64 FR 36333, July 6, 1999

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-833]


Stainless Steel Bar From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On March 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on stainless steel bar from Japan. This review covers one
producer/exporter, Aichi Steel Corporation, during the period February
1, 1997, through January 31, 1998.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we
have made certain changes for the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minoo Hatten or Robin Gray, Office of
AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1690 or (202) 482-4023, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

    On March 4, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on stainless steel bar from Japan. Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Japan,
64 FR 10445 (preliminary results). Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp.,
Dunkirk, N.Y., Carpenter Technology Corp., Reading, PA, Republic
Engineered Steels, Inc., Massillon, OH, Slater Steels Corp., Fort
Wayne, IN, Talley Metals Technology, Inc., Hartsville, SC, and the
United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, collectively petitioners
in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (hereafter
petitioners), submitted their case brief on April 5, 1999. Aichi Steel
Corporation (Aichi), respondent in this review, also submitted its case
brief on April 5, 1999. The petitioners and Aichi submitted rebuttal
briefs on April 12, 1999. The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is stainless steel bar
(SSB). For purposes of this review, 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

[[Page 36334]]

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
indentations, ribs, groves, 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 order 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 the
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested
parties to this administrative review are addressed below.
Comment 1: Level of Trade
    Aichi argues that the Department should find five different levels
of trade for Aichi's home market. Aichi alleges that the Department
found three levels of trade correctly--sales to trading companies,
sales to distributors, and sales to end-users--but rejected the
consignment/non-consignment distinction within the trading company and
distributor levels of trade incorrectly. Aichi argues that, in
rejecting this distinction, the Department did not appreciate that
consignment is in itself a selling function that affects how Aichi
markets its products.
    The petitioners argue that the Department should continue to find
only three levels of trade for Aichi's home market sales as it did in
the preliminary results. According to the petitioners, the verified
record demonstrates that the Department's preliminary decision--that
only three levels of trade exist--was accurate and is supported by the
record in this review. The petitioners contend that a close examination
of Aichi's arguments reveals that there is no support to segregate the
distributor and trading-company levels of trade into further
consignment and non-consignment subcategories, since Aichi holds the
title until the merchandise is sold for both consignment and non-
consignment sales and Aichi receives payment for the goods only after
they are sold to the final customer in both cases.
    Department's Position: We do not find that consignment is in itself
a selling function. The ``consignment'' relationship is not necessarily
a distinct selling function and, even if it were a distinct selling
function, such activities alone may not establish a separate level of
trade. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews, 63 FR 48184, 48186 (Sept. 9, 1998) (``there was not a
significant difference in selling functions between sales made through
consignment agents and marketing agents, and as such we have made no
level of trade distinction''); see also Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Germany, 64 FR 92, 97 (Jan. 4, 1999) (``channels of distribution do not
qualify as separate levels of trade when the selling functions
performed * * * are sufficiently similar''); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
55 FR 12696 (Apr. 5, 1990) (``aside from claiming that flowers are sold
to two different types of customers, i.e., retailers and consignment
wholesalers in the two markets, the respondent did not provide any
evidence indicating that the difference in prices is attributable to
different levels of trade''); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Costa Rica, 52 FR 6852
(March 5, 1987) (``we have made no level of trade adjustment. The
respondent did not demonstrate that expenses incurred in selling to
retailers * * * would not have also been incurred in sales to
[consignment] wholesalers''). Thus, the mere existence of a consignment
relationship does not necessarily establish a distinct level of trade.
There must be sufficient differences in selling functions performed
between the consignment accounts and non-consignment accounts.
    Based on our analysis of information on the record of this review,
we determine, as we did in our preliminary analysis, that there are no
differences with respect to selling functions between consignment and
non-consignment sales. Specifically, there are no differences between
consignment and non-consignment sales with respect to strategic and
economic planning, market research, computer, legal, accounting, audit,
business systems development assistance, personnel assistance,
engineering services, research and development (R&D) technical
programs, advertising, procurement and sourcing, sales calls/assistance
and post-sale warehousing. As stated in the preliminary results, the
distinction between consignment and non-consignment sales is that, in
consignment-sales situations, Aichi permits the customer to take
possession of the product without requiring that the customer pay for
the product until the customer sells the merchandise to its downstream
customer. This distinction, however, does not relate to the nature of
the selling functions performed. Furthermore, Aichi has not presented
evidence establishing any price differences between consignment and
non-consignment sales.
    Selling functions performed with respect to trading companies
included strategic and economic planning, market research, computer,
legal and business-systems development, engineering services and post-
sale warehousing. In addition to these functions, other functions
performed for sales to end-users included R&D technical programs,
advertising, and sales calls/assistance. Distributors were also offered
personnel training and manpower assistance in addition to the services
offered to trading companies and end-users. Based on these differences,
we found that the three types of home market customers constituted
three different levels of trade.
    We found that Aichi made export price (EP) sales of various models
of merchandise through unaffiliated trading companies, a channel of
distribution similar to the home market channel involving sales to
trading companies. As with sales through the trading-company channel of
distribution in the home market, Aichi performed only a few selling
functions when selling merchandise to trading companies that exported
the merchandise to the United States. Thus, we found that the level of
trade for this U.S. channel of distribution was the same as the level
of trade for the home

[[Page 36335]]

market trading-company channel of distribution. Based on the
information on the record, the Department determines that only three
levels of trade exist in the home market. For a detailed discussion of
the Department's position on Aichi's levels of trade, see the
preliminary results, 64 FR at 10446.
Comment 2: Research and Development Costs
    Aichi disagrees with the Department's inclusion of non-SSB-related
R&D costs in the general and administrative expenses for the
calculation of Aichi's cost of production. Aichi argues that the record
shows that it maintains R&D costs by cost center and is thus able to
distinguish the products for which it incurred R&D expenses. Aichi
urges that, if a respondent records its R&D expenses on a product-
specific basis and there is no evidence that this R&D may benefit the
production of subject merchandise, under Micron Technology, Inc. v.
United States, 893 F. Supp. 21 (CIT 1995), aff'd, 117 F.3d 1386 (Fed.
Cir. 1997), the Department must allocate such expenses according to the
respondent's records.
    The petitioners agree with the Department's calculation of Aichi's
cost of production in the preliminary results. The petitioners assert
that the simple fact that Aichi records its R&D expenses by cost center
is not convincing evidence that there are true product-specific R&D
expenses. They contend that Aichi's R&D expenses provide an overall
benefit to all products, including the subject merchandise.
Furthermore, the petitioners observe, Aichi's products share a single
manufacturing process. Finally, the petitioners state that the record
indicates that Aichi itself has merged subject and non-subject products
in its R&D activities.
    Department's Position: Based on our analysis of the information on
the record, it is appropriate to allocate the R&D costs in question
across Aichi's total cost of production. As discussed below, where
evidence on the record suggests that costs associated with R&D projects
serve to benefit subject merchandise, the Department has included such
costs, regardless of whether the company's accounting system allocates
those costs exclusively to non-subject merchandise. Thus, the existence
of product-specific accounting records does not necessarily preclude a
finding of cross-fertilization. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (``SRAMs'') from the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8934, 8939
(Feb. 23, 1998) (``separate accounting * * * does not necessarily mean
that cross-fertilization of scientific ideas does not occur''), and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors (``SRAMs'') from Taiwan, 63 FR
8909, 8925 (Feb. 23, 1998), where the Department found that, although
respondent maintained product-specific R&D accounting records,
allocation of all R&D across all products was appropriate, ``given that
scientific ideas developed in one semiconductor area can be and have
been utilized in the development of other semiconductor products.''
    In order to substantiate its claim that certain R&D costs do not
benefit subject merchandise, Aichi provided a list of R&D projects that
it claims relate only to non-subject merchandise. Additionally, Aichi
provided a breakdown of R&D costs by department. However, as detailed
in the analyst's memorandum to file regarding R&D expenses (containing
business proprietary information), dated June 23, 1999, Aichi has not
submitted a breakdown of costs by project. Thus, as a preliminary
matter, we are unable to determine the specific costs for each project
to segregate project-specific costs. Therefore, even if we were to
determine that some projects do not benefit the production of subject
merchandise, we would not be able to segregate and exclude those
project-specific costs.
    Furthermore, based upon evidence in the record we have identified
projects where R&D from one type of product could benefit another type
of product. See the June 23, 1999, memorandum to file regarding R&D
expenses. As such, because the record shows that at least some of the
claimed projects may influence the production of subject merchandise
and because we are unable to segregate the remaining projects, we have
continued to include all R&D expenses in the cost of production.
Comment 3: Model-Match Error
    Aichi argues that the Department should correct a clerical error in
the model-match section of the calculations. Aichi asserts that,
instead of matching first to contemporaneous sales, the Department
first matched cost deviation (i.e., matching to identical and similar
physical characteristics) and level of trade (i.e., matching to sales
with similar functions) of the home market. As a result, Aichi
contends, the identical or most similar home market model in the most
contemporaneous month did not always match to each U.S. sale. Aichi
argues that the Department should correct this error to comply with its
well-established practice of matching contemporaneous sales as a higher
matching priority than level of trade or cost deviation.
    The petitioners argue that the Department conducted its model-match
exercise correctly and that Aichi's suggested approach is not in
accordance with the Department's long-standing practice. Citing
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
(AFBs), 62 FR 2081, 2128 (Jan. 15, 1997), and Stainless Wire Rods from
France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
47874, 47879 (Sept. 11, 1996), the petitioners argue that the
appropriate model-match hierarchy is cost deviation first, level of
trade second, and contemporaneity last.
    Department's Position: We did not make a clerical error in our
model-match exercise. Contrary to Aichi's assertion, pursuant to
section 771(16) of the Act, it has been the Department's practice to
compare the subject merchandise sold to the United States first to
products with identical physical characteristics sold in the exporting-
country market. See, e.g., AFBs, 62 FR at 2128 (``[a]fter selecting the
most comparable product match according to the statute, we attempt to
find contemporaneous sales of that product at the same level of trade,
if possible''). When products sold to the United States do not have
identical matches in the foreign market, the statute directs us to use
similar merchandise which meets the requirements set forth under
section 771(16)(B) of the Act. For the current review, when determining
appropriate product comparisons for U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales
to contemporaneous home market sales of the comparison model that were
physically ``most similar'' and which passed the twenty-percent
difference-in-merchandise test. We use the results of the model-match
exercise to find the ``most similar'' home market sale within our 90/60
day contemporaneity guideline. After disregarding below-cost sales, we
may not find a contemporaneous sale of an identical or similar product.
In such situations, we compare the U.S. sale to constructed value. This
methodology is consistent with Department practice. See, e.g., Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 56515, 56520 (November 1,
1996). Aichi's suggestion could lead us to selecting comparison sales
which occurred in the same month as the U.S.

[[Page 36336]]

sale but which are less similar than other sales within the 90/60 day
contemporaneity guideline. This would not be consistent with the
statute's direction to find the best physical comparison in the home
market.
Comment 4: Model-Matching Criteria, Type
    The petitioners argue that the Department should disregard the
distinction Aichi made between hot-rolled SSB and hot-forged SSB within
the first element of the model-match criteria, type. They contend that
hot-forged products do not reflect a unique physical difference of the
finished product. Therefore, they contend, both hot-rolled and hot-
forged products should be considered to be hot-finished SSB as
identified in the Department's questionnaire. In addition, the
petitioners assert, the choice of alternative production processes and
different costs is not reason enough for the establishment of different
physical characteristics to use in selecting comparable products. In
order to correct the respondent's inappropriate segregation of products
by type of finish, the petitioners request that the Department
consolidate hot-finished and hot-forged products and recalculate
various costs affected by Aichi's segregation.
    Aichi contends that the rolled/forged distinction warrants the
identification of separate products for model-matching purposes. Aichi
states that it uses the forging process to produce SSB when the
dimensions or grades requested by the customer do not permit use of the
rolling process. Therefore, Aichi argues, forging results in different
physical characteristics. Aichi argues further that the cost-of-
production information it submitted to the Department proves that cost
differences exist between items produced using these two processes. For
these reasons, Aichi requests that the Department compare home market
and U.S. sales using all of the physical criteria Aichi identified in
its response.
    Department's Position: We find that it is appropriate to reflect
the rolled/forged distinction of the products in our model-match
methodology. In accordance with sections 771(16)(A) and (B) of the Act,
we attempt to match the subject merchandise with products that are
identical or similar in physical characteristics and that are
approximately equal in commercial value. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 14865, 14872 (March
29, 1999) (``mooney viscosity'' is an appropriate matching criterion
because ``it is an essential product characteristic that defines the
grade'' and ``there are cost and price differences between th[e] two
grades * * *''); Extruded Rubber Thread from Malysia: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 62547, 62558 (Nov. 24,
1997) (the Department found ``color'' to be an appropriate model-match
criterion because the Department had used that criterion consistently
in the investigation and following reviews and because color could
``materially affect cost and be important to the customer and the use
of the product''); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996) (the
Department found ``wheat quality'' to be an appropriate matching
criterion because there were differences in physical characteristics
and because the cost was materially more for the segregated product).
    Evidence on the record of this review demonstrates that the forging
process results in meaningful differences in physical characteristics.
In addition, certain cost differences exist between products
manufactured using the rolling and forging process. Therefore, we have
used Aichi's information on the forging process in our model-match
methodology because it ensures that we make the best match.
Comment 5: Model-Matching Criteria, Shape
    The petitioners contend that the Department should disregard
Aichi's additional sub-codes for shape and consolidate the shape sub-
codes accordingly for model-matching purposes. According to the
petitioners, the Department's practice is to develop additional sub-
coding for model-matching purposes only if there are physical
differences, pricing differences as a result of physical differences,
and market reactions to the physical differences. The petitioners
contend that Aichi's sub-codes for shape do not meet this standard. In
addition, the petitioners assert that Aichi does not distinguish
between the shape differences that it submitted in its questionnaire
response in the information that it maintains internally (e.g., price-
extras list) and disseminates externally (e.g., Aichi product
brochures). According to the petitioners, Aichi did not substantiate
that additional sub-codes are required within the shape criteria. They
request that the Department consolidate the shapes, as appropriate, and
recalculate the various weighted-average costs to reflect the
consolidation.
    Aichi argues that the distinction between various shapes of flat
bar in the response is justified and that the petitioners are confused
about Aichi's codes. Aichi asserts that the relevant shape codes are
those listed in the column ``ShapeH'' on page 5 of its Exhibit 2,
Section B response. Aichi also states that, although it collapsed the
square-bar products, the flat-bar distinctions it used are appropriate
since the flat-bar products' physical characteristics differ, price
differences are evident from the home market sales list, customers
request different products, and Aichi has issued special brochures
advertising some of these products. Therefore, Aichi contends, record
evidence demonstrates that the flat-bar shape distinctions Aichi
identified and segregated for model-matching purposes are justified.
    Department's Position: It appears that the petitioners may have
referred to the wrong variable in their analysis of the shape
distinction. Notwithstanding this possibility, we disagree with Aichi
that its additional segregation of products is warranted in matching
models. As discussed in response to comment 4 above, the Department has
discretion to select appropriate model-matching criteria which account
for meaningful differences in physical characteristics, cost, and use.
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996), Koyo
Seiko v. United States, 66 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Final Results of
Adm. Rev.) (the Department has the discretion to ``choose the manner in
which ``such or similar merchandise'' shall be selected''), and Certain
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Germany; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 65264, 65271 (Dec. 19,
1995) (the Department has the discretion to choose ``such or similar''
merchandise).
    As such, it is also not necessary that the Department segregate
every claimed difference in characteristics if those differences are
not meaningful for matching purposes. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products From Germany, 60 FR at 65271 (``[b]asing its
product matching criteria on commercially meaningful characteristics
permits the Department to draw reasonable distinctions between products
for matching purposes, without attempting to account for every possible
difference inherent in certain classes or kinds of merchandise * * *.
As such, the Department may define certain products as being
``identical'' within the meaning of section 771(16)(A), even though
they contain

[[Page 36337]]

minor differences * * *. Similarly, the Department need not account for
every conceivable physical characteristic of a product in its
hierarchy. Thus, as a range of products may be considered ``identical''
within the meaning of the statute''); Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value; Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, 55
FR 29244 (July 18, 1990) (the Department determined that products
within same ASTM standard would be deemed ``identical in physical
characteristics to the merchandise sold in [the home market]'');
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 33041 (June
17, 1998) (Final Results of Adm. Rev.) (pickling, oiling and varnishing
were only ``packing treatments'' and did not ``transform the finished
merchandise into a different product for purposes of merchandise
comparison under 771(16)(A) and (B) of the Act'').
    With respect to Aichi's additional claimed shape distinction, upon
reviewing the record, we find that the additional characteristics do
not provide meaningful differences for matching purposes. Aichi's
breakdown of flat bar segregates only minor differences in physical
shape which do not affect our model-match comparison materially. See
analyst's memorandum to file on the Issue of Model-Matching Criteria,
Shape (containing business proprietary information), dated June 23,
1999. As we explained in Circular Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from
Mexico, where the finishing process does not ``transform the finished
merchandise * * * for purposes of * * * [our] comparison,'' we
generally will not distinguish such criteria (63 FR 33041 (June 17,
1998)). Thus, we have not accepted Aichi's additional claimed sub-codes
for shape.
Comment 6: Warehousing Expenses
    The petitioners argue that the Department should deduct home market
warehousing expenses only for non-consignment and non-pre-sale-
warehoused sales. They allege that the Department confirmed at
verification Aichi's statement in its response that warehousing
expenses do not apply to warehousing costs incurred on products prior
to sale or to consignment sales. The petitioners comment that, in the
preliminary results, the Department indicated that it intended to
adjust the warehousing expenses, but it did not apply the warehousing
expenses adjustment correctly and instead deducted warehousing expenses
from consignment sales inadvertently.
    Aichi argues that the Department should deduct warehousing expenses
from all home market sales because, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(e)(2), the Department no longer makes the distinction between
pre-sale and post-sale warehousing in granting this adjustment. The
fact that warehousing occurred before sale date on consignment sales is
irrelevant according to Aichi. Therefore, Aichi requests that the
Department apply the warehousing adjustment to all home market sales.
    Department's Position: In our preliminary results we added
warehousing expenses to movement expenses on consignment sales
unintentionally although we intended to add warehousing expenses to
movement expenses for non-consignment sales. However, we did not
confirm at verification, as the petitioners contend, that the
warehousing expenses do not apply to products warehoused prior to sale.
At verification we confirmed that, as Aichi stated in its Section B
questionnaire response, page 36, the warehousing-expense adjustment
applies only to non-consignment transactions. See analysts'
Verification Report dated Dec. 21, 1998, in Room B099 of the main
Commerce building. Furthermore, Aichi states that it has reported
information to distinguish between invoice numbers for consignment
sales and invoice numbers for sales involving pre-sale warehousing. In
its questionnaire response, Section B, page 12 (May 12, 1998), Aichi
provided information which indicates clearly that pre-sale warehousing
did not occur on any consignment sales. We examined the home market
database and found this to be the case. In addition, in Section A of
its response, page 29, the respondent stated that it did not incur
post-sale warehousing expenses for consignment sales. Therefore, in our
calculations we have added warehousing expenses to the build-up of
movement expenses for all sales except consignment sales, as we
intended to do in the preliminary results of review.
Comment 7: Miscellaneous Programming Error
    The petitioners contend that, in assigning exchange rates to all
home market sales, the Department neglected to consolidate the home
market dates of sale. It urges the Department to correct this error and
provides a suggestion for doing so.
    Aichi argues that, contrary to the petitioners' argument, there is
no error in the Department's application of exchange rates. Although
the Department introduces the exchange-rate database early in the
computer program, Aichi states that it is appropriate that the
Department never merges the exchange-rate database with the home market
database and merges it with the U.S. sales database at a later stage in
the program.
    Department's Position: There was no error in our exchange-rate
calculations. Since we do not merge the exchange-rate database with the
home market database, no error occurs. Rather, we merge the exchange
rates with the U.S. sales database at a later stage in the program. As
a result, no change is necessary.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine
a weighted-average margin of 6.62 percent for Aichi for the period
February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998.
    The Customs Service will assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service. We have calculated an
exporter/customer-specific assessment value for subject merchandise
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated
for the examined sales to the total entered value of sales examined.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirement shall be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all
shipments of SSB from Japan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for Aichi Steel
Corporation will be 6.62 percent; (2) for previously investigated or
reviewed companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this or any
previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer
is a firm covered in this review, the cash-deposit rate will continue
to be 61.47 percent, the ``all-others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation (59 FR 66930, December 28, 1994).
    The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility

[[Page 36338]]

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 25, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-17049 Filed 7-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P