[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11656-11658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5181]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-469-805]
Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless
Steel Bar From Spain
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jenkins or Fabian Rivelis, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
[[Page 11657]] telephone: (202) 482-1756 or (202) 482-3853,
respectively.
Amendment to the Final Determination
We are amending the final determination of sales at less than fair
value of stainless steel bar from Spain to reflect the correction of
ministerial errors made in the margin calculations in that
determination. We are publishing this amendment to the final
determination in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).
Case History and Amendment of the Final Determination
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), on December 28, 1994, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) published its final determination that stainless steel
bar from Spain was being sold at less than fair value (59 FR 66931).
Subsequent to the final determination, we received ministerial error
allegations by both petitioners and respondents in this investigation.
On January 12, 1995, petitioners made a timely allegation that the
Department made ministerial errors in its final determination. First,
they alleged that the Department made two incorrect adjustments to the
reported difference-in-merchandise (difmer) data for respondent Roldan,
S.A. (Roldan). Petitioners alleged that, in order to correct a
discrepancy in Roldan's reported variable manufacturing costs for
certain U.S. and home market sales, the Department increased the
variable cost of manufacture (COM) for difmer purposes by adding to the
home market difmer costs reported by Roldan when, in fact, the home
market difmer adjustment should have been subtracted.
Furthermore, petitioners argued that the Department should not have
made a similar difmer adjustment to Roldan's reported variable COM for
U.S. sales because the discrepancy was confined to Roldan's home market
variable COM data.
Respondent agreed with petitioner that the Department should have
subtracted, rather than added, from its difmer data in order for it to
correspond to its COP data. However, respondent argued that the
petitioners were incorrect in their assertion that the discrepancy was
confined only to Roldan's home market sales data. Consequently,
respondent argued that the adjustment should have been made to the
difmer data of both U.S. and home market sales.
We agree that this error constitutes a ministerial error as defined
by Section 751(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
which states that a ``ministerial error'' is ``an error in addition,
subtraction or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from
inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of
unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.'' We
agree that the Department made a mathematical error when adjusting the
respondent's difmer information. Furthermore, we agree with the
respondent that this adjustment should have been made to its U.S.
difmer information as well as its home market difmer information. We
made the proper adjustments in our margin calculations and the
resulting margin did not change from the margin calculated for the
final determination.
Second, petitioners noted that the Department did not calculate
margins for several of Roldan's U.S. sales that did not have product
matches or constructed value data. Petitioners argued that the
Department should have used the highest non-aberrational margin
calculated for individual sales to calculate margins for these sales.
Respondent stated that the Department correctly deleted the sales
for which there were no product matches from the margin calculation.
We have analyzed the information submitted by Roldan and have
concluded that the Department made a ``ministerial error'' under
Section 751(f) of the Act. We inadvertently omitted these sales in our
concordance before they could be matched to the appropriate home market
products. We have corrected this problem and calculated a margin for
the sales in question.
On January 13, 1995, Acenor, S.A. (Acenor), a mandatory respondent
that withdrew from the investigation, and Roldan, made timely
allegations that the Department made ministerial errors in its final
determination. Acenor alleged that its deposit rate was based on data
presented in a sales below cost of production (COP) allegation which
was determined to be invalid by the Department.
Petitioners argued that because Acenor was no longer an interested
party in the investigation, the firm of George V. Egge Jr., P.C. could
no longer represent itself as counsel for Acenor and submit a
ministerial error allegation on its behalf. Petitioners further
suggested that if the Department were to modify the best information
available (BIA) rate applied to Acenor, it should have used the highest
individual margin calculated in the preliminary determination using
Acenor's own data.
We disagree with petitioners that Acenor is no longer an interested
party. The fact that Acenor decided to withdraw from further
participation does not change the fact that they are a named respondent
who participated substantially throughout most of the investigation. We
also disagree with respondent that the Department made a ministerial
error in calculationg its BIA rate. We determine that this issue is
methodological and was improperly raised as a ministerial error under
Section 751(f) of the Act.
Roldan claimed that over half of its U.S. sales were improperly
matched to home market sales made at a different level of trade.
Petitioners argued that Roldan's argument is not a ministerial error
allegation and should be rejected. We agree with petitioners that this
allegation is not ministerial in nature, but rather a methodological
question.
On January 19, 1995, petitioners commented on respondent's
allegation and on January 20, 1995, respondent commented on
petitioners' allegation.
Scope of Order
The product covered by this order is stainless steel bar (SSB). SSB
means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been
either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise
cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along
their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at
least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils,
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles,
shapes and sections.
The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,
7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
[[Page 11658]] United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Antidumping Duty Order
In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, on December 19, 1994,
the Department made its final determination that SSB from Spain was
being sold at less than fair value (59 FR 66931, December 28, 1994). On
February 10, 1995, the International Trade Commission notified the
Department of its final determination, pursuant to section
735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise.
Therefore, all unliquidated entries of SSB from Spain entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 1994,
which is the date on which the Department published its notice of
preliminary determination in the Federal Register, are liable for the
assessment of antidumping duties.
In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department
will direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the
administering authority, antidumping duties equal to the amount by
which the foreign market value of the merchandise exceeds the United
States price for all relevant entries of SSB from Spain. Customs
officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally
deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to
the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins as noted below.
The ``All Others'' rate applies to all exporters of subject merchandise
not specifically listed below.
The ad valorem weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acenor, S.A. (and all successor companies, including
Digeco, S.A. and Clorimax, SRL)........................... 62.85
Roldan, S.A................................................ 7.72
All Others................................................. 25.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to
SSB from Spain pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested
parties may contact the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main
Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping orders
currently in effect.
This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.21.
Dated: February 24, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-5181 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
