Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

were originally produced by KSC and/or Kawahan, as opposed to other producers. In addition, as noted in the Preliminary Results, one of Kawahan's affiliated customers refused to provide its downstream sales data, despite Kawahan's request. Thus, because this affiliate refused to cooperate, despite Kawahan's attempt to collect this sales data (which the Department reviewed at verification, as noted in the Department's Sales Verification Report, dated August 6, 1999, at p. 11), we conclude that there is no evidence to contradict KSC's claim that it acted to the best of its ability to report this affiliates' downstream sales, despite its failure to report these sales. Petitioners do not contest the above facts. Instead, they argue that these facts are irrelevant to the issue. We disagree. A respondent must be able to identify sales of subject merchandise it produced in order to accurately fulfill its reporting requirements. In this regard, section 771(16)(A) of the Act requires identification of: ``The subject merchandise* * * which * * *was produced in the same country by the same person.'' In this case, it would be improper for KSC to report all of Kawasho's downstream sales of the merchandise under review, because Kawasho sells subject merchandise from producers other than KSC and Kawahan. Therefore, in order to be able to properly identify sales of KSC's merchandise, Kawasho would have to be able to tie, though identifying information, such as an order confirmation number, its downstream sales back to KSC's or Kawahan's sale to Kawasho. Yet in this regard, KSC was unable to link certain resales to the original coil that it sold to the affiliate. Thus, based on the above information and in accordance with past practice, we believe that it would not be appropriate to penalize KSC for its inability to report a certain portion of its (downstream) home market sales database, because we determine that, in the instant case, reporting these sales would represent an undue burden. See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings, 63 FR at 33341 (where the Department excused a respondent from reporting downstream sales information from its affiliates and accepted respondent's sales data to affiliates in lieu of sales by respondent's affiliates because its affiliates were small companies with unsophisticated computer systems which do not permit them to retain the sales data required by the Department). With regard to the affiliated company which refused to provide the sales information, we note that the Department has stated, in the Preamble, that ``in instances where a respondent does not report downstream sales, the [[Page 8948]] Department will consider the nature of the affiliation in deciding how to apply facts available.'' See Preamble, 62 FR at 27356. As noted above, KSC attempted unsuccessfully to obtain the downstream sales information from this company. Given the level of affiliation (see KSC's October 28, 1998, Section A Questionnaire Response, Exhibit 14, which is proprietary information), we find that it is appropriate to simply disregard the downstream sales in question. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 30, 1997, through July 1, 1998: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Margin Manufacturer/Exporter (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nippon Steel Corporation................................... 2.47 Kawasaki Steel Corporation................................. 1.61 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Department will determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit value per metric ton basis. To calculate the per metric ton unit value for assessment, we sum the dumping margins on U.S. sales, and then divide this sum by the total metric tons of all U.S. sales examined. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rate listed above (except that if the rate for a particular product is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash deposit rate of zero will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate of 36.41 percent, which is the