[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27258-27260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13138]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices
[[Page 27258]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-822, A-122-823]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Amended Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Johnson, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-3818.
Scope of This Review
The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two
separate ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: (1) Certain corrosion-
resistant steel and (2) certain cut-to-length plate.
The first class or kind, certain corrosion-resistant steel,
includes flat-rolled carbon steel products of rectangular shape, either
clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc,
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or
not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of
0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness
less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and
which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of
4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7210.31.0000,
7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000,
7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,
7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,
7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000,
7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000,
7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and
7217.39.5000. 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 are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with
tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne
plate''), or both chromium and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''),
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also
excluded are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more
in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and
measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded are certain clad
stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters
in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
The second class or kind, 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 7208.31.0000,
7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000,
7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000,
7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,
7212.40.5000, and 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.
Amendment of Final Results
On March 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published the final results of administrative reviews of the
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada (63
FR 12725) (``Final Results''). These reviews cover five manufacturers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States during the
period August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. We received comments on
the final results from Algoma, Inc. (``Algoma''), Stelco Inc.
(``Stelco''), and from the petitioners.
[[Page 27259]]
Interested Party Comments
Algoma
Comment 1: Algoma alleges that the Department made a ministerial
error in its adjustment of certain U.S. commission amounts.
Specifically, Algoma contends that the Department should not have
applied a ``facts available'' methodology for certain U.S. commissions
calculated on a semi-annual basis for several reasons. First, Algoma
argues that this methodology was accepted in prior segments of this
proceeding. Second, Algoma argues that it received no opportunity from
the Department to clarify the record or change its existing reporting
methodology.
Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
Department's Position: We disagree with Algoma that the Department
made a ministerial error in its calculation of certain U.S. commission
amounts. The purpose of this amended final is solely to correct
ministerial errors, and not to re-consider other decisions. A
ministerial error is defined in 19 C.F.R. section 353.28(d) as ``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.'' (Designated in the Department's new regulations as 19
C.F.R. 351.224(f).) As the Department noted in Comment 4 of the Final
Results notice, while ``it was appropriate for Algoma to report
commissions on a customer-specific basis over a period of
time....(however), it is also clear that commissions were paid by
Algoma based on monthly shipments, and not semi-annually. Therefore,
Algoma should have reported its U.S. commissions on a monthly basis
instead of a semi-annual basis.'' See Final Results at 12728. Algoma
does not dispute the mathematical application of the Department's
decision but instead has expressed its disagreement with the
Department's decision in this instance. Therefore, we reject Algoma's
allegation because it does not address an alleged error which is
ministerial in nature.
Stelco
Comment 2: In a letter to the Department dated March 27, 1998,
Stelco alleges that the Department failed to apply the Baycoat, Z-Line,
and iron ore supplier adjustment to home market VCOMs (variable cost of
manufacture) in its model-match computer program for corrosion-
resistant steel. Stelco argues that based on the Department's statement
in the footnote of the final analysis memorandum (See Stelco Final
Results Analysis Memorandum for Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at
page 3), the Department clearly intended to apply these supplier
adjustments to TCOM and VCOM.
Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department
erroneously compared adjusted U.S. VCOMS to unadjusted home market
VCOMS. To ensure accurate product comparisons, we have recalculated
VCOMH in the model match program for corrosion-resistant steel so that
adjusted figures are used on both sides of the comparison. See Analysis
of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-Resistant Products at page
1.
Comment 3: Stelco argues that in its final margin calculation
program for corrosion-resistant products, the Department incorrectly
calculated GNACV and INTEXCV using the variable TOTCOM rather than the
revised variable TCOM in its computer programs for corrosion-resistant
steel.
Petitioners allege that the Department inadvertently used the
variable TOTCOM in its model match program for plate rather than the
correct term TCOM.
Department's Position: We agree with Stelco and petitioners. We
have corrected the final margin program for corrosion-resistant steel
to calculate GNACV and INTEXCV using the revised variable TCOM. See Id.
at page 2. Additionally, we have corrected the model match program for
plate to use the variable TCOM. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial
Errors for Plate at page 2.
Comment 4: Stelco alleges that, for corrosion-resistant steel, the
Department applied cost adjustments intended for only those orders
processed by Baycoat to orders which had not been serviced by Baycoat.
Stelco argues that the computer programming language used by the
Department to apply these Baycoat adjustments to unpainted, code 4
control numbers resulted in non-Baycoat serviced merchandise being
incorrectly adjusted for Baycoat services.
Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department
erroneously applied the Baycoat adjustment to sales of class 4
merchandise that were not serviced by Baycoat. The Department has
amended the programming language in its model match and margin
calculation programs for corrosion-resistant steel to remedy this
error. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products at page 2.
Comment 5: Stelco alleges that for corrosion-resistant steel the
Department inappropriately recalculated the credit expense for all U.S.
sales using a U.S. short-term borrowing rate though the Canadian dollar
was the currency of certain U.S. sales. Similarly, Stelco alleges that
the Department overlooked the fact that certain home market sales were
incurred in U.S. dollars. Stelco argues that the Department should
recalculate the credit expense for those home market sales for which
the currency of the transaction was U.S. dollars using the U.S. short-
term borrowing rate.
Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department's
policy bulletin 98.2 states that the short term interest rate should be
tied to the currency in which the sales are denominated. We have
inserted language into the final programs for corrosion-resistant steel
which ties the short-term interest rate to the currency in which the
sale is denominated. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at pages 3 and 4.
Comment 6: Stelco argues that the Department's use of the date of
the final results as the pay date for those U.S. sales that had not yet
been paid by the time of Stelco's submission was a ministerial error.
Stelco maintains that it is generally the Department's policy to
substitute the date of the last submission or the date on which the
respondent had an opportunity to provide updated information as the pay
date.
Petitioners argue that the Department's use of the date of the
final results as the surrogate pay date does not constitute a
ministerial error. Citing to the Department's final analysis
memorandum, petitioners note that the Department stated that it ``used
the date of the final determination of March 9, 1998 as the pay date''
for those sales for which Stelco had not yet been paid. See Stelco
Final Results Analysis Memorandum for Corrosion-Resistant Steel
Products at page 16. Petitioners argue that the Department must reject
Stelco's allegation of ministerial error as the Department clearly
intended to use the date of the final results in its credit
calculation.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. The error Stelco
alleges does not meet the Department's criteria of a ministerial error
within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. section 353.28(d) as cited in the
recommendation to Comment 1
[[Page 27260]]
above. Stelco does not dispute the mathematical application of the
Department's decision but instead has expressed its disagreement with
the Department's decision in this instance. The Department explicitly
intended to use the date of the final results in its credit
calculation. Therefore, we reject Stelco's allegation of ministerial
error.
Comment 7: Petitioners allege that the Department inadvertently
used an incorrect dataset for the concordance data in the margin
calculation program for plate. The model match program creates a
concordance dataset named CONCORD; however, the margin calculation
program uses the term CONCORDP. Petitioners argue that the Department
should use the dataset name CONCORD in its margin calculation program.
Stelco did not comment on this issue.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Because this
error is typographical in nature, it falls within the Department's
definition of ministerial error. We have corrected the margin
calculation program for plate to use the proper concordance dataset.
See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 2.
Comment 8: Petitioners allege that the Department failed to exclude
general sales tax (``GST'') and provincial sales tax (``PST'') from
home market credit expenses in its final programs for both corrosion-
resistant steel and plate. They note that the Department stated in its
Final Results notice that it ``corrected Stelco's home market credit
expenses to exclude both GST and PST'' (see Final Results at 12742).
Stelco did not comment on this issue.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. We have amended
the final programs for both corrosion-resistant steel and plate to
exclude GST and PST from the calculation of home market credit
expenses. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products at pages 3 and 4. See also Analysis of Alleged
Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 3.
Amended Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we have determined that the following
margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosion--Resistant Steel:
Dofasco............................. 0.72.
CCC................................. 0.54.
Stelco.............................. 1.55.
Cut-to-Length Plate:
Algoma.............................. 0.44 (de minimis).
MRM................................. 0.00.
Stelco.............................. 0.35 (de minimis).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 353.28 of the Department's regulations, parties
to the proceeding will have five days after the date of publication of
this notice to notify the Department of any new ministerial or clerical
errors, as well as five days thereafter to rebut any comments by
parties.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between sales to the United States and normal value may
vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective,
upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review, for
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates for those firms as
stated above, except if the rate is less than .5 percent and therefore
de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (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, 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)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate made
effective by the final results of the 1993-1994 administrative review
of these orders (see Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Canada; Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 13815 (March 28,
1996)). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
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 section 353.34(d) of the Department's
regulations. Timely 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 amendment of final results of 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: May 11, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-13138 Filed 5-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
