[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 213 (Friday, November 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56514-56515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28117]
[[Page 56514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-810]
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From
the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review; certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from
the United Kingdom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon
steel products from the United Kingdom. The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter and the period March 1, 1994 through February 28,
1995.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we
have changed the results from those presented in the preliminary
results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 6, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 20225) the preliminary results of its administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth
carbon steel products from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324, March 22,
1993). The Department has now completed the review in accordance with
section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of
nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by
weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent or more of bismuth,
in coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded
from the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,
note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason
of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or 0.1 percent or
more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-
finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered
in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00 and
7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also
enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings:
7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10,
00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;
and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this order
remains dispositive.
This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of certain hot-rolled
lead and bismuth steel products, United Engineering Steels Limited
(UES), now British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES), and the
period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995.
Analysis of the Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results of review. We received comments from UES and
petitioner.
Comment 1: Petitioner contends that the Department erred in the way
it matched home market products to products sold to the United States.
Petitioner maintains that the language included in the concordance
program keeps only the first record of the home market control number,
which identifies a particular home market model, and drops other
records containing the subsequent matches if the same home market
control number is matched to subsequent U.S. products, or to the same
U.S. products in different six-month windows. (A match is made within a
window of time from three months prior to two months after the month of
the U.S. sale.) As a result, petitioner claims, the Department dropped
a number of legitimate home market product matches, and instead, used
constructed value as the basis of normal value.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The original
computer program contained an inadvertent error. We have revised the
computer programming language to correct this error for the final
results of this review.
Comment 2: UES argues that the Department failed to match U.S.
sales to home market sales in the most contemporaneous month. Instead,
the Department matched each U.S. sale to all home market sales
occurring within the six-month window. UES argues that, pursuant to the
Department's matching rule, the most contemporaneous home market match
is selected in the following order of preference: sales in the same
month of the U.S. sale, sales in the month prior to the U.S. sale,
sales in the second month prior to the month of the U.S. sale, sales in
the third month prior to the month of the U.S. sale, sales in the month
subsequent to the month of the U.S. sale, and finally, sales in the
second month subsequent to the month of the U.S. sale.
Department's Position: We agree with UES and have revised our
computer programming language accordingly for these final results of
review.
Comment 3: UES maintains that the Department erred in its
calculation of the profit in calculating constructed value. UES claims
that the Department erred in calculating the ratio applied to the cost
of production to calculate profit by first computing a profit
percentage for each home market sales transaction, and then weight-
averaging the percentages by quantity. UES contends that this
methodology introduces serious distortion. UES suggests that, under the
Department's normal methodology, total home market profit is divided by
total home market costs to calculate the profit ratio.
Department's Position: We agree with UES and have revised our
computer programming language accordingly for these final results of
review.
Clerical Errors
For the preliminary results of review, the Department did not
deduct U.S. brokerage and handling charges from the U.S. price. For
these final results of review, we have deducted such charges from the
U.S. price. See section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
[[Page 56515]]
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Engineering Steels Limited
(UES) (now British Steel Engineering
Steels Limited)...................... 3/1/94-2/28/95 1.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all
shipments of certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products
from the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
company will be the rate listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or
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) for all other producers and/or exporters of
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 25.82 percent, the
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (58 FR 6207,
January 27, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: October 23, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-28117 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
