[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26473-26475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12649]
[[Page 26473]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-401-805]
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon
steel plate from Sweden. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter
of the subject merchandise to the United States and the period August
1, 1995 through July 31, 1996. SSAB failed to submit a response to our
questionnaire. As a result, we have preliminarily determined to use
facts otherwise available for cash deposit and appraisement purposes.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Patience or Steve Jacques,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3793.
APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all
citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 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 (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 August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal
Register (58 FR 44168) the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Sweden. On August 30, 1996, Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group (a Unit of USX Corporation), Inland
Steel Industries Inc., Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel
Corporation, Geneva Steel, and Lukens Steel Company, petitioners,
requested a review for SSAB Svenskt Stal AB (SSAB). On September 3,
1996, SSAB also requested a review for its exports of subject
merchandise. On September 17, 1996, in accordance with 19 C.F.R.
353.22(c), we initiated the administrative review of this order for the
period August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996 (61 FR 48882). The
Department is now conducting this administrative review in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Act.
Scope of the Review
Certain cut-to-length plate includes hot-rolled carbon steel
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not
exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4
millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether
or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic
substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in
straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad,
plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters
or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the
HTS under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Included are
flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-
section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products
which have been worked after rolling)--for example, products which have
been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X-70 plate.
These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1995, through July 31,
1996.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Following the initiation of this review, the Department sent
respondent a questionnaire seeking information necessary to conduct a
review of any shipments that firm may have made to the United States
during the POR. SSAB did not respond to the questionnaire. Because
necessary information is not available on the record for the POR as a
result of SSAB withholding the requested information, we must make our
preliminary determination based on facts otherwise available (section
776(a) of the Act).
On October 21, 1996, the due date for section A of the Department's
questionnaire, SSAB made a timely withdrawal of its request for a
review of this POR. However, because petitioners had also requested an
administrative review, the review is still in progress. Additionally,
SSAB stated it would not be participating in the review and requested
assignment, as facts available, of the first administrative review
margin, 8.28 percent. SSAB also failed to respond to sections B, C and
D of the questionnaire, which were due November 4, 1996.
On January 8, 1997, petitioners requested that the Department
assign to SSAB as facts available, 34 percent, the highest rate from
the antidumping petition. Petitioners argued that this rate was more
appropriate than the average petition rate, 24.23 percent, which was
also used as the best information available in the final determination
of the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation. Because the LTFV rate
had not induced SSAB to cooperate, petitioners argue the Department
should use alternative sources of facts available rates or the
respondent could be in a position to manipulate the administrative
review process by refusing to cooperate when its actual margin of
dumping may exceed the LTFV investigation margin. See Steel Wire Rope
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 55964, 55967-68, (October 30, 1996) (Steel
Wire Rope). See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 42833, 42835 (August
19, 1996). See Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 41876,
41878 (August 14, 1995). Accordingly, petitioners proposed that the
Department use as facts available the highest rate from the petition
which is a rate of 34 percent.
[[Page 26474]]
On January 16, 1997, respondent submitted a rebuttal to
petitioners' submission. Noting that on September 4, 1996, in the
second administrative review of this order, the Department had
preliminarily determined to apply facts available to SSAB, and that
this decision was based on SSAB's failure to reconcile its cost
response to its audited financial statements, respondent argued that it
is precluded from participating in future administrative reviews until
the Department reconsiders the cost verification standard it applied to
SSAB in the second administrative review, or until the company revises
its cost accounting system to conform to the Department's thinking as
to how the company should maintain its audited financial statements.
Respondent asserted that its withdrawal from participation in the third
review does not stem from an intentional failure to cooperate or a
desire to ``control the review process'' or ``practice injurious price
discrimination to a greater degree than at the time of the LTFV
investigation.'' Rather, respondent argued that the cost accounting
system for SSOX, one of SSAB's two plants producing subject
merchandise, has been rejected by the Department in a prior
administrative review and that SSOX has no alternative method for
reporting costs in the current review. Respondent argued that because
the relevant period for the third administrative review already expired
before SSAB was made aware that the SSOX cost accounting system and
reported costs would be rejected, SSAB had no choice but to withdraw
from participating in the third administrative review. Therefore,
respondent maintains that the Department should reject the petitioners'
request for a 34 percent facts available margin.
Respondent's voluntary withdrawal from this, the third
administrative review, followed the Department's preliminary facts
available determination in the second administrative review, but
preceded the final results of that review. SSAB made no attempt in the
third review to contact the Department to discuss how it should proceed
in responding to section D, the cost of production section of the
questionnaire, nor did it respond to any other section of the
questionnaire. Thus, the Department finds that, in not responding to
the questionnaire, SSAB failed to cooperate by not acting to the best
of its ability to comply with a request for information from the
Department. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we may,
in making our determination, use an adverse inference in selecting from
the facts otherwise available. This adverse inference may include
reliance on data derived from the petition, a previous determination in
an investigation or review, or any other information placed on record.
We agree with petitioners that the 24.23 percent margin has not induced
SSAB to cooperate in this review and a higher margin is warranted. Our
decision to use a rate higher than the LTFV rate is consistent with our
decision in the previous segment of the proceeding in which we assigned
the LTFV rate as total adverse facts available because ``* * * while
SSAB did not act to the best of its ability in responding to our cost
information requests, it did cooperate with respect to certain aspects
of this review.'' See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Sweden, Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
61 FR 51898, 51900 (October 4, 1996); see, also, Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18396, 18401 (April 15, 1997).
Accordingly, in this case, because SSAB has not cooperated with any
aspects of this review, we preliminarily assign to SSAB a more adverse
margin of 34 percent, the highest margin from the original petition in
the LTFV investigation.
Section 776(b) authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts
available information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record. Section 776(c) provides that the Department
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate ``secondary information''
by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA,
at 870, makes it clear that ``secondary information'' includes
information from the petition in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation and information from a previous section 751 review of the
subject merchandise. The SAA also provides that ``corroborate'' means
simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value. Id.
As noted above, the Department used an average of the petition
rates as total adverse facts available in the previous segment of this
proceeding. The Department explained in that review that it had
corroborated the petition information. For the purposes of these
preliminary results, we continue to regard the petition information as
corroborated, though we intend to consider further, for purposes of the
final results of review, whether or not further corroboration, based on
updated information, is both appropriate and possible.
Duty Absorption
On October 7, 1996, petitioners requested that the Department
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR.
On October 8, 1996, respondent opposed petitioners' request stating
this review is ineligible for an absorption inquiry because the review
was initiated three years, not two or four years, after publication of
the antidumping duty order. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for
the Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative
review initiated two or four years after publication of the order,
whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or
exporter subject to the order, if the subject merchandise is sold in
the United States through an importer who is affiliated with such
foreign producer or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Act by
the URAA. The Department's interim regulations do not address this
provision of the Act.
For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping regulations
provide that the Department will make a duty absorption determination,
if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998.
See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27,
1996). The preamble to the proposed antidumping regulations explains
that reviews initiated in 1996 will be considered initiated in the
second year and reviews initiated in 1998 will be considered initiated
in the fourth year. Id. at 7317. Although these proposed antidumping
regulations are not yet binding upon the Department, they do constitute
a public statement of how the Department expects to proceed in applying
section 751(a)(4) of the amended statute. This approach assures that
interested parties will have the opportunity to request a duty
absorption determination on entries for which the second and fourth
years following an order have already passed, prior to the time for
sunset review of the order under section 751(c). Because the order on
subject merchandise from Sweden has been in effect since 1993, this
qualifies as a transition order. Therefore, based on the policy stated
above, the Department will first consider a request for an absorption
determination during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review
initiated in 1996, we are making
[[Page 26475]]
a duty-absorption determination as part of this segment of the
proceeding.
In this case, we are unable to calculate a margin based on SSAB's
response and have therefore determined its dumping margin entirely on
the basis of adverse facts available. We also determined, based on
adverse facts available, that there are margins on all sales. Lacking
other information, we find duty absorption on all sales.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin
of 34 percent exists for SSAB for the period August 1, 1995 through
July 31, 1996. Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within
five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested
party may request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Case briefs
and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted not
later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs and comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after
the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. The
Department will publish the final results of the administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of
these preliminary results.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of administrative review for all
shipments of subject merchandise, 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 that established in the final results of this
administrative review; (2) for exporters not covered in this review,
but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-value (LTFV)
investigation, 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, previous reviews, or the original
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will
be that 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 be 24.23 percent, the ``all others''
rate established in the final notice of the LTFV investigation (58 FR
37213, July 9, 1993).
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: May 5, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-12649 Filed 5-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
