[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26876-26878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13430]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-602-803]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Australia: 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 a request by the petitioners, Bethlehem Steel
Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corporation, Inland Steel
Industries, Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation,
AK Steel Corporation, Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel
Corporation, WCI Steel, Inc., and Lukens Steel Company, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Australia. This review covers The Broken Hill
Proprietary Company, Ltd. (BHP), the sole manufacturer/exporter of the
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review
(POR) August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1995. Because BHP failed to
submit a response to our questionnaire, we have preliminarily
determined to use facts otherwise available for cash deposit and
assessment purposes.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument 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 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Jean Kemp, Office of
Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
3793.
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 July 9, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 37079) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on
certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Australia,
and published an antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR
44161). On August 1, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 39150) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on certain
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Australia. On
August 31, 1995, petitioners requested an administrative review of BHP,
a manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise to the United States. We
initiated the review on September 8, 1995 (60 FR 46817).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this administrative review constitute one
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain corrosion-resistant carbon
steel flat products. The class or kind 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
HTS under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000,
7210.49.0030,
[[Page 26877]]
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
nonrectangular 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
bevelled 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 review covers BHP and the period August 1, 1994 through July
31, 1995 (POR).
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776 of the
Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for BHP because it
did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. We sent
BHP a questionnaire on September 14, 1995, with deadlines of October
16, 1995 for section A and November 13, 1995 for the remaining
sections. On October 11, 1995, BHP requested that the Department extend
the deadlines for section A and all other portions of the questionnaire
for one month. On October 13, 1995, the Department granted BHP a one-
week extension for its section A response. However, the Department did
not grant an extension for the remaining sections because we are
conducting this review under statutory deadlines. Section A of the
Department's questionnaire is a general information section that the
Department uses to gather information on the respondents, (corporate
structure, distribution process, sales process, accounting/financial
practices, merchandise, aggregate quantity and value of sales, further
manufacture or assembly in the United States, etc.). On October 23,
1995, we received a response to section A. Since section A is the
general information section of the Department's questionnaire, the only
relevant numerical data provided in section A is the aggregate quantity
and value of sales. Sections B through E of the Department's
questionnaire provide the Department with transaction-specific pricing
and cost data used in the Department's calculation methodology. On
November 20, 1995, BHP informed the Department that it no longer
intended to continue to participate in this review. We did not receive
a response to sections B through E of the questionnaire. Therefore, we
must make our preliminary determination based on facts otherwise
available (section 776(a) of the Act).
The Department finds that, in not responding to the questionnaire,
BHP 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.
Accordingly, in this case, we preliminary assign to BHP a margin of
39.11 percent, the margin calculated in the first administrative review
using information provided by BHP in that review (see Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 14049-14057
(March 29, 1996)).
Because the margin selected for this review is based on information
obtained in the course of an earlier segment of the proceeding, the
Department is required, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, to
corroborate this information to the extent practicable from independent
sources reasonably at its disposal. This simply means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information used has
probative value (See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying
the URAA, published in H. Doc. 103-106, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. At 870).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse BIA because the
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case, we have used the
margin calculated in the most recently completed segment of this
proceeding, the previous administrative review (see Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 14049-14057 (March 29,
1996)). The margin calculated in the above first administrative review,
39.11 percent, was a calculated rate, based on information provided by
BHP. There are no circumstances indicating that this margin is not
relevant for use as adverse facts available.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin
of 39.11 percent exists for BHP for the period August 1, 1994 through
July 31, 1995.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Case
[[Page 26878]]
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no 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 of this notice. 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 this administrative
review including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 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 this administrative review for
all shipments of corrosion-resistant steel from Australia entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act: (1)
the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate
established in the final results of this review; (2) for exporters not
covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the original
less-than-fair-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
continue to be the ``All Others'' rate established in the original LTFV
investigation, which is 24.96 percent.
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also 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 this 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 20, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13430 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
