posting list and noted that other such price reductions were for nonsubject merchandise. Accordingly, we believe that the situation as described above, and in the proprietary record, is unique and does not reflect a general policy of granting price reductions on U.S. sales. Moreover, this price reduction has been accounted for in Valbruna's sales listing. Comment 10: Respondent maintains that home market pre-sale warehousing and inventory carrying costs are directly related to sales of the subject merchandise. Respondent notes that the Department treated all pre-sale expenses associated with Valbruna's home market service centers as indirect selling expenses in the preliminary determination because Valbruma did not adequately demonstrate that such expenses are directly attributable to particular sales of the subject merchandise. Respondent argues that the Department's findings at verification now provide it with sufficient justification to determine that Valbruna's presale expenses associated with home market service centers are directly related to home market sales. In addition, respondent cites the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6207 (January 27, 1993) (Lead and Bismuth) as well as the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Japan, 56 FR 16300 (April 22, 1991) (PET Film) to support its argument. Petitioners argue that the cases cited by respondent do not support Valbruna's claim. Petitioners maintain that Valbruna calculated its pre-sale warehousing expenses in the same manner as a respondent in the PET Film case whose claim for direct warehousing expenses was rejected by the Department. In addition, petitioners note that in PET Film and Lead and Bismuth the Department stated that a requirement for allowing pre-sale warehousing expense as a direct expense was that the stock in question was only available for sales to those specific customers, which is not the case for Valbruna. Finally, petitioners request that the Department treat pre-sale expenses incurred for Valbruna's U.S. sales as direct selling expenses if the Department determines that Valbrunna's home market pre-sale expenses are direct selling expenses. Petitioners argue for parallel treatment because Valbruna manufacturers SSB for its ESP sales to the customers' exact specifications and, like the regional warehouses in the home market, the SSB that is inventoried by ASI is merchandise that is restricted to servicing only those customers located in an assigned geographic region. DOC Position: For purposes of the final determination, we have treated Valbrun's pre-sale warehousing/service center warehousing costs as direct expenses. We believe that the facts in this case most closely resemble those in Lead and Bismuth which stated that the respondent: accepts requests from some home market customers to maintain in inventory a certain amount of product manufactured to that customer's specifications. Then, when the customer needs the steel, it issues a specific purchase order for delivery out of this customer-specific stock. Customers can thereby obtain immediate delivery, rather than wait for the normal monthly rolling cycle. In PET Film, also the Department accepted the respondent's contention that its pre-sale warehousing expenses were directly related to its home market sales since the Department verified that the expenses were incurred and reported on the basis of specific products sold to specific customers during the POI. At vertification we reviewed customer purchase orders and Valbruna order confirmations which stipulated that Valbruna was required to keep on hand a specified amount of subject merchandise with certain specifications for particular customers at particular service centers. The record contains no indication that Valbruna sold this merchandise to customers other than the ones for which the particular merchandise was held in inventory. In fact, company officials stated that the merchandise is usually so specialized that Valbruna would be unable to sell it to other customers. We also observed during the plant tour merchandise with ``open order'' tags reflecting open orders against a customer's supply forecast for which Valbruna was required to maintain specific inventory levels at its service centers. Furthermore, we observed that Valbruna's accounting system tracks additional stock going to a warehouse; it lists the quantity, but not the price, and states the merchandise is destined for a specific customer. This approach is consistent with the Department's determination in other cases, such as Brass Sheet and Strip from West German; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 56 FR 60087, 60090 (1991), which the CIT recently upheld in Hussey Copper, Ltd. v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 413, 421 (CIT 1993). There, the Department declined to treat expenses associated with pre-sale inventory (``buffer stock'') as direct expenses. Based upon those facts, the court agreed, noting in addition that information on the record indicated that respondent withdrew ``the material for shipment to customers other than the ones who generally purchase material out of those warehouses.'' Hussey Copper, 834 F. Supp. at 421. See also LMI-La Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 455, 457 (Fed. Cir. 1990). With respect to petitioners' latter argument, ASI's warehousing practices do not resemble Valbruna's service center warehousing practices. ASI's customers' purchase orders do not stipulate that ASI must keep a certain amount of merchandise available for particular customers. Although SSB that is shipped by Valbruna and inventoried by ASI may be restricted to servicing only those customers located in an assigned geographic region, it is not customer-specific, as is the merchandise stocked at Valbruna's service centers in Italy. In addition, ASI not only warehouse Valbruna-related products, but also sells non-subject merchandise, including Avesta Sheffield's standard and special stainless steel products such as steel plates, sheets, strips, wire and welded pipe and tubing. Therefore, ASI's warehousing expenses and corresponding inventory carrying costs cannot be directly tied to specific sales of the subject merchandise. Comment 11: Valbruna argues that in the event its final dumping margin is affirmative, that margin would be due solely to the use of quarterly exchange rates. Valbruna argues that the Department is required to use daily exchange rates whenever a dumping margin would be created by the Department's use of quarterly exchange rates. Therefore, Valbruna argues that the Department must use daily exchange rates in this case. Valbruna cites Luciano Pisoni Fabbrica Accessori v. United States, (Luciano Pisoni) 640 F. Supp. 255 (CIT 1986), in an apparent attempt to argue that no demonstration need be made that the exchange rates fluctuated during the POI in order to invoke this rule. Petitioners argue that exchange rate fluctuations must be ``temporary'' to warrant the use of daily exchange rates (See Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Finland, 56 FR 56363 (November 4, 1991), and Valbruna has not offered any evidence that there were temporary exchange rate fluctuations during the POI. DOC Position: We disagree with Valbruna and have continued to use quarterly exchange rates, in accordance with the Department's regulations and as warranted by the facts of this case. Pursuant to section 363.60 of the Department's regulations, we rely upon the quarterly exchange rates as published by the Federal Reserve Board. Section 353.60(b) does provide for a special rule under which during an investigation, the Department may rely upon daily rates if the price of the merchandise is affected by ``temporary exchange fluctuations.'' The Department has defined temporary exchange rate fluctuations as occurring when the daily rate varies from the quarterly average rate by more than five percent. However, we do not interpret the special rule outlined in 19 C.F.R. 353.60(b) as envisioning the treatment of an entire POI as a temporary fluctuation. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Portable Electric Typewriters from Singapore, 58 FR 43334 43338 (1993); Groundwood Paper. In this case, Valbruna has not provided any evidence on the record to demonstrate that the exchange rates fluctuated in the manner contemplated by the Department's regulations. Accordingly, it is appropriate to reject Valbruna's claim on this basis. Indeed, Valbruna did not raise the issue until submitting its case brief. Moreover, we do not agree with Valbruna's interpretation of the CIT's decision in Luciano Pisoni. In this decision, the CIT highlighted the fact that the respondent in that investigation had made only ten relevant home market sales during the POI. Luciano Pisoni, 640 F. Supp, at 260. The court stressed that based upon the facts in that case, it would have been unfair to use quarterly exchange rates. As such, because Luciano Pisoni can be distinguished from the present investigation on this basis, we have not addressed any other aspect of the CIT's reasoning in Luciano Pisoni. Comment 12: Respondent requests that, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.20(c), if the final determination is above de minimis, the Department should transmit the output from its margin program to the U.S. International Trade Commission to alert the Commission (ITC) to the facts that (1) the amount of sales reflecting transaction margins is minuscule, and (2) the transaction margins, where they exist, reflect minimal amounts. DOC Position: Because Valbruna's final dumping margin is de minimis, this issue is moot. Comment 13: Petitioners argue that Valbruna incorrectly reported the weighted-average COP based on costs incurred during the POI. Rather, petitioners contend that the Department should adjust Valbruna's reported data to reflect the actual costs incurred for sales made during the POI. Petitioners assert that the Section D questionnaire ``covers cost of production information for the merchandise sold in the home market/third country.'' Petitioners assert that the appropriate reporting period for cost would be the corresponding production months before the POI. Petitioners state that raw material prices were higher in the period prior to the POI. Respondent argues that it properly reported costs to reflect the actual cost for sales during the POI. Valbruna reported that, for its home market sales, production takes place a number of months before the product is sold. Respondent asserts that petitioners' analysis is erroneous, because it relies solely on dollar denominated costs of stainless steel scrap. DOC Position: The Department agrees with respondent. Section D of the questionnaire clearly requests weighted-average production data based on costs incurred during the POI. The Department has departed from this general policy only when unique circumstances arise, such as when there was no production during the POI. Furthermore, companies, frequently hold inventory for a period of time between production and shipment and raw materials are held for a period of time between purchase and production. An average inventory holding period or length of time between order and production are only estimates. Sales are sometimes made from existing stock or may be produced to order, or even a combination of both. Petitioners raised the issue for the first time in the pre- verification comments--too late in the investigation for the Department to perform the appropriate analysis to determine whether a change in the cost data reporting period is warranted. Furthermore, if the Department was to accept petitioners' argument, the CV data would be based on a different accounting period than the COP data, effectively doubling the burden on all parties. Accordingly, absent strong evidence to the contrary, the Department assumes that the cost structure prevailing during the POI is representative and can be sued to calculate COP. Comment 14: Petitioners argue that the Department should reject Valbruna's adjustment for the change in inventory value. Petitioners assert that the inventory adjustment claim is not consistent with the inventory policy stated in Valbruna's financial statements. Furthermore, the calculations obtained by the Department during verification show that the claim has no bearing on the actual COP for the SSB sold during the POI. The analysis does not represent an adjustment to the COP; it merely represents a comparison of the cost of materials at the beginning of the POI and the end of the POI. The cost verification report states that Valbruna's management cost accounting system calculates material costs on a current basis and excludes the effect of beginning and ending inventory. Respondent argues that it properly accounted for changes in inventory. Respondent states that the cost system accumulates material costs on a current cost basis, and that the financial accounting system calculates material costs on a historical cost basis. The financial accounting system takes into account changes in inventory, unlike the cost accounting system. According to Valbruna, although petitioners complain that Valbruna inaccurately valued the change in inventory adjustment, if Valbruna would have used average quantities in the POI, rather than quantities at the end of the POI, the resulting adjustment would have been more favorable to Valbruna, as demonstrated at verification. DOC Position: The Department agrees with petitioners. Although the cost methodology used by Valbruna calculates the current production costs and fails to include the difference in price between the beginning and ending inventories and the average POI price, the adjustment is incorrect for two reasons. First, because the beginning and ending finished goods inventory was included in the calculation, the adjustment theoretically converts the cost of manufacturing, which is what should be reported, into cost of goods sold. Secondly, Valbruan uses the last-in-first-out inventory method for financial statement purposes which results in something similar to current costing. Therefore, because the methodology followed by Valbruna, absent the inventory adjustment, closely reflects the methodologies used for financial statement purposes, we disallowed the adjustment. Discontinuance of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(2)(A) of the Act, because the margins are de minis, we are directing the Customs Service to discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of SSB from Italy, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 1994. Accordingly, all bonds should be released and estimated antidumping duties deposited should be refunded. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Margin Manufacturer/producer/exporter percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l..................................... 0.14 Foroni S.p.A.................................................. 0.23 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) in this investigation of their responsibility covering the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.34(d). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(d)) and 19 C.F.R. 353.20(a)(4). Dated: December 19, 1994. Susan G. Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 94-31805 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M