67 FR 6682, February 13, 2002 A-583-831 ARP:6/8/99-6/30/00 Public Document IA/III/OIX: LL/MM/SS/DC February 4, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: Faryar Shirzad Assistant Secretary for Import Administration FROM: Joseph A. Spetrini Deputy Assistant Secretary AD/CVD Enforcement Group III SUBJECT: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils ("SSSS") from Taiwan SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce ("the Department") published its notice of preliminary results of antidumping administrative review of SSSS in coils from Taiwan on August 8, 2001. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ("Preliminary Results"), 66 FR 41509 (August 8, 2001). We have analyzed the case briefs and rebuttal briefs of interested parties in this review. As a result of our analysis, we have made changes from the preliminary results. The specific calculation changes for Yieh United Steel Corporation ("YUSCO") can be found in Analysis for the Final Results in the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan - Yieh United Steel Corporation ("YUSCO") (February 4, 2002) ("YUSCO Final Analysis Memorandum") and the changes for Tung Mung Development Corporation ("Tung Mung") can be found in Analysis for the Final Results in the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan - Tung Mung Development Corporation ("Tung Mung") (February 4, 2002) ("Tung Mung Final Analysis Memorandum"). We recommend that you approve the positions we have developed in the "Discussion of the Issues" section of this memorandum. Below is the complete list of the issues in this administrative review for which we received in the comment and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Issues with Respect to YUSCO Comment 1: Knowledge of Destination of Sales Comment 2: Customer Category and Channel of Distribution Comment 3: Tolled Sales Comment 4: Home Market Credit Expenses Comment 5: Date of Payment Comment 6: U.S. Credit Expenses Comment 7: Inland Transportation Comment 8: Home Market Rebates Comment 9: Home Market Warranty Expenses Comment 10: Packing Expenses Comment 11: U.S. Brokerage and Handling Expenses Comment 12: Different Width Basis for Reporting Sales and Cost Comment 13: Interest Expense Comment 14: Lack of Sales During the POR Comment 16: Collapsing of YUSCO and its Affiliates in the Home Market Comment 17: Basis for Revocation Issues with Respect to Tung Mung Comment 18: Use of Surrogate Control Numbers ("CONNUMs") Comment 19: Estimated Outstanding Material Purchase Discounts Comment 20: Auditor's Adjustment, General and Administrative Expenses ("G&A"), and Interest Expense Comment 21: G&A Expense Comment 22: Basis for Revocation Issues with Respect to Chia Far Comment 23: Affiliation via a Principal/Agent Relationship Comment 24: Use of adverse facts available ("AFA") Comment 25: Fairness of the Proceedings Comment 26: Untimely Submission of Factual Information Comment 27: Partial AFA Comment 28: Reimbursement Comment 29: Applicability of the AFA Rate Comment 30: Release of Business Proprietary Information Issues with Respect to Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. ("Ta Chen") Comment 31: The Rescission of Ta Chen Based on our analysis of comments received, we made changes in the margin calculation for YUSCO, Tung Mung and Chia Far. The changes are listed below: YUSCO • We removed the tolled sales from the home market database before calculating the antidumping duty margin. • We revised the calculation of home market credit in arm's length program to reflect the calculation of credit in the model match program. Tung Mung • For models sold in the home market during the POR, but produced prior to the POR, we revised the cost database to reflect the cost of production ("COP") information reported for the most similar CONNUMs according to the Department's model match hierarchy. • We revised our calculation of material costs to eliminate the amount of the estimated outstanding material purchase discount included in the cost of manufacturing. • We revised the calculation of cost of goods sold ("COGS") used in the denominator of the auditor's adjustment, (1) G&A expenses, and interest expense factors to eliminate the total factory-wide cost of packing during the POR. Chia Far • We revised the AFA rate applicable to Chia Far to eliminate the impact of middleman dumping from the margins calculated for YUSCO during the original investigation. Issues with Respect to YUSCO Comment 1: Knowledge of Destination of Sales Petitioners contend that YUSCO's classification of sales by market is so inaccurate, incomplete and imprecise that the Department was unable to fairly conduct a dumping analysis based on the information submitted on the record. Petitioners argue that the proper classification of the sales market in this case can be derived from section 772(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a)), the provision of the statute (2) in which the Department is instructed to determine whether a producer knew or should have known, at the time of sale, whether or not the subject merchandise was exported. According to petitioners, the Department considers the knowledge of the producer at the time of sale, since it is at this time that the producer decides whether to engage in price discrimination. Petitioners further argue that the Court of International Trade ("CIT") in Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. v. United States ("Tung Mung"), Slip Op. 01-83, July 3, 2001; and Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States ("Allegheny Ludlum"), Slip Op. 00-170, December 28, 2000, ruled that knowledge of destination is not limited to actual knowledge, but also includes imputed knowledge. (3) Petitioners contend that the Department applied AFA to YUSCO in the original less-than-fair-value investigation ("the original investigation") of SSSS from Taiwan, because YUSCO could not accurately classify the destination of its sales by market or end use using its internal sales order system. See, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Taiwan, 64 FR 30592, 30598 (June 8, 1999) ("SSSS from Taiwan"). Petitioners contend that because YUSCO relied on the same internal sales order system in the current review, the Department should also apply AFA to YUSCO' s sales. According to petitioners, YUSCO knew or had reason to know that certain sales exported to third countries were misclassified as home market sales for the purposes of the current antidumping duty review. Petitioners contend that YUSCO erroneously classified all UZ (4) and U* (5) sales as home market sales. Petitioners explain that YUSCO identified UZ sales as sales to unaffiliated customers in the home market, who further manufactured the merchandise for export to third countries, without specifying to the Department whether the further processed merchandise remained within the scope of the order. (6) Similarly, petitioners contend that YUSCO identified U* sales as sales to unaffiliated customers in the home market who "possibly further manufactured the SSSS and then exported it to third countries." (7) As a result of the overlap in these definitions, petitioners contend that YUSCO's internal sales order system fails to consider whether the merchandise was consumed in the home market. Consequently petitioners claim that all UZ and U* sales have been potentially misclassified. Therefore, petitioners argue that YUSCO should manually reclassify all of its UZ and U* sales as either home market sales, or exported subject merchandise. Petitioners also contend that the Department discovered at verification that YUSCO records the information required to accurately classify sales according to their destination and end use in the normal course of business, but withheld this information from the Department. Petitioners contend that YUSCO's reliance on its sales order classification system results in a continued misreporting of sales. Petitioners contend that YUSCO reported certain sales that it made to the United States as home market sales because YUSCO learned, after the time of sale, that the merchandise was exported by its affiliate as non-subject merchandise. Petitioners claim the actual or imputed knowledge of destination at the time of sale, rather than after the sale, should govern the classification of home market or U.S. sales, because, petitioners contend, price discrimination occurs at the time of sale. Petitioners further contend that YUSCO selectively disclosed knowledge of the further manufacturing activities of its affiliated customer in the home market, Yieh Mau Corporation ("Yieh Mau"), on a limited number of sales. It further contends that YUSCO's inability to identify the further manufacturing activities of Yieh Mau is implausible, given the amount of information that YUSCO has retained in its records concerning similar sales to its other affiliated parties. Petitioners further contend that YUSCO's claim that it does not have knowledge of the further manufacturing activities of Yieh Mau is implausible, as the Department discovered at verification that YUSCO records information concerning the end use application of its products on an internal order form. Petitioners contend that YUSCO intentionally misclassified the UZ database as home market sales because the unaffiliated customers reported at the time of sale that these sales were destined for export. Petitioners further contend that YUSCO knows the destination of these sales, and it knows which sales as a result of further manufacturing were exported as non-subject merchandise. Petitioners base this allegation on YUSCO's response in its April 13, 2001, supplemental questionnaire response that it knows the business of its non-affiliated customers, and has long-term relationships with them. Petitioners contend that it is not clear whether the sales included in the U* database represent home market sales, third-country sales or U.S. sales, and that YUSCO withheld information that it maintains in the normal course of business indicating the destination and end use of these sales. As a result of these misclassification of sales by destination, petitioners argue that YUSCO has not cooperated to the best of its ability and that the Department should resort to total AFA for the purpose of these final results of review. YUSCO argues that petitioners' claim that the Department should resort to AFA must be rejected. YUSCO contends that it properly reported all home market sales, in light of the Department's and the CIT's affirmative statements from the original investigation. YUSCO contends that certain YUSCO sales (e.g., UZ and U* sales), which YUSCO did not report in the original investigation, were later determined by the Department and the CIT to be home market sales. See Allegheny Ludlum v. United States, Slip Op. 00-170 (Dec. 28, 2000), 2000 WL 33374487, at pages 7, 9, and 12. YUSCO argues that it is, therefore, disingenuous for petitioners to argue that these same sales were improperly included in the home market sales database for the instant review. Consequently, YUSCO contends that all of its verification corrections were minor and in conformity with the standards for minor corrections set for in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30664, 30680 (June 8, 1999), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut to Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Japan, 64 FR 73215, 73234 (December 29, 1999). YUSCO argues that it has reported the complete universe of sales that could arguably be classified as home market sales, despite its disagreement that certain of these reported sales should be classified, under the appropriate legal standard, as third-country export sales. YUSCO, therefore, provided separate datasets in the event that the Department agrees that certain categories of sales should be classified as third-country export sales, rather than home market sales. YUSCO recognizes, in light of the CIT's decision in Allegheny Ludlum, issued after YUSCO's initial section B and C response, that YUSCO's arguments that sales should be categorized as third-country sales have been rejected upon appeal. Department's Position: We agree that YUSCO has appropriately and accurately reported the complete universe of home market sales required to calculate a dumping margin. First, by reporting all of its U* and UZ sales in addition to its D (8) sales, YUSCO rectified the reporting deficiencies of the original investigation, where it did not report sales in the home market destined for export, either as subject or further-manufactured, non-subject merchandise. Furthermore, YUSCO reported these sales in compliance with the Department's April 24, 2001, supplemental questionnaire, Antidumping Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Questionnaire regarding Designation of Home Market Sales, and the CIT's decision issued in Allegheny Ludlum. Furthermore, at verification, we conducted extensive tests of YUSCO's reported home market databases in order to ascertain the accuracy and completeness of YUSCO's reporting. We noted on page 12 of the Sales Verification of Yieh United Steel Corporation ("YUSCO") in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan ("YUSCO Verification Report") dated July 20, 2001, that we found no discrepancies at verification. Therefore, we disagree with petitioners that YUSCO's reporting method results in a misreporting or misclassification of sales. We further note that petitioners did not provide any evidence that any sales were actually misclassified, but rather argued that some sales could possibly be misclassified. Therefore, we disagree that we should resort to total AFA for the purpose of these final results of review. Comment 2: Customer Category and Channel of Distribution Petitioners argue that YUSCO's failure to willingly and accurately report the customer category and channel of distribution in its home market prevents the Department from accurately calculating normal values based on sales made in the foreign market at the same level of trade as the constructed export price or export price sales. Because level of trade involves the consideration of a number of factors, including customer category and channel of distribution, petitioners argue that the home market database is "irreparable" and should be disregarded for the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin. Petitioners contend that this failure prohibits the Department from making accurate matches between home market and U.S. market sales, and would consequently skew the calculated dumping margin. YUSCO argues that level of trade determinations are not made on the basis of customer category or channel of distribution alone, but also on the basis of differences in selling functions. YUSCO states that no substantial differences exist in the selling activities in the home market. YUSCO also points out that it only reported one level of trade in the home market and did not request any level of trade adjustment. By virtue of the non-distinction of selling activities in the home market, YUSCO argues that any designation regarding channel of distribution or customer category is irrelevant. Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that YUSCO did not appropriately report its customer category and channel of distribution in the home market database as we stated on page 16 of the YUSCO Verification Report. However, the lack of such information did not hinder the level of trade analysis in the Preliminary Results. Our Preliminary Results examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and home markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses. In the home market, YUSCO reported only one level of trade, selling through one single channel of distribution in the HM from its plant to local distributors. See Preliminary Results at 41516 and YUSCO's October 30, 2001 Section B response at B-32. YUSCO also reported one level of trade for the U.S. market, selling through one channel of distribution: to an unaffiliated local distributor. See Preliminary Results at 41516 and YUSCO's October 30, 2001 Section C response at C-26. Our Preliminary Results examined the selling functions performed by YUSCO in the U.S. and home markets and determined that there was no significant difference in the selling functions performed in the HM and U.S. market. Therefore, for the final results of review, we will continue to use the home market database for the determination of normal value. Comment 3: Tolled Sales Petitioners argue that the home market database is further rendered unusable for the purposes of calculating a dumping margin as the result of YUSCO's inclusion of tolled sales in its home market sales database. Petitioners state that for such tolling operations, YUSCO cannot be considered a manufacturer or producer of the subject merchandise. Petitioners contend that the Department must reject the home market database in its entirety for the purpose of calculating a dumping margin since, according to petitioners, it is impossible to remove the tolled sales from the database prior to calculating a margin. YUSCO argues that it fully disclosed YUSCO's tolling operations in its sales volume and value reconciliation submitted prior to verification on June 8, 2001. YUSCO further claims that such sales are easily distinguishable by their gross unit price and that the Department confirmed at verification that these tolled sales were included in the home market database. Therefore, YUSCO argues that the Department should remove the tolled sales from the home market database before calculating the antidumping duty margin. Department's Position: We agree that YUSCO inappropriately included tolled sales in its home market database. Page 4 of the YUSCO Verification Report indicated that YUSCO included coils for which it performed tolling operations in its home market database. Our report noted that YUSCO did not either purchase, or sell the coils, but only processed them and then returned them to the owner. In addition, the YUSCO Verification Report noted that we found it appropriate to take the tolling services out of the HM database for the purpose of our calculations. We disagree with petitioners that it is impossible to remove these sales from the database. Therefore, for the final results of review, we are removing the tolled sales from the database before calculating the dumping margin. Comment 4: Home Market Credit Expenses Petitioners argue that YUSCO's reported date of shipment in the home market was inaccurate and that the Department should make adverse inferences with regard to home market credit expenses. Petitioners contend that the difference between the reported shipment dates and the actual shipment dates are so great that the possibility of a shipment date following payment date introduces potentially unreported negative credit expenses in the home market. Since this impacts the final normal value of the merchandise, petitioners argue that YUSCO's removal of its home market credit expense adjustment is not adequate. YUSCO contends that it properly reported the date of payment for the majority of its sales, that only a fraction of a percent of sales were shipped much later than reported, and that making adverse inferences is inappropriate. Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. We examined this issue extensively at verification and determined that, although the actual date of shipment was misreported in YUSCO's computer sales listing, the error was systematic. See YUSCO Verification Report at page 3. Furthermore, we noted that YUSCO withdrew its claim for a home market credit adjustment to normal value. See id. Therefore, in the preliminary results of review, in order to account for these errors, and to preclude YUSCO from receiving any benefit as a result of its erroneous reporting of the date of shipment, we calculated imputed credit as follows: we disallowed imputed credit for all sales with reported positive credit expenses; we added six days to the reported shipment date (i.e., scheduled shipment date); we recalculated credit expenses for sales with reported negative credit expense; and we assigned a zero credit value for sales with no reported date of payment. See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Analysis Memorandum for Yieh United Steel Corporation ("YUSCO"), dated July 31, 2001 ("YUSCO Preliminary Analysis Memorandum") at page 1. Therefore, since petitioners did not raise a single specific example where our calculations led to an erroneous or anomalous result, we will continue to calculate imputed credit as we did in the preliminary results of review, and we are making no changes to our calculations for the final results of review. Comment 5: Date of Payment Petitioners argue that YUSCO evaluated its rolling accounts receivable for each home market customer to determine the date of sale. Petitioners state that YUSCO reported the first date when the accounts receivable balance became positive as the date of payment. Petitioners contend that a positive account balance is not sufficient to consider a particular sale paid, and thus, the reported date of payment is wrong. YUSCO contests petitioners' characterization of the record. YUSCO argues that the Department's verification report clearly states that certain payment dates were based on the rolling accounts receivable balance of each home market customer. For multiple payments, YUSCO argues that it reported each date in its home market sales database. Therefore, according to YUSCO, the Department should reject petitioners' argument. Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Page 1 of the YUSCO Verification Report explains that YUSCO inappropriately determined that the date of payment for sales to any customer that had an accounts receivable credit balance was the first day that the accounts receivable balance became positive, whether or not the credit balance was sufficient to purchase a complete coil or not. The YUSCO Verification Report explained that YUSCO "assigned negative imputed credit to the sales purchased on the strength of an accounts receivable credit balance because the date of 'payment' occurred [sic] before the date of shipment." As we explained in Comment 4 above, we disallowed YUSCO's credit adjustment in the home market for the preliminary results of review. Therefore, for sales for which YUSCO reported negative credit expense, we recalculated imputed credit using the number of days between shipment and payment reported on the computer sales listing. We increased this number by 6 days to account for the error in YUSCO's reported date of shipment and applied the home market interest rate reported in its questionnaire response. See Exhibit 11 of YUSCO's October 30, 2000, Section B and C response. We are making no further changes to our calculations in the final results of this review. Comment 6: U.S. Credit Expenses Petitioners argue that because the Department rightfully declined to verify the submission of new interest rate calculation for its credit expenses, the Department could not verify YUSCO's U.S. short-term interest rate and its U.S. credit expenses. YUSCO did not address this issue in its October 1, 2001, rebuttal brief. Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. At the conclusion of the verification, we discovered that the daily value of the YUSCO's debits and credits with respect to the interest calculation presented in Verification Exhibit 26 did not match the information presented in the questionnaire response. As our verification report noted, YUSCO attempted to revise its calculation for interest expense. See YUSCO Verification Report at page 18. We declined to examine the new information presented at the conclusion of the verification. See YUSCO Verification Report at page 18. Therefore, for our preliminary results of review, we used the calculations for credit expense as presented in YUSCO's October 30, 2000, Section B and C response and we have made no changes for the final results of review. Comment 7: Inland Transportation Petitioners state that at verification, YUSCO introduced the existence of affiliated parties which provided inland freight services for YUSCO's shipments of subject merchandise. Because this information emerged at verification, petitioners argue that it is impossible to determine whether the services provided by the affiliates were made at arm's-length. Furthermore, petitioners argue that YUSCO failed to identify all of its affiliates as instructed in the Department's original Section A questionnaire. Therefore, the Department should make adverse inferences with regard to YUSCO. YUSCO argues petitioners are trying to characterize inland freight services as major inputs, which YUSCO contends is inappropriate in this instance. Furthermore, YUSCO contends that nothing on the record suggests that the transactions between the affiliates were not made at arm's- length, market-based prices. Furthermore, YUSCO contends that the relationship between itself and its affiliates is sufficiently attenuated (YUSCO contends that these companies are affiliates of YUSCO's affiliates) to call into question any claims of affiliation. Therefore, YUSCO contends that the Department should reject petitioners' argument. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO that an arm's-length analysis of freight expense is not warranted in this case. Furthermore, we have no basis to conclude that these transactions were not made at arm's-length. Therefore, we are making no changes to our calculation for the final results of review. Comment 8: Home Market Rebates Petitioners claim that YUSCO incorrectly overstated its home market rebates to include value-added taxes ("VAT"). Additionally, petitioners state that YUSCO reported home market quantity and other rebates in its data set when no rebate had been granted, hence overstating deductions from its home market price. Petitioners argue that this is further evidence of YUSCO's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability in the Department's review. YUSCO argues that YUSCO's home market database contained minor typographical errors pertaining to its home market rebates. YUSCO contends this does not constitute a failure to cooperate to the best of its ability and that the Department noted no discrepancies in this matter at verification. Department's Position: We agree that YUSCO inappropriately reported home market rebate expenses in its original computer sales listing. These errors included, among other things, the erroneous reporting of rebates on a VAT-inclusive basis. YUSCO addressed these errors in the minor corrections to its response prior to verification. See Verification Exhibit 1F of the YUSCO Verification Report. The Department examined these errors in detail during the verification. See page 6 of the YUSCO Verification Report. After verification, the Department requested YUSCO to revise its computer sales listing to reflect the pre-verification corrections that were submitted to the Department. The Department examined the revised computer sales listing and confirmed that the database reflected only the information that was provided in the minor corrections to the response prior to verification. See YUSCO Preliminary Analysis Memo Memorandum at page 2. Because the Department confirmed that the information provided in the minor corrections to the response was accurate, and that the information was properly reflected in the computer database used to calculate the preliminary results of review, we will make no changes to our final results of review. Comment 9: Home Market Warranty Expenses Petitioners argue that YUSCO misreported its home market warranty expenses since YUSCO incorrectly included in it a value added tax. Notwithstanding the correction at verification, petitioners argue that in combination with YUSCO's "other significant problems," YUSCO has not cooperated with the Department's review to the best of its ability. YUSCO argues that it cooperated fully with the Department's review and that any changes presented at verification were verified without discrepancy. YUSCO cites the verification report's statement that the Department found no warranties inappropriately reported or omitted. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO. We examined these revised expenses at verification and reported that YUSCO inadvertently reported its warranty expense on a VAT-inclusive basis. See YUSCO Verification Report at pages 4 through 6. In addition, we examined the other changes and discrepancies reported in the minor corrections to the response. Our report shows that there were no discrepancies between information presented in the minor corrections to the response and YUSCO's books and records. See YUSCO Verification Report at pages 4 through 6. As explained in Comment 8 above, we requested YUSCO to submit a revised database reflecting these changes, and we tested that database for accuracy prior to issuing the preliminary results of review. See YUSCO Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 2. Since our preliminary calculations accurately represent the verified warranty expense of YUSCO, we will make no changes to our final results of review. Comment 10: Packing Expenses Petitioners argue that YUSCO failed to include the cost of foreign labor, certain packing materials and steel scrap credit in the packing expense reported on the computer sales listing. In addition, petitioners claim that YUSCO incorrectly used the ordered packing quantity instead of the actual packing quantity. Furthermore, petitioners contend that YUSCO did not provide the Department with an opportunity to analyze the changes it submitted at verification. As a result, petitioners contend that this is a further example of YUSCO's failure to cooperate with the Department in this review. YUSCO argues that the Department did have an opportunity to verify YUSCO's changes to its reported packing expenses. YUSCO further argues that the Department uncovered no discrepancies at verification with regard to this subject and should hence, ignore petitioners' argument. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO. All of the expenses that petitioners are addressing were reported to the Department as minor corrections to the response prior to the beginning of verification. The Department examined them at length at verification and determined that there were no discrepancies between the information presented in the minor corrections to the response presented at verification and the company's books and records. See YUSCO Verification Report at pages 6 and 7. The Department asked YUSCO to provide a computer sales listing reflecting the minor corrections presented at verification, and confirmed that the revised sales listing accurately reflected those corrections. See YUSCO Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 3. Therefore, we will make no changes to our calculations for the final results of review. Comment 11: U.S. Brokerage and Handling Expenses Petitioners argue that YUSCO's reported U.S. brokerage and handling expenses are incorrect because they also include VAT. In combination with YUSCO's other problems, according to petitioners, YUSCO has not cooperated to the best of its ability in the Department's review. YUSCO argues that the Department reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of its minor change of brokerage and handling expenses at verification and found nothing to disallow YUSCO's recalculation of brokerage and handling. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO. YUSCO inadvertently reported its U.S. brokerage and handling expense on a VAT-inclusive basis. We examined these expenses at verification and reported that only a portion of the expenses were reported on VAT-inclusive basis. See YUSCO Verification Report at page 8. As explained in Comment 8 above, we requested YUSCO to submit a revised database, and we tested that database for accuracy prior to issuing the preliminary results of review. See YUSCO Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 2. Since our preliminary calculations accurately represent the verified U.S. brokerage and handling expenses of YUSCO, we will make no changes to our final results of review Comment 12: Different Width Basis for Reporting Sales and Cost Petitioners contend that YUSCO incorrectly reported the nominal width and thickness in the sales database and the actual width and thickness in the cost database, and thus, the variable cost of manufacturing ("VCOM") and the total cost of manufacturing ("TCOM") variables are incorrectly reported. Petitioners argue that this change does not qualify as minor as it not only affects the reporting of VCOM and TCOM but also affects the model match results. Petitioners argue that YUSCO has essentially introduced new VCOM and TCOM data which cannot be fully analyzed or assessed for reasonableness. Petitioners also argue that the Department apparently did not have an opportunity to test the accuracy of YUSCO's reported cost at verification and, therefore, the Department cannot rely on YUSCO's newly submitted VCOM and TCOM data. YUSCO argues that its minor correction did not constitute new VCOM information. YUSCO states that all properly matching data already existed on the record. Thus, YUSCO argues, it did not submit new information but rather clarified information previously submitted on the record. Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners that this error compromises the validity of YUSCO's VCOM and TCOM data for the purpose of determining the model match hierarchy in this review since the facts of this record indicate that all of YUSCO's U.S. sales were matched to identical merchandise in the home market. In addition, Verification Exhibit 17 indicates that the values for TCOM did not change as a result of this error. We disagree with YUSCO that this type of error constitutes a "minor correction" to the response. The verification report indicates that there was a significant difference between the information reported on the computer sales listing and the information presented at verification. See the YUSCO Verification Report at page 4. However, based on the record evidence in this review, this error had absolutely no impact on the margin calculations. Therefore, it was accepted as a "minor correction" to the response. As a result, we made no changes to our calculations for the final results of review. Comment 13: Interest Expense Petitioners argue that YUSCO misreported its interest expense because YUSCO derived it from its own financial statement, not the consolidated financial statements of the Yieh Group. Petitioners state that the Yieh Group, being a stock corporation, must issue financial statements for its shareholders and the Taiwanese Securities and Exchange Commission. Petitioners argue that because YUSCO withheld the consolidated financial statements of the Yieh Group, the Department cannot determine the interest expenses for costs. YUSCO argues that it correctly based its interest expenses on its own financial statements. It contests petitioners' assertion that YUSCO is a member of a consolidated group of companies and state that, furthermore, no consolidated financial statements exist for the Yieh Group. YUSCO further argues the Yieh Group is not a stock corporation, labeling such statements as "idle speculation." YUSCO states that the Department's verification report noted no discrepancies with respect to information presented in YUSCO's Section A response and further argues that the affiliated ownership listing, provided in the exhibits to the YUSCO Verification Report, shows that no affiliated entity owns sufficient shares in YUSCO for it to be consolidated within YUSCO's financial statements. Thus, YUSCO argues, the Department should reject petitioners' assertion that YUSCO misreported its interest expenses. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO. There is no information on the record to indicate that the Yieh Group issues consolidated financial statements or that the Yieh Group should be collapsed for the purpose of conducting this antidumping duty review. For our final results of review, we examined the proprietary record evidence concerning the relationship between YUSCO and various affiliates involved with the production and sales of subject merchandise, and concluded that they should not be collapsed for the purpose of calculating a dumping margin. See the Decision Memorandum: Whether to Collapse Yieh United Steel Corporation ("YUSCO") and Yieh Mau Corporation ("Yieh Mau") & [ * * * ] Into a Single Entity, dated February 4, 2002 ("Collapsing Memorandum"). Therefore, in the absence of information to the contrary, we are making no changes in our calculation of interest expense for our final results of review. Comment 14: Lack of Sales During the POR Petitioners argue that YUSCO did not make any U.S. sales during the POR. Petitioners claim that YUSCO issued government uniform invoices ("GUI") for its U.S. sales. Petitioners argue that YUSCO has claimed that export sales do not need GUIs in Taiwan, and therefore, petitioners contend that these sales must not be for export, or YUSCO would not have issued a GUI. Petitioners further contend that it is "odd and contradictory" for export sales to be transacted with GUIs for the purpose of avoiding a tax that only applies to home market sales. Petitioners also contend that the merchandise for the U.S. sales in question were shipped to a bonded warehouse, when the terms of sale were cost, insurance and freight ("CIF"). Petitioners contend that this information reveals that these sales were actually made to another middleman in Taiwan. Petitioners also contend that the surface defect inspection record ("SDIR") for the U.S. sales indicates that the merchandise may not in fact be subject merchandise and may not even be destined for the United States. As a result, petitioners argue that the Department should apply total AFA to YUSCO based on the record evidence which shows that YUSCO did not make any U.S. sales. YUSCO argues that it made direct sales to a U.S. market customer. YUSCO describes a variety of documents that constitute overwhelming documentation that YUSCO made direct sales to the U.S. during the POR. YUSCO further argues that the presence of a GUI does not suggest the document was strictly destined for the home market. YUSCO states that it can use the GUI, which is issued by a customs broker, to demonstrate to the relevant tax authorities that it did export the merchandise. YUSCO further contends that the fact that it avoided paying the VAT provides additional evidence that the merchandise was exported. YUSCO also argues that petitioners' interpretation of the information on the SDIR that indicates, in petitioners' opinion that the merchandise sold does not constitute subject merchandise and was not destined for the United States represents speculation on the part of petitioners. YUSCO claims that the Department successfully traced the coil numbers of the U.S. sales from the delivery notice to the mill certificate, which tied to the casting record, heat report and surface inspection report. According to YUSCO, the Department found no discrepancies between what YUSCO reported in Sections B and C and what was found at verification. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO. We examined all of the sales documentation with respect to YUSCO's U.S. sales during the POR which included: the order confirmation from YUSCO to the customer; international purchase order; sales contract; order acknowledgment; commercial sales invoice from YUSCO to the customer; shipping notice; packing list; transport bill of lading; government uniform invoice ("GUI") for inland freight; YUSCO inland freight payment request; customs broker payment request to YUSCO; GUI for brokerage and handling; export customs declaration documentation; GUI for international freight and container handling fees; YUSCO international freight checklist; GUI certificate fee invoice; inward remittance exchange memo/receipt; marine insurance notice showing payment by YUSCO for shipment of SSSS; mill certificates. See YUSCO Verification Report at pages 15 and 16. With the exception of a revised interest rate, we found no discrepancies with the information presented in the questionnaire response. Therefore, we will not change the characterization of YUSCO's U.S. sales for the final results of review. Comment 15: Middleman Dumping Petitioners direct the Department to its case brief with respect to Ta Chen, alleging the YUSCO engaged in middleman dumping during the POR. YUSCO argues that no record evidence exists of any middleman dumping during the course of this review. YUSCO contends that none of the conditions exist in this review that led to a finding of middleman dumping in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan, 64 FR 15493, (March 31, 1999) ("SSPC from Taiwan"). According to YUSCO, the evidence shows that it made a direct sale to a U.S. customer without the involvement of any middleman. YUSCO contends that the U.S. customer issued a purchase order directly to YUSCO and that other sales documents, including the order confirmation and sales contract, demonstrate that YUSCO negotiated directly with its U.S. customer. YUSCO also contends that it was paid directly by its U.S. customer in U.S. dollars, and that YUSCO signed an export declaration attesting to a shipment of SSSS from YUSCO to the United States. Therefore, YUSCO contends, the record evidence shows that the U.S. sales were not made through a middleman in Taiwan and that petitioners' request for a finding of middleman dumping is unsupported by the factual record and inconsistent with the Department's precedent. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO. The Department did not find any evidence that a middleman in Taiwan made any entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and did not find any evidence that YUSCO made sales of subject merchandise destined for the United States through a middleman in Taiwan. See YUSCO Verification Report at pages 9 and 10. Therefore, for the reasons explained by YUSCO in the comments above, we will not make a finding of middleman dumping in this review with respect to YUSCO. Comment 16: Collapsing of YUSCO and its Affiliates in the Home Market Petitioners argue that we should collapse YUSCO and certain affiliated parties in the home market. Petitioners argue that section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations requires two or more affiliated producers to be treated as a single entity where those producers have production facilities or similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and where the Secretary concludes that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. Petitioners contend that YUSCO and certain affiliates in the home market meet these criteria by their extensive commingling of the corporate operations. Petitioners contend that, in addition to finding an affiliation between the parties, the Department looks at other factors to determine whether two or more entities should be collapsed, including whether "(1) the companies are closely intertwined; (2) transactions take place between the companies; (3) the companies have similar types of production equipment, such that it would be unnecessary to retool either plant's facilities before implementing a decision to restructure either company's manufacturing priorities; and (4) the companies involved are capable, through their sales and production operations, of manipulating prices or affecting production decisions . . .. Petitioners contend that all of these factors need not be present for a determination to collapse affiliated entities as long as the parties are sufficiently related to present the possibility of price manipulation." (9) Petitioners contend that in this review, YUSCO and Yieh Mau have similar production facilities, such that retooling would not be required to shift production from one company to another. Petitioners contend that Yieh Mau polishes, grinds and otherwise further manufactures the SSSS that it acquires from YUSCO into different types of SSSS in coils, and cut-to- length steel. Petitioners contend that YUSCO also undertakes these processes so that YUSCO and Yieh Mau share similar production facilities that would not require any retooling to shift production. Similarly, petitioners contend that YUSCO should be collapsed with other affiliated parties which have similar production facilities, such that retooling would not be required to shift production from one company to another, and that YUSCO performs the same processes as its affiliated parties. Petitioners point out that in the original less than fair value investigation, the Department determined that YUSCO and Yieh Mau were affiliated parties under section 771(33)(A) of the Act. Petitioners contend that the Department found a significant degree of ownership by one family, which is involved in the management of both companies. See SSSS from Taiwan at 30606. Petitioners contend that this ownership and management arrangement continues to exist during this first administrative review, just as it did during the period of investigation ("POI"). Petitioners argue that the common and significant cross-ownership of Yieh Mau and YUSCO calls for a finding of affiliation in this review through corporate or family groupings, as directed by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 833 (1994) ("SAA"). Petitioners claim that affiliation exists through control factors such as stock ownership, management positions and board membership in instances of corporate or family groupings. Finally, petitioners argue that the Yieh Group publicly portrays its relationship with Yieh Mau as that of an affiliate on its corporate website: http://www.yieh.com/Yiehgroup.asp. For the foregoing reasons, petitioners contend that YUSCO and its affiliated parties including Yieh Mau are capable, through their sales and production operations, of manipulating prices or affecting production decisions, and therefore, are affiliated companies for the purposes of the Department's dumping analysis. YUSCO contends that there is no basis on the record to collapse YUSCO, Yieh Mau and certain affiliated parties in this review. YUSCO contends that section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations permit treating affiliated producers as a single entity only when they have production facilities to manufacture similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and where the Secretary concludes that there is significant potential for the manipulation of production or price. YUSCO contends that its production facilities differ significantly from those of its affiliated parties, which are incapable of producing stainless steel sheet and do not even have production equipment that could be retooled for the production of subject merchandise. YUSCO contends that the Department's regulations foresee collapsing entities that have production facilities for similar or identical products, but do not anticipate collapsing affiliated parties when they have facilities used in the further processing of subject merchandise. Thus, YUSCO contends that the Department should reject petitioners' claim that YUSCO and its affiliated parties be collapsed. Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners that YUSCO should be collapsed with Yieh Mau and certain affiliated parties. As we stipulated in our Collapsing Memorandum, we do not believe that the facts of this case warrant collapsing YUSCO with these affiliated parties. Our memorandum includes a comprehensive analysis of the familial and equity relationships among the companies, as well as an analysis of the production facilities and capabilities of each company. Our verification did not reveal any inconsistencies in the information submitted on the record concerning YUSCO's corporate structure, nor did it reveal any additional information that would lead one to collapse YUSCO with its affiliated parties. Therefore, since the record evidence in this case does not warrant collapsing YUSCO with its affiliated parties, and we will make no changes to our final results of review with regard to collapsing YUSCO and its affiliated parties. Comment 17: Basis for Revocation Petitioners argue that YUSCO did not make sales in the United States of subject merchandise in commercial quantities during the POR. Petitioners further argue that the Department should determine that the sales of subject merchandise during this POR were not made in commercial quantities so that YUSCO cannot rely on any de minimis or zero margins in this review as the basis of revocation of this antidumping duty order. YUSCO contends that this issue of revocation is not under consideration during this review and therefore, the Department should not make any determinations concerning commercial quantities or revocation until YUSCO requests revocation in the future. Department's Position: We agree with YUSCO that revocation is not a matter under consideration in this review, and consequently, we have not made a determination whether sales of subject merchandise were made in commercial quantities for the purposes of the final results of this review. Issues with Respect to Tung Mung Comment 18: Use of Surrogate CONNUMs Petitioners argue that Tung Mung understated the cost of manufacturing ("COM") for those products sold during the POR but produced prior to the POR by reporting as a surrogate COM, the COM for the most similar CONNUM. Petitioners contend that the CONNUMs Tung Mung identified as most similar do not in fact represent the most similar matches according to the Department's model match hierarchy. Therefore, petitioners contend that the Department should revise the COM for products that were sold during the POR but produced prior to the POR to reflect the costs of the most similar product produced during the POR according to the Department's model match criteria. Tung Mung argues that this issue is moot since none of the CONNUMs representing products sold during the POR, but produced prior to the POR, were used by the Department in its calculation of the preliminary results of review. Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that, for products sold during the POR but produced prior to the POR, Tung Mung reported surrogate CONNUMs that were not the most similar according to the Department's model match hierarchy. Therefore, using the Department's model match program, we identified the most similar model and replaced the reported model-specific per-unit cost of manufacturing ("TOTCOM") with the cost of the most similar model according to the model match hierarchy established for this case. See Tung Mung Final Analysis Memorandum at 2. We disagree with Tung Mung's claim that the issue is moot. While the home market models sold during the POR, but produced prior to the POR, are not used as comparison matches for U.S. sales during this review, we require accurate values for the cost of manufacturing in order to determine whether sales were made below cost and to measure the integrity of the entire home market database. Consequently, we are revising the TOTCOM for the models sold during the POR, but produced prior to the POR, to reflect the actual cost of the most similar model produced during the POR using the Department's model match hierarchy. Comment 19: Estimated Outstanding Material Purchase Discounts Petitioners argue that Tung Mung understated its cost of manufacturing by inappropriately reducing its material costs by the amount of estimated outstanding material purchase claims. Petitioners contend that the estimated outstanding material purchase claims refer to rebates on the price of certain raw materials that had been granted by the supplier but remained unpaid at the time of the verification. Petitioners contend that this rebate has not been acknowledged in Tung Mung's books and records, and is not permissible under Taiwan's General Agreement on Accounting Practices ("GAAP"), which prohibits the inclusion of uncertain income. Consequently, petitioners argue that the Department should correct Tung Mung's error by increasing the cost of the materials by the amount of the estimated outstanding material purchase claims on a grade-specific basis. Tung Mung argues that estimated outstanding material purchase claims are reported in Tung Mung's cost accounting system which is audited by independent auditors in accordance with the GAAP in Taiwan. Tung Mung claims that its cost accounting system operates on an accrual basis and that the estimated outstanding material purchase claims are recorded as accounts receivable. Tung Mung further argues that the Department examined Tung Mung's records with respect to the estimated outstanding material purchase claims at verification and did not indicate that this item was not verified. Consequently, Tung Mung argues that no changes to the cost of materials should be made in the final results of review with respect to the estimated outstanding material purchase claims. Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. In our March 28, 2001, supplemental questionnaire, we noted that Tung Mung's calculation of the purchase claim adjustment included the value of actual and estimated outstanding material purchase claims. In that supplemental questionnaire, we asked Tung Mung to recalculate the adjustment, and to adjust the computer database using only the amount of estimated outstanding material purchase claims that were actually paid during the POR. In its supplemental response of April 16, 2001, Tung Mung identified the amounts of the actual and estimated purchase claims, but did not recalculate the database as requested. In addition, at verification, Tung Mung presented Verification Exhibit 20a which identified the unpaid amount of the raw material purchase discount as a reconciling item between Tung Mung's cost accounting system and the cost of manufacturing database submitted to the Department. Thus, Tung Mung confirmed, as it stated in its April 16, 2001, supplemental responses, that it reduced its overall material cost of production by the amount of the actual and the estimated material purchase claims, which had not been paid during the POR. Page 19 of our Verification of Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. in the 1st Antidumping Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils ("SSSS") from Taiwan ("Tung Mung Verification Report") dated July 23, 2001, identifies both the actual and estimated outstanding material purchase claims included in Tung Mung's material cost calculation which are traced through Verification Exhibit 23 into the per-unit calculation of the cost of manufacturing reported on the computer database. We disagree with Tung Mung's characterization of our verification results with respect to the estimated outstanding purchase claims. We agree that these estimated outstanding claims are reflected in Tung Mung's books and records in accounts receivable, which by their nature, indicate that Tung Mung is anticipating, but has not received, payment for the item in question. Verification Exhibit 20a clearly indicates that these estimated outstanding material purchase claims are not included in the total actual cost of manufacturing reflected in Tung Mung's books and records during the POR, and our verification report also reflects the understanding that these outstanding claims have not been paid. Accordingly, we are increasing Tung Mung's per-unit direct material cost by the amount of the estimated outstanding material purchase claims on a grade-specific basis for the final results of review. See the Tung Mung Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for a proprietary description of the calculations. Comment 20: Auditor's Adjustment, G&A expenses, and Interest Expense Petitioners argue that Tung Mung erroneously calculated the per-unit amount of the auditor's adjustment, general and administrative ("G&A") expense, and interest expense. Petitioners claim that, in order to derive an expense factor applicable to TOTCOM, Tung Mung divided the total amount of the expense by the total COGS. Petitioners claim that this calculation understates the amount of the adjustment since the value of the TOTCOM recorded on the computer sales listing is reported on a packing-exclusive basis, whereas the COGS reported in the denominator includes packing expense. Therefore, petitioners contend that the expense factor for the auditor's adjustment, G&A expense and interest expense are understated. Therefore, petitioners contend that the Department should revise Tung Mung's calculation for the auditor's adjustment, G&A, and interest expense by increasing the per-unit TOTCOM (adjusted by corrections for the estimated outstanding material purchase claims) by the amount of per-unit packing reported on the computer sales listing for each CONNUM. Tung Mung agrees that TOTCOM and the COGS are not calculated on the same basis. However, Tung Mung disagrees that any adjustment should be applied to TOTCOM in the numerator, since, according to Tung Mung, adding packing to the numerator may lead to dumping margins where none otherwise exist. Rather, Tung Mung argues that the Department should deduct total packing expenses from the total COGS in order to put TOTCOM and the COGS on the same basis. Furthermore, Tung Mung contends that petitioners' proposed calculation is additionally inappropriate since, according to Tung Mung, the revised TOTCOM was obtained by multiplying Tung Mung's reported TOTCOM by the auditor's adjustment factor and would double count the auditor's adjustment. Department's position: We agree with petitioners and Tung Mung that the COGS and TOTCOM should be calculated on the same basis. Therefore, to recalculate the expense factors for the auditor's adjustment, G&A, and interest, we have adjusted the reported COGS to eliminate the total amount of packing expenses as reported for Tung Mung's stainless steel division in Exhibit C-22 of Tung Mung's March 7, 2001, supplemental response. We disagree with Tung Mung that petitioners' proposed formula would result in double counting of the auditor's adjustment. Petitioners' case brief indicates that they expect the revised auditor's adjustment, G&A, and interest expense factors to be applied to TOTCOM, adjusted for the material purchase discount, rather than adjusted by the auditor's adjustment, as we did in the preliminary results of review. Therefore, for the final results of review, we are revising the COGS used in the denominator of auditor's adjustment, G&A, and interest expenses factor calculation. For a description of the formulas and values used, see the Tung Mung Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Comment 21: G&A Expense Petitioners claim that Tung Mung made several additional errors in its G&A expense calculation, resulting in an understatement of the G&A ratio used to calculate the G&A amount reported in Tung Mung's cost data set. Petitioners argue that Tung Mung incorrectly offset the G&A expenses for "other-other income-gain on market recovery of inventories." Petitioners claim that this amount is not reflected in Tung Mung's financial statements. Petitioners contend that since this line item does not correspond to any of the expenses included in Tung Mung's non-operating revenue or G&A expenses reported in Exhibits D-6 and D-7 of Tung Mung's February 27, 2001, supplemental response, it is not reflected in Tung Mung's financial statements. Therefore, according to petitioners, the Department must deduct the amount from the G&A total and recalculate the overall G&A factor. Tung Mung argues that the item "Other - Other Income - Gain on Market Recovery of Inventories" appears in Tung Mung's financial statements and claims the amount is included in the net value of "Loss on Market Decline of Inventory" under the category of "Non-Operating Expenses." Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners that G&A expenses were inappropriately reduced by the amount of expenses included in the category of "other-other income-gain on market recovery of inventory." At verification, we tested the accuracy of Tung Mung's G&A expense. We tied these amounts from the figures reported in the questionnaire response to Tung Mung's financial statements. We examined the items reported as G&A expenses (in Verification Exhibit 30) to determine whether all items were appropriately included in, or excluded from, Tung Mung's G&A calculation. We selected a number of line items of G&A expense recorded in Verification Exhibit 30 and traced them into the financial statements and other books and records. Throughout our examination of Tung Mung's calculation of G&A expense, we noted no discrepancies and found no reason to question the reliability, completeness or integrity of the questionnaire response. In accord with section 351.307(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, we did not specifically examine the expense line item raised by petitioners in their September 21, 2001, case brief. Our verification of G&A expenses revealed no discrepancies in the reported data or inconsistencies in Tung's methodology for calculating G&A, therefore we will not address any subsequent allegations that the reported expenses do not tie to the financial statements. Thus, we will make no further changes to our calculations for purposes of this review. Comment 22: Basis for Revocation Petitioners argue that the quantity of the merchandise Tung Mung sold in the United States during the POR did not constitute commercial quantities. Petitioners further contend that the Department should determine that the sales of subject merchandise during this POR were not made in commercial quantities so that Tung Mung cannot rely on any de minimis or zero margins in this review as the basis of revocation of this antidumping duty order. Tung Mung argues that the amount of merchandise it sold in the United States constituted commercial quantities. Tung Mung argues that petitioners cited no precedent or regulation supporting a minimum threshold quantity for commercial quantity determination. In addition, Tung Mung argues that its quantity of sales to the United States during the POR of subject merchandise exceed any minimal amount required by the Department. Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners and Tung Mung that revocation is a matter under consideration in this review. We agree with Tung Mung that neither the Act nor the Department's regulations require the Department to determine whether Tung Mung's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR constitute commercial quantities for the purpose of revocation in an indefinite, future review. Therefore, for purposes of the final results of this review, we are not making a determination as to whether Tung Mung's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR constitute commercial quantities for the purposes of revocation. Issues with Respect to Chia Far Comment 23: Affiliation via a Principal/Agent Relationship Petitioners argue that the record of this review indicates that Chia Far and a certain U.S. customer whose identity is proprietary are affiliated via a principal/agent relationship. Petitioners claim that a document which they submitted on the record irrefutably demonstrates that Chia Far entered into a principal/agent relationship with a certain U.S. customer. Additionally, petitioners claim that other evidence on the record affirms the principal/agent relationship, specifically arguing that the certain U.S. customer made the principal/agent relationship known to the metal- buying public through its promotional literature distributed in the United States for a period of time including the POR. Chia Far argues that the record does not show that an affiliation existed between Chia Far and this certain U.S. customer. Chia Far contends that the document petitioners submitted on June 18, 2001, showing affiliation between Chia Far and a certain U.S. customer, does not apply to the POR. According to Chia Far, the relationship set forth in that document ended prior to the POR, and that the Department's reliance on this document to establish affiliation ignores substantial record evidence. Chia Far claims that they presented commission ledgers at verification, showing the absence of commission payments to the certain U.S. customer during the POR, and that these ledgers are more relevant in this case since they post- date the document submitted by the petitioners. 12 In addition, Chia Far contends that the fact pattern established in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Engineered Process Gas Turbo-Compressor Systems, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, and Whether Complete or Incomplete, from Japan ("Gas Turbo Compressors"), 62 FR 24392, 24402-24403 (May 5, 1997), upon which the Department relied in its preliminary determination, is different from the case at hand. Chia Far argues that in Gas Turbo-Compressors, the producer corresponded with the end-customer directly, controlled the material terms of sale, and answered questions from the end-customer directly. Furthermore, Chia Far states that in Gas Turbo-Compressors, the reseller did not have the authority to negotiate sales to the end-customer and that the price quoted by the producer to the end-customer and the price from the agent to the end-customer were not significantly different. Furthermore, Chia Far maintains that the criteria used by the Department to determine affiliation do not meet the legal requirements as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency, section 12-14 (1957), which states that a principal/agent relationship exists if: (1) the agent has the authority to alter the principal's legal relationship to third parties; (2) the agent has a fiduciary duty to the principal or acts primarily for the benefit of the principal; and (3) the principal has the right to control the conduct of the agent with respect to matters entrusted to him. As described above, Chia Far contends that its relationship with the certain U.S. customer meets none of the criteria. Chia Far further argues that the Department ignores the facts on the record which show that a normal reseller business relationship exists between the certain U.S. customer and Chia Far. Chia Far claims that the certain U.S. customer did not contact Chia Far on the end-customer's behalf, forward price quotes from Chia Far to the end-customer, and negotiate price with Chia Far on the end-customer's behalf. Furthermore, Chia Far asserts that the Department verified that Chia Far never negotiated with the end-customer, never sold directly to the end- customers, and never paid commission to the certain U.S. customer during the POR. Chia Far contends that technical and warranty-related correspondences represent normal reseller business practices and that the certain U.S. customer took title to and paid for the merchandise; commercial practices which it claims represent standard agency practices. Additionally, Chia Far asserts that the Department's analysis fails to distinguish the certain U.S. customer in this case from other resellers in other cases in which the Department reviews a customer that does not claim to be affiliated with a producer. Chia Far further claims that the record also shows that other customers also contacted Chia Far on behalf of end- customers, but in these instances, the Department did not determine that Chia Far was affiliated with these customers. While Chia Far acknowledges that the certain U.S. customer does not maintain inventory, Chia Far argues that there are numerous other resellers who do not stock in the United States whom the Department has not considered to be affiliated with the producer from whom they buy, and as such, the certain U.S. customer is not different since it is not affiliated with Chia Far. Department's Position: Upon review of the administrative record, we continue to believe that Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer are affiliated. In particular, we believe that a principal/agent relationship exists between the two parties. On June 18, 2001, petitioners submitted a document establishing the existence of a principal/agent relationship between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer which, on its face, indicates a principal/agent relationship started at one point in time. This document did not specify an effective ending date of the relationship. As explained in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Engineered Process Gas Turbo-Compressor Systems, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, and Whether Complete or Incomplete, from Japan ("Gas Turbo Compressors"), 62 FR 24392, 24402-24403 (May 5, 1997), the Department may examine a range of criteria to determine if an agency relationship exists. For example, the Department may look at (1) the foreign producer's role in negotiating price and other terms of sale; (2) the extent of the foreign producer's interaction with the U.S. customer; (3) whether the agent/reseller maintains inventory; (4) whether the agent/reseller takes title to the merchandise and bears the risk of loss; (5) whether the agent/reseller further processes or otherwise adds value to the merchandise; (6) the means of marketing a product by the producer to the U.S. customer in the pre-sale period; and (7) whether the identity of the producer on sales documentation inferred such an agency relationship during the sales transactions. See id at 24403. The record evidence strongly suggests that Chia Far controlled the terms of sale not only to its U.S. customer, but also through this customer to the end-purchaser. Communications between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer show a degree of knowledge and control which strongly supports the determination of a principal/agent relationship. At verification, the Department examined the correspondence files regarding material terms of sale between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer which identified the end-customer. See Verification of Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. in the 1st Antidumping Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils ("SSSS") from Taiwan ("Chia Far Verification Report") dated July 11, 2001, at pages 5-6. The Department noted that a review of the relevant commercial documents indicated Chia Far's identity is always known by the end-customer during the sales process. See id. This correspondence documents a process of negotiation in which Chia Far played an active role with the end customer, many of which were documents from the end-customer forwarded to Chia Far by the certain U.S. customer. See id. The certain U.S. customer also referred technical questions and warranty claims from end-customers to Chia Far, and in one noted case, offered to explore a quality claim for Chia Far. See id. at 6. Additionally, Chia Far made substantial contact with some of the certain U.S. customer's end-customers during the POR. Moreover, the certain U.S. customer does not maintain inventory or further manufacture or add value to the merchandise, but operates as a go-through by selling and shipping the goods Chia Far produces to end-customers. Additionally, the Department determines that the record of this review does not contain evidence which supports Chia Far's claim that the relationship established by the document submitted by petitioners was invalid during the POR. At verification, the Department invited Chia Far to submit documents on the record which would demonstrate that the principal/agency relationship established by petitioners' June 18, 2001, submission ended prior to POR. However, no such documents were ever submitted to the Department. Chia Far's assertion that the absence of commission payments to a certain U.S. customer proves that a principal/agent relationship did not exist during the POR does not provide persuasive evidence that the two parties were not affiliated via a principal/agent relationship. As stated in its preliminary results of review, the Department employs many criteria in analyzing whether a principal/agent relationship exists, none of which deal specifically or solely with commission payments. See Preliminary Results at page 41512. Contrary to Chia Far's assertions, this fact pattern closely matches that of Gas Turbo-Compressors. In both cases, the producer indirectly communicated with the end-customer over the material terms of sale; the producer's identity was known by end-customer; and the producer did not have direct communication with the end-customer concerning commercial matters prior to or after the sale (In Gas Turbo-Compressors, direct communication was limited to post-sale technical questions due to the complex and unique nature of the merchandise in that case). See Gas Turbo- Compressors at 24401 and our Chia Far Verification Report at pages 5-6. Furthermore, as in Gas Turbo-Compressors, even though a certain U.S. customer took title to the merchandise and bore the risk of loss, the totality of the circumstances indicate that a principal/agent relationship existed between Chia Far and the U.S. customer. Additionally, the criteria set forth in Gas Turbo-Compressors and used by the Department in its preliminary determination are intended to be considered together in order to capture the "totality of the circumstance" and not as independent affirmative indicators of a principal/agent relationship. See Gas Turbo-Compressors at 24403. Therefore, whether a reseller maintains inventory is significant in the context of its other business practices with the producer. Moreover, the Department's analysis distinguishes the relationship between the certain U.S. customer and Chia Far from Chia Far's relationships with its other U.S. customers. No evidence exists on the record of a principal/agent relationship between Chia Far and its other U.S. customers. Therefore, the existence of a document which, on its face, indicates that the principal/agent relationship between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer exists, not only authenticates petitioners' allegation, but, in addition to the criteria listed above, distinguishes the relationship between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer from Chia Far's relationships with its other U.S. customers. While Chia Far's other U.S. customers may have also negotiated on behalf of their end-customers, these communications do not divulge Chia Far's or the end-customer's identity to each other. Furthermore, the correspondence between Chia Far and its other U.S. customers does not indicate that Chia Far contacted any end-customers or that Chia Far participated in negotiating the material terms of sale with end-customers. See Chia Far Verification Report at page 8. Chia Far's other customers also maintained inventory, clearly distinguishing them from the certain U.S. customer who did not. See id at page 8. Based on the petitioners' June 18, 2001, submission establishing evidence of a principal/agent relationship between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer, the communications between Chia Far, end-customers, and this customer, and the record evidence as discussed above, the Department determines that the Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer are affiliated via a principal/agent relationship in accordance with Section 771(33). Comment 24: Use of Total Adverse Facts Available ("AFA") Chia Far maintains that it provided truthful answers to all requests for information to the Department. Chia Far claims that the Department never notified Chia Far that a response was deficient or that further non- compliance or deficiencies would lead to the use of AFA as required by 782(d) of the Act. See Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products form Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Order Review of the Suspension Agreement, 66 FR 41500, 41502-41503 (August 8, 2001). Thus, Chia Far contends that the Department has a responsibility to allow a respondent to remedy a deficient response as it did in Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value & Postponement of Final Determination, 66 FR 8283 (January 30, 2001) ("Rebar from Latvia"), where Chia Far claims the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requiring the respondent to report downstream U.S. sales after determining the respondent was affiliated with one of its customers. Moreover, Chia Far argues that the Department could have issued a supplemental questionnaire after the preliminary determination as the Department did in Stainless Steel Bar from France: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 66 FR 40201, 40203 (August 2, 2001) ("SS Bar from France"), which would have allowed Chia Far to remedy any deficiency in its response. In addition, Chia Far argues that its responses did not mislead, nor did it prevent the Department from timely exploring the issue of affiliation via a principal/agent relationship. Citing the Department's criteria that knowledge of the end-customer's identity is one indication of a principal/agent relationship, Chia Far contends that its Section A and Supplemental A responses provided the Department with notice that it should explore whether a principal/agent relationship existed between Chia Far and its customers. Therefore, Chia Far argues that the Department cannot claim that it made numerous requests for constructed export price ("CEP") sales information which Chia Far did not meet. Though Chia Far states that one statement in its response was misleading, Chia Far affirms the veracity of the statement for the POR which it claims is all that is relevant in this proceeding. Moreover, Chia Far maintains that this statement and others like it at verification were not made in any attempt to mislead the Department. Rather, Chia Far asserts that these statements were made because Chia Far could not remember the existence of a document establishing a principal/agent relationship since it was signed long ago. Therefore, Chia Far argues that it has cooperated to the best of its ability and thus, the use of facts available or AFA is unwarranted. Chia Far argues that because it provided verified data for all U.S. sales to all other U.S. customers, the Department must calculate a dumping margin on these sales and apply partial facts available to sales to the certain U.S. customer. Petitioners contend that the Department correctly applied total AFA to Chia Far. Petitioners argue that the record indicates that affiliation exists in the form of a principal/agent relationship between Chia Far and a certain U.S. customer, and therefore, Chia Far should have classified all sales to this customer as CEP and reported the downstream sale to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Petitioners further contend that Chia Far has purposely withheld and mischaracterized information concerning its relationship with a certain U.S. customer by denying that it is affiliated. However, since Chia Far classified these sales as export price ("EP") sales, petitioners state that the Department does not have the sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, and therefore use of adverse facts is warranted. Petitioners state that since Chia Far did not submit its CEP sales by the deadlines governing this review, Chia Far significantly impeded the Department's efforts in this review to calculate an accurate dumping margin. Moreover, petitioners state that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677m(d), the Department has afforded Chia Far numerous opportunities to revise its response to disclose its affiliation with the certain U.S. customer and report CEP sales. Therefore, under 19 U.S.C. 1677e(a)(2) and 19 U.S.C.1677e(b), petitioners state that the Department has correctly applied AFA as Chia Far has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with a request by the Department. Department's Position: A. The Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that "if an interested party or any other person--(A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title." The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the Department may resort to the facts available. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. The Department had no reason to believe or suspect that Chia Far and a certain U.S. customer were affiliated until petitioners submitted persuasive evidence of a principal/agent relationship on the record. Chia Far has consistently maintained throughout the course of this review that it is not affiliated with the certain U.S. customer. In its initial and supplemental responses, Chia Far claimed that it was not affiliated with any U.S. customers and reported EP sales. On May 4, 2001, petitioners alleged that Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer were affiliated via a principal/agent relationship. Chia Far responded on May 17, 2001, stating explicitly that Chia Far was not affiliated, either operationally or contractually, with the certain U.S. customer. The Department then issued a supplemental questionnaire based on petitioners' allegation and Chia Far's rebuttal to the allegation, specifically exploring if a principal/agent relationship existed and the nature of Chia Far's relationship with the certain U.S. customer. This questionnaire also provided Chia Far an opportunity to report CEP sales. Chia Far responded on June 4, 2001, by stating that Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer were not affiliated and denying that any principal/agent relationship existed. Chia Far also did not report CEP sales. On June 18, 2001, petitioners submitted a rebuttal response containing a document establishing evidence of a principal/agent relationship between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer. Pursuant to section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, Chia Far possessed 10 days to correct, clarify, or rebut petitioners' June 18, 2001, submission of factual information containing the evidence of the existence of a principal/agent relationship. As noted in the Department's Chia Far Verification Report, Chia Far and its counsel stated to the verification team that it would submit information on the record to rebut petitioners' June 18, 2001, submission. See the Chia Far Verification Report at page 7. However, it did not submit any documents to rebut petitioners' June 18, 2001, submission. Thus, the Department determines that Chia Far had sufficient notice that the Department was exploring the issue of a principal/agency relationship and ample opportunity to provide the Department with whatever evidence it possessed to respond to the Department's inquiry and rebut petitioners' submissions, but failed to provide responses or information which did so. We disagree with Chia Far's argument that the Department should have explored the issue of a principal/agent relationship on an earlier date. Chia Far explicitly denied in its May 17, 2001, rebuttal and its June 4, 2001, supplemental response that it and the certain U.S. customer were ever affiliated via a principal/agent relationship. Therefore, we had no basis to further investigate the relationship between Chia Far and its certain U.S. customer until petitioners submitted persuasive evidence on the record during verification. Furthermore, we disagree with Chia Far's contention that Rebar from Latvia and SS Bar from France provide the appropriate guidance with respect to the Department's obligation to issue further supplemental questionnaires. Rebar from Latvia and SS Bar from France are both investigations, with different time lines and reporting burdens than reviews. Pursuant to section 351.301(b)(1), the fact- gathering stage for an investigation ends seven days prior to verification, which occurs after the preliminary determination, thus allowing the Department to issue supplemental questionnaires after the preliminary determination and prior to verification. For administrative reviews, like this proceeding, the fact-gathering stage ends 140 days after notice of initiation, which, in this case, falls prior to the preliminary results of review and prior to the verification. See section 351.301(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. Notwithstanding Chia Far's consistent denials of a principal/agent relationship in its responses, the timing of petitioners' submission rebutting Chia Far's June 4, 2001, response, and Chia Far's failure to rebut, clarify, or correct petitioners' June 18, 2001, submission establishing the existence of a principal/agent relationship, the Department nevertheless provided Chia Far with sufficient opportunities to acknowledge that a principal/agent relationship existed and, therefore, to report its sales from this certain U.S. customer to the first unaffiliated customer in the U.S. as CEP sales. Because Chia Far did not supply us with accurate and complete information, but rather reported inaccurate and misleading information, we determine that Chia Far did not comply with our requests for information. Thus, the use of facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B), is warranted. B. The Application of Total Facts Available Based on Chia Far's inaccurate, misleading and incomplete questionnaire responses, the Department has further determined that an application of total facts available is warranted. Section 782(d) of the Act states that the Department, after allowing a party sufficient opportunity to respond to questionnaires and supplemental questionnaires, may determine that the information provided by a party is unsatisfactory. At that time, subject to section 782(e), the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department will use information offered by a respondent, even if it is incomplete, if: (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority or the Commission with respect to the information; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. In this case, we determined that the information submitted by Chia Far was not usable for the purpose of calculating a dumping margin. Chia Far's sales to the certain U.S. customer constitute a significant majority of sales to the United States and Chia Far's remaining sales to other U.S. customers do not adequately reflect Chia Far's U.S. selling practices, prices or costs. Chia Far failed to disclose its affiliation with the certain U.S. customer in an accurate and timely manner, despite repeated requests. In light this failure, the record remains so incomplete as not to provide a reliable basis for calculating a margin, and the reliability of Chia Far's remaining information is also called into question. Therefore, we disagree with Chia Far's contention that the Department is required by the statute to use the data concerning sales from Chia Far to Chia Far's other U.S. customers for the purposes of calculating a dumping margin. Therefore, absent the U.S. customer's sales to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States, the Department cannot calculate a dumping margin on sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. Thus, under the standards listed in sections 782(d) and 782(e), the Department finds that the use of total facts available is warranted. These arguments were fully explained in the memorandum, Preliminary Determination in the First Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan: Total Adverse Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum for Chia Far ("Corroboration Memo"), dated July 31, 2001. C. The Application of an Adverse Inference Further, since Chia Far did not supply us with accurate and complete information, but rather reported inaccurate and misleading information, we determine that Chia Far did not act to the "best of its ability" in responding to the Department's questionnaires. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party "has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information," the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate "to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully." See Statement of Administrative Action ("SAA") accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong. 2nd Sess. (1994), at page 870. Furthermore, "an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference." See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties Final Rule, 62 FR 27340. In this case, Chia Far claims that it did not remember that the principal/agent arrangement existed at one point in time until after their counsel indicated to them at verification that record evidence existed to the contrary. Chia Far failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to provide the requested information on affiliated parties. Chia Far is in the best position to know its own business operations, and, therefore, in the best position to respond to the Department's request for information. As a result of this failure, the Department did not have the appropriate universe of sales to conduct a margin analysis. Therefore, use of adverse facts available on the record, in this case, is warranted. Comment 25: Fairness of the Proceedings Chia Far argues that the Department's actions in this proceeding with regard to Chia Far were neither fair nor impartial. Specifically, Chia Far argues (1) the Department never advised Chia Far that its response was non- responsive and never made a determination of affiliation prior to the preliminary results of review; (2) the Department knew what evidence petitioners possessed concerning the principal/agent relationship at the time of the Department's May 24, 2001, supplemental questionnaire and should have required Chia Far to report CEP sales rather than have the option of reporting CEP sales; and (3) the Department was not a neutral party at verification regarding the issue of affiliation, as it refused to accept documents which would have supported Chia Far's position in regard to affiliation. Petitioners argue that Chia Far has not substantiated its allegations of impropriety. Rather, petitioners state that Chia Far's complaints regarding the Department's actions, specifically its complaint concerning the verification process, focus on standard methods and procedures, which, rather than exonerating Chia Far, lead to evidence which further indicates that a principal/agent relationship existed between Chia Far and a certain U.S. customer. Department's Position: We disagree with Chia Far. First, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires explicitly requesting information concerning Chia Far's relationship to the certain U.S. customer. Chia Far's responses denied that there was any affiliation between itself and the certain U.S. customer. As a result, the Department had no basis to determine that Chia Far was affiliated with the certain U.S. customer via a principal/agent relationship prior to verification. Second, Chia Far's allegation that the Department should have required Chia Far to report CEP sales because the Department knew of evidence possessed by petitioners is without basis in the facts of this administrative review. At the time of the Department's May 24, 2001, supplemental questionnaire, the record did not contain sufficient evidence to allow the Department to determine whether a principal/agent relationship existed between Chia Far and the certain U.S. customer. Based on this record, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting Chia Far to further explain its relationship with the certain U.S. customer and providing Chia Far with the opportunity to correct and/or clarify its response if necessary, including reporting its CEP sales. We disagree with Chia Far's claim that the Department knew what evidence petitioners had at the time of the supplemental questionnaire. The Department, at no time, reviewed or considered information which Chia Far did not have the opportunity to rebut, clarify, comment, or correct; the record evidence reviewed and considered by the Department is the same record evidence possessed by Chia Far and its legal counsel. Therefore, the Department has met all requirements of transparency established by its regulations and acted solely on the basis of the record developed in this proceeding. Finally, we also disagree with Chia Far's claims that the Department's refusal to examine Chia Far's new information at verification rebutting petitioners' evidence of a principal/agent relationship constitutes biased and unfair actions. As outlined in the Department's June 7, 2001, verification outline and noted in the Department's Chia Far Verification Report, the Department followed standard verification procedures. The Department recorded in its verification report the procedures followed by its verifiers. Specifically, the Department noted in its report with regard to petitioners' submission and the issue of affiliation: {The Department} chose not to review the two {documents Chia Far presented in its defense} because the company's acknowledgment represented significant new information of the type that could not be considered at verification. See Chia Far Verification Report at page 7. As stated by the Department's verification outline, verification is not an opportunity to submit new factual information, especially that which would substantially alter a company's response. As noted in the verification report, Chia Far wanted to present "significant new information of the type that could not be considered at verification." See Chia Far Verification Report at page 7. The report also notes that Chia Far stated that it would present the information to the Department as a rebuttal to petitioners' June 28, 2001, submission. See id. However, Chia Far failed to submit any such documents on the record of this review, either during verification or within the time period specified by 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. Consequently, we did not examine further the evidence that Chia Far wished to present at verification concerning petitioners' allegation. Moreover, pursuant to the same regulation, Chia Far also had the opportunity to raise concerns regarding the Department's verification report, including allegations of biased or improper verification procedures, but failed to do so. In sum, the Department afforded Chia Far a fair and impartial review. Comment 26: Untimely Submission of Factual Information Chia Far argues that petitioners' May 4, 2001, submission alleging affiliation between Chia Far and a certain U.S. customer was untimely and therefore should be rejected by the Department. Chia Far contends that section 351.301(b)(2) specifies that new factual information cannot be filed later than 140 days after the last day of the anniversary month, which Chia Far notes is December 18, 2000, five months prior to petitioners' submission. Chia Far also notes that the interested parties can rebut, correct, or clarify submissions of factual information within 10 days of filings, but that petitioners' May 4, 2001, submission is not in response to any submission by Chia Far in the 10 days preceding May 4, 2001. Additionally, Chia Far argues that petitioners' May 4, 2001, submission essentially rebuts its claim that Chia Far is not affiliated with any of its U.S. customers, a claim which Chia Far states first appeared in its Section A response, submitted on October 12, 2000. Therefore, Chia Far argues that the May 4, 2001, submission is untimely and should also be rejected by the Department on these grounds. Petitioners note that, pursuant to section 351.301(c)(2)(i), the Department reopened the official record on May 4, 2001, to allow submission of factual information, and on the same day, petitioners filed a submission alleging that Chia Far was affiliated with a certain U.S. customer. Petitioners state that all of their subsequent filings were in accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, which provides parties time to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by other parties. Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Pursuant to section 351.301(c)(2)(i), the Department reopened the record to allow for submission of factual information pertaining to petitioners' concerns regarding Chia Far's relationship with a certain U.S. customer and the related transactions. See the Department's May 4, 2001, letter to petitioners: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan. The Department served Chia Far a copy of its letter notifying petitioners of the Department's intent to re-open the record. In accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, Chia Far was afforded the opportunity to respond to the Department's letter, but chose not to do so at the time. However, on May 17, 2001, Chia Far submitted a rebuttal to petitioners' May 4, 2001, allegation of Chia Far's affiliation with the certain U.S. customer, thus indicating their awareness that the record had been properly reopened in accordance with section 351.301(c)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations, and that in accordance with section 351.301(c)(1), parties had 10 days to rebut factual information on the record. Therefore, we disagree with Chia Far's contention that petitioners' May 4, 2001, submission represents a rebuttal to Chia Far's October 12, 2000, Section A response, rather than a submission of new factual information on the record in accord with 351.301(c)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations. In addition, we agree that all of petitioners' and Chia Far's submissions subsequent to the Department's May 4, 2001, reopening of the record were made in accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. Consequently, for the final results of review, we are not rejecting the information provided in petitioners' May 4, 2001, submission as untimely. Comment 27: Reimbursement Petitioners contend that Chia Far reimbursed the certain U.S. customer because, as an agent, the certain U.S. customer acted by definition on behalf of Chia Far, and therefore the Department should determine that Chia Far indirectly reimbursed the certain U.S. customer. Petitioners argue that since the certain U.S. customer was the importer of record, and therefore, legally responsible for the payment of antidumping duties, the certain U.S. customer paid the duties and not Chia Far or the end- customer. Chia Far argues that petitioners must provide substantial evidence of customs fraud to substantiate an allegation of reimbursement. Chia Far cites Torrington Co., v. U.S., 21 C.I.T. 876 (September 17, 1997), INA Walzlager Schaeffler Kg., v. U.S., 21 C.I.T. 1120 (September 27, 1997), and Torrington Co., v. U.S., 973 F. Supp. 164 (July 28, 1997) as cases where the courts determined that reimbursement allegations must be supported by record evidence. Moreover, Chia Far argues that since duties were not payable in the POR, there were no duties for Chia Far to reimburse the certain U.S. customer. Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners' contention that any payment of antidumping duties on the part of the certain U.S. customer, who as the importer of record, was legally responsible for the payment of such duties, constitutes reimbursement under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations. The payment of antidumping duties by an affiliated party of the exporter does not constitute reimbursement under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations, based on affiliation alone. Since petitioners' allegation is not supported by any evidence of reimbursement according to section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations, and since no other evidence of reimbursement exists on the record, the Department has no reason to determine that reimbursement occurred during the POR. Comment 28: Applicability of the AFA Rate If the Department continues to employ AFA, Chia Far argues that the Department cannot apply the rate of 34.95% it used in its preliminary results of review. Chia Far asserts that legal precedents require the Department to ensure that the rate assigned as facts available is reliable and relevant to the applicable industry and respondent. Moreover, Chia Far argues that the Department cannot select a rate with the sole purpose of inducing a party to cooperate with the Department. In this case, Chia Far argues that the 34.95% rate is based in part on a middleman dumping analysis, and since no allegation of middleman dumping exists in relation to Chia Far, this rate is not applicable, reliable, or relevant to Chia Far. As an alternative, Chia Far states that the Department should compare the highest home market price with the lowest U.S. price to an unaffiliated customer for each model as AFA as it did in Antifriction Bearings (Other-than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Recision and Notice to Revoke Orders in Part ("AFBs") 66 FR 8931, 5933-34 (February 5, 2001). Petitioners contend that the 34.95% rate is relevant, and therefore, applicable to Chia Far in this review as it is the highest representative measure in this case. Petitioners state the 34.95% rate represents the highest total amount of dumping that occurred on sales of subject merchandise from Taiwan, and therefore, who actually dumped the merchandise (the producer or a middleman) is not relevant. Moreover, petitioners argue that AFBs is immaterial as the Department compared the lowest U.S. price to the highest home market price by CONNUM as a partial AFA, whereas the Department is applying total AFA in the present case. Department's Position: In applying a rate from a preceding segment of a case, the Department, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, must examine the reliability and relevance of the rate. The rate of 34.95% is a weight-averaged combination rate of 21.10% assigned to YUSCO in the original investigation and a middleman dumping rate of 15.34% assigned to YUSCO's sales through Ta Chen. Though nothing on the record of this segment indicates that the rate of 34.95% is unreliable per se, we agree with Chia Far that, absent an allegation of middleman dumping, another dumping margin may be more appropriate. We disagree with Chia Far, however, that the AFB calculation is the most appropriate basis for facts available. Instead, we are assigning Chia Far as AFA 21.10%, the rate assigned to YUSCO in the original investigation. Information from prior segments of the proceeding, such as involved here, constitutes "secondary information" under section 776(c) of the Act. Secondary information is described in the SAA as "information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise." SAA at page 870. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for FA by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides that to "corroborate" means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See id. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) ("TRBs"), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. Although the investigation rate of 21.10 percent constitutes secondary information, the information has already been corroborated in the less than fair value ("LTFV") investigation. During the investigation, the Department examined the accuracy and adequacy of the price-to-price information in the petition and corroborated the price-to-price petition comparison. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan, 64 FR 30592, 30599- 30600 (June 8, 1999); See also Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18439, 18441 (April 9, 2001) (employing a petition rate used as adverse FA in a previous segment as the adverse FA in the current review). Nothing on the record of the instant review calls into question the reliability of this rate. Thus, we find the rate reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration in this review for adverse FA, the Department stated in TRBs that it will "consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse FA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin." See TRBs at page 57392; See also Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an extremely high margin). The Department finds that the administrative record of this review does not contain information which indicates that the application of this rate would be inappropriate in the instant review or that the margin is not relevant. Thus, we are applying, as adverse FA, the 21.10 percent margin from the original investigation of sales at LTFV, and have satisfied the corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of the Act. Comment 29: Release of Business Proprietary Information Petitioners argue that because the certain U.S. customer is an interested party affiliated with Chia Far, the certain U.S. customer's identity is not entitled business proprietary treatment under administrative protective order ("APO"). Chia Far argues that since the certain U.S. customer is not affiliated with Chia Far, no reason exists for the Department to disclose this customer's identity. Department's Position: Though the Department determined that the certain U.S. customer is affiliated with Chia Far via a principal/agent relationship for antidumping purposes, no record evidence exists to suggest that the certain U.S. customer does not continue to also act as a customer in other capacities. Petitioners argue that a party cannot be both an affiliate and a customer, but the Department does not view such relationships as necessarily incongruous. The Department's regulations clearly provides proprietary treatment of customer names. See 19 C.F.R. 351.304(a)(2)(i). In addition, the Act clearly articulates in section 777(b)(2) the procedure for withdrawal of business proprietary status of information on the record. Petitioners have not addressed the appropriate procedures for withdrawal of proprietary status, and it is not appropriate or permissible for the Department to make an APO determination in this final determination. Therefore, the Department will continue to apply business proprietary treatment to the identity of the certain U.S. customer. Issues with Respect to Ta Chen Comment 30: The Rescission of Ta Chen Petitioners argue that the Department should not rescind the review as to Ta Chen from the current administrative review. First, petitioners argue that the rescission of the review as to Ta Chen is not justified because Ta Chen has not met its burden of affirmatively linking all of its U.S. resales during the period of review to entries made prior to suspension of liquidation. Second, petitioners argue that Ta Chen should be reviewed because the Department has an obligation by law to calculate dumping margins on Ta Chen's U.S. resales for cash deposit purposes, regardless of whether any entries were made during the POR. Third, petitioners argue that a review of Ta Chen is warranted in light of the information submitted in the current review, which petitioners allege, supports that Ta Chen has acted as a middleman for certain resales. Petitioners acknowledge that the Department generally has not conducted a first administrative review of an antidumping duty order when there have been U.S. constructed export price CEP sales, but no entries of the subject merchandise during the period of review. See e.g., Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or Uncured from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 8295 (March 9, 1992). However, petitioners maintain that under the Department's policy, the respondent that has requested its U.S. sales not be reviewed has the burden to affirmatively demonstrate that its sales or merchandise can be linked with entries prior to the suspension of liquidation. See Certain Stainless Wire Rode from France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ("Wire Rod from France"), 61 FR 47874 (September 6, 1996); High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 32181, 32182 (June 22, 1994). Petitioners argue that this burden on respondent has been upheld by the courts. STC Corp. v. United States, 990 F. Supp. 829 (CIT 1997) (holding that the Department reasonably concluded that the plaintiff/respondent had not presented sufficient evidence that its sales made during the period of review were linked to an entry that had occurred before the suspension of liquidation). Petitioners assert that in the Preliminary Results, the Department wrongly departed from its prior practice regarding rescission by improperly assuming the burden of demonstrating linkage from Ta Chen and misapplying the correct linkage test. Preliminary Results, 65 FR 41509 (August 8, 2001). According to petitioners, Ta Chen should be required to affirmatively identify and link to specific pre-suspension entries each of its CEP sales that occurred during the period of this first administrative review, and the Department should evaluate and verify whether Ta Chen's evidence is sufficient. Petitioners claim that instead of following the "proper procedure," the Department accepted Ta Chen's claim that all of its CEP sales were derived from pre-suspension entries and then conducted a U.S. Customs Service query to confirm whether any entries of subject merchandise were made during the period of review designating Ta Chen as the importer of record. Preliminary Results, 66 FR at page 41512. Petitioners maintain that Ta Chen must assume the burden of linking its U.S. resales to a pre-suspension entry. Petitioners argue that the Department's Customs inquiry is not an appropriate alternative in the present case. Petitioners argue that if Ta Chen's U.S. resales are not reviewed, Ta Chen must demonstrate that all of those sales can be linked directly and clearly to pre-suspension entries. Petitioners argue that the statute favors the Department's review of Ta Chen's middleman resales of subject merchandise. Petitioners assert that the Department is obliged to calculate dumping margins on Ta Chen's U.S. resales for cash deposit purposes, regardless of whether any entries were made during the period of review pursuant to section 752(a) of the Act. In addition, petitioners argue that sections 752(a)(1) and (2), in particular, can be best interpreted as requiring the Department to conduct an administrative review in order to compute a dumping margin for cash deposits, even if there are no past entries to liquidate. Petitioners further argue that the Department's regulations instruct that an administrative review be conducted so long as there are any entries, exports, or sales. 19 C.F.R. §351.213(e)(1)(ii) (citing, "an administrative review under this section will cover, as appropriate, entries, exports, or sales"). Petitioners assert that other regulations covering subsequent administrative reviews and the rescission of administrative reviews likewise refer to "entries, exports, or sales." 19 C.F.R. §351.213(d)(3). Petitioners contend that for middleman purposes, the dumping takes place in the United States when the middleman resells the subject merchandise, not at the time of entry. Petitioners argue, therefore, it is all the more critical that the U.S. resales be covered by this first administrative review Petitioners cite to cases where the courts held that Commerce may examine sales, as distinct from entries, in calculating a dumping margin. See Ad Hoc Committee of S. Ca. Producers v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 535, 544- 45 (CIT 1995); STC Corp., 990 F. Supp. at page 832. Petitioners argue that the Department overlooked the key issue at hand in Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18610, (April 10, 2001) (SSPC Rescission) - the fact that Ta Chen made U.S. resales of subject merchandise during the POR, and middleman dumping occurs at the time of the resale. Petitioners also argue that the Department should proceed to review Ta Chen because there is record evidence demonstrating that Ta Chen acted as a middleman for certain sales. Petitioners point to certain evidence obtained at verification, which petitioners' claim supports their allegation that Ta Chen acted as a middleman for certain resales. Petitioners also question the credibility and commercial reasonableness of certain information provided by respondents at verification regarding the handling and recording of export sales. Petitioners argue that the Department should review Ta Chen's resales because a certain party acted as a middleman for respondents. Petitioners argue that the Department has already determined in the original investigation that the party at issue acted as middleman with respect to other respondents, and the legal relationship between Ta Chen and the party at issue should govern and establish that the parties at issue are both middlemen. Petitioners urge the Department not to base its decision to conduct a middleman review simply on the extent and level of involvement of the party at issue in the resales of subject merchandise. Rather, petitioners argue, of greater significance is Ta Chen's legal relationship with the party at issue. Petitioners assert that the court has stated that the relationship of parties has greater significance than the roles played by the parties in dumping proceedings. AK Steel, Court No. 99-1296, (holding that in determining export price sales, the critical question was not the role of the affiliate in the sale but the legal relationship between the seller and the producer/exporter, i.e., whether the U.S. seller is an affiliate of the foreign producer). Petitioners further argue that Ta Chen's claim that neither itself nor its affiliates had any involvement whatsoever with the transactions at issue is unsubstantiated, ambiguous, and a mischaracterization of the facts surrounding the review period's resales. See Letter to U.S. Secretary of Commerce from Ta Chen, dated October 4, 2001. Petitioners maintain that the facts in this proceeding support a continued finding that Ta Chen Taiwan was and remains involved in the sales of subject merchandise from Yieh United Steel Corporation and Tung Mung Development Corporation. Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. With respect to Ta Chen, we have determined that Ta Chen had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR; therefore, rescission as to Ta Chen in the present case is warranted. Under section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes, that during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise. Ta Chen has certified that of its resales during the POR, all merchandise entered the United States before the POR. In addition, the Department's inquiry of information from Customs indicates that such merchandise did not enter the United States after the suspension of liquidation. Accordingly, in the current review, it has not been established that there were any sales of subject merchandise which entered during the POR. The substantial evidence on the record indicates that there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department has affirmatively required respondents to link entries outside the POR with entries during the POR when it was uncertain on the record if there were entries during the POR. See Wire Rod from France at 47875; Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, 63 FR 33320, (June 18, 1998) (AFBs II). For example, in AFBs II, there were multiple entries of merchandise by the respondents during the POR, and the Department was uncertain if any of those entries were specifically subject to the order under review. Thus, it required an affirmative linkage by the respondents of sales in the POR to entries outside of the POR. See id. This is not the fact pattern in this case. We are satisfied that evidence on the record indicates that there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Nowhere in the statute or regulations is the Department instructed to always require a respondent to affirmatively demonstrate proof of entry of its resales in order to obtain a rescission when the substantial evidence indicates no entries of the subject merchandise entered during the POR. To the extent petitioners question the validity of a Customs' inquiry, the Department has relied on Customs' findings of no entries of subject merchandise and a certified statement by respondent that there were no entries of subject merchandise to be sufficient to warrant a rescission of a review in past administrative reviews. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Columbia: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 1997) (noting that the Department rescinded its review of 40 firms based on a U.S. Customs query by the Department, confirming that there were no shipments of subject merchandise by those firms); Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998) (noting that the Department allowed rescission for two companies based on a U.S. Customs query by the Department, confirming that there were no shipments of subject merchandise by those firms); Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan, 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001) (noting that the Department found that a certified statement by the respondent that its resales of subject merchandise entered before the POR and a subsequent Customs query finding no entries during the POR satisfied the requirement for rescinding the review). In the present case, the rescission of the administrative review with respect to Ta Chen is warranted. Ta Chen provided a certified statement that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and a subsequent Customs' query confirmed that Ta Chen had no entries after the suspension of liquidation. Thus, the absence of entries after the suspension of liquidation of subject merchandise by Ta Chen confirms Ta Chen's claims that the sales involved pre-suspension of liquidation entries. These facts warrant a rescission of the review with respect to Ta Chen. We disagree with petitioners that the Department should review a respondent which has sales during the POR but no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. As we noted in SSPC Rescission, if there are no entries of the subject merchandise we will rescind a review: Section 771(25) of the Act defines "subject merchandise" as meaning "the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of an investigation, a review, a suspension agreement, an order under this subtitle or section 1303 of this title, or a finding under the Antidumping Act, 1921." 19 U.S.C. 1677(25). Therefore, if merchandise is not within the scope of the order (or, as the case may be, the investigation, review, or suspension agreement), it is not subject merchandise. While we do not disagree with petitioners that the sales in question are of merchandise physically meeting the scope of the order, we believe that the statute's reference to "an investigation, a review, a suspension agreement, an order" necessarily limits the definition of subject merchandise to that merchandise which is subject to an investigation, a review, a suspension agreement, and/or an order. It is in this regard that the Department must consider the timing of the entries at issue. SSPC Rescission at page. 18611. In accordance with section 736(b) of the statute, the order on SSSS from Taiwan covers entries of merchandise beginning on the date of publication of the affirmative preliminary determination, which was January 4, 1999. That this date represents the first date of the antidumping order is evident from the order notice itself. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, Taiwan and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (Jul7 27, 1999) ("Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, the Department will direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties * * * for all relevant entries of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from * * * Taiwan. * * * These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from * * * Taiwan * * * entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 4, 1999, the date on which the Department published its notices of preliminary determination in the Federal Register (64 FR 85-92, 101-108, 116-124, 137-147)."). As we further stated in the SSPC Rescission: The Department has a long-standing and consistent practice of excluding sales of merchandise entering prior to suspension of liquidation, on the grounds that such merchandise was not covered by the order, as long as the sales made after entry can be demonstrably linked to entries made prior to suspension of liquidation. See, e.g., High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn, Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 32181, 32182 (June 22, 1994). While petitioners do not argue that such merchandise be assessed the new calculated rate, petitioners' assertion that such sales can serve as the basis for setting a cash deposit rate is inaccurate, because, as discussed above, the sales at issue are not of subject merchandise. As the Department stated in French Wire Rod: "(s)ales of non-subject merchandise are not an appropriate basis for the Department to estimate the duties that will be due on future entries of subject merchandise." 61 FR at 47878. SSPC Rescission at 18612. Certainly, consideration of the establishment of a new cash deposit rate in SSSS from Taiwan is doubly inappropriate when a cash deposit rate based on sales of subject merchandise appropriately covered by the investigation has already been established. Finally, we disagree with petitioners' claims regarding middleman dumping. A finding of middleman dumping in a previous segment of the proceeding does not constitute sufficient grounds to allow for the Department's consideration of the sales at issue. As stated in the SSPC Rescission, regardless of the existence of middleman dumping, the sales at issue are CEP sales that have been demonstratively linked to entries made prior to the suspension of liquidation under the order. See, SSPC Rescission at page 18612. For the foregoing reasons, the Department is hereby rescinding the administrative review based on the absence of entries into the United States of the subject merchandise during the period of review. RECOMMENDATION: Based on our analysis of the comments received, we recommend adopting all of the above changes and positions, and adjusting the margin calculation programs accordingly. If accepted, we will publish the final results of the review and the final weighted-average dumping margin in the Federal Register. AGREE___________ DISAGREE___________ _________________________ Faryar Shirzad Assistant Secretary for Import Administration _________________________ Date _________________________________________________________________________ footnotes: 1. The auditor's adjustment provides the net value of all of the auditor's adjustments and reclassifications required to reconcile from the amount of COGs reported in Tung Mung's trial balance and to the amount of COGs reported on its audited financial statements. 2. Trade and Tariff Act of 1930 as amended ("the Act"). 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 Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 C.F.R. part 351 (2001). 3. "[P]resumptive reliance on such statements {of limiting the test to the producer's actual knowledge of destination} would require deference to self-serving allegations even in the face of contrary evidence that the producer should have known the true place of consumption of the subject goods. That would eviscerate the acknowledged standard." Tung Mung at 48. 4. UZ sales are sales made in the home market destined for export through unaffiliated trading companies, but whose export destination is not known at the time of sale between YUSCO and the unaffiliated trading company. 5. U* sales are sales made in the home market destined for export through unaffiliated trading companies who further process the merchandise prior to export, without identifying at the time of sale whether the merchandise would be exported as subject or non-subject merchandise. 6. See petitioners' September 21, 2001, case brief at page 10. 7. See petitioners' September 21, 2001, case brief at page 10. 8. D sales are domestic sales to unaffiliated customers. 9. Nihon Cement Co. v. United States, 17 CIT 400, 425 (May 26, 1993); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(f).