[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20225-20227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11248]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-810]
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From
the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel
Products from the United Kingdom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom
in response to requests by respondent, United Engineering Steels
Limited (UES), and petitioner, Inland Steel Bar Company. This review
covers the period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit comments are requested to
submit with each comment (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the comment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, 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).
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping
duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products
from the United Kingdom on March 22, 1993 (58 FR 15324). On March 7,
1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 12540) a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from
the United Kingdom covering the period March 1, 1994 through February
28, 1995.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), UES and the petitioner
requested that we conduct an administrative review of UES's sales. We
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19017). The Department
is conducting this administrative 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 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 the subject merchandise manufactured by UES, and
the period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995.
United States Price
We used export price (EP) for sales to the United States, as
defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold
to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of importation. UES
reported that EP was based on packed, delivered prices to customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where applicable, for cash
discounts, foreign inland freight, FOB charges in the United Kingdom,
[[Page 20226]]
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. Customs duties, brokerage and
handling charges, and U.S. inland freight charges, in accordance with
19 CFR 353.41(d). We also made an adjustment for invoice corrections
(billing adjustments) made after shipment. Because there is a
concurrent review of the countervailing duty order on the subject
merchandise, final assessments for UES will reflect the final results
of the countervailing duty administrative review in accordance with 19
CFR 353.41(d)(iv).
UES's sales in the United Kingdom and to the United States were
made in quantities of less than 25 metric tons and more than 25 metric
tons. As we have done in all prior segments of the proceeding (see
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Value; Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products, 58 FR 6207, January 27, 1993,
and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the
United Kingdom, 50 FR 10063, February 23, 1995), the Department, where
possible, matched U.S. and U.K. sales within two quantity groups: one
of 25 tons or more, and one of less than 25 tons.
No other adjustments to EP were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared UES's volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because UES's
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a
viable basis for calculating NV for UES, pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
Many of UES's home market sales were made to affiliated original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs). It is the Department's practice, in
situations where home market sales are made to affiliated parties, to
determine whether sales to affiliated parties might be appropriate to
use as the basis of NV by comparing prices of those sales to prices of
sales to unaffiliated parties, on a model-by-model basis. Because UES
made home market sales to affiliated OEMs during the POR, we tested
these OEM sales to ensure that, on average, the affiliated-party sales
were made at arm's length. To conduct this test, we compared the gross
unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of
all movement charges, direct selling expenses, invoice corrections,
rebates and packing. As a result of our arm's-length test, we
disregarded sales to the affiliated OEM customers in the home market.
We did not require respondent to provide downstream sales by these
customers because these customers manufactured the subject merchandise
into merchandise not comparable to the merchandise covered by the
order. UES also sold through affiliated resellers to unaffiliated
customers and reported these unaffiliated-customer transactions. We
used these unaffiliated transactions in our determination of NV.
Cost of Production Analysis
In the prior administrative review of UES, we disregarded from our
calculations UES's home market sales found to be below the cost of
production (COP). Therefore, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales below the COP may have occurred during
this review period. Thus, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, in
this review we initiated a COP investigation of UES.
Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP
analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of UES's cost of materials
and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus
amounts for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses
(SG&A) and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by
UES in its questionnaire responses.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of lead
and bismuth steel were made at prices below COP within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
compared model-specific COP to the reported home market prices less any
applicable movement charges, rebates, and direct and indirect selling
expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than COP, we
did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the period of review (POR) were at prices less
than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined
that the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time
in ``substantial quantities'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B)
and (C) of the Act, and because we determined that the below-cost sales
of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time, as defined in section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where all sales of a specific product were at
prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and
calculated NV based on constructed value (CV), in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared the EPs of individual
transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales of the
foreign like product where there were sales at prices above COP, as
discussed above. We based NV on packed, delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments, where
applicable, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where
applicable, we made adjustments to home market price for invoice
corrections, rebates, and inland freight. We also made a circumstance-
of-sale adjustment for differences in credit insurance and product
liability insurance expenses pursuant to section 773(1)(6)(iii) of the
Act. Respondent claimed home market credit insurance expenses and
product liability insurance as direct adjustments to normal value.
However, respondent did not identify, as the Department's questionnaire
requested, how these expenses were directly related to sales of the
foreign like product. Therefore, consistent with our previous decisions
on this issue (see Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from
the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6207, January 27, 1993, and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the United Kingdom, 60 FR
10063, February 23, 1995), we have treated these home market expenses
as indirect selling expenses. Accordingly, we made the circumstance-of-
sale adjustments for indirect expenses by adding the amounts of credit
insurance and the product liability insurance for each U.S. sale to the
NV. In order to adjust for
[[Page 20227]]
differences in packing between the two markets, we increased home
market price by U.S. packing costs and reduced it by home market
packing costs. Prices were reported net of value added taxes (VAT) and,
therefore, no deduction for VAT was necessary. We made adjustments,
where appropriate, for physical differences in merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of UES's cost of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the subject merchandise, SG&A and profit incurred and
realized in connection with production and sale of the foreign like
product, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and
realized by UES in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption
in the foreign country. We used the costs of materials, fabrication,
and general and administrative expenses as reported in the CV portion
of UES's questionnaire response. We used the U.S. packing costs as
reported in the U.S. sales portion of UES's questionnaire response. We
based selling expenses and profit on the information reported in the
home market sales portion of UES's questionnaire response. See Certain
Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344,
1349 (January 19, 1996). For selling expenses, we used the average per-
unit home market selling expenses of above-cost sales weighted by the
total quantity sold. For actual profit, we first calculated the
difference between the home market sales value and home market COP, for
all above-cost home market sales, and divided the sum of these
differences by the total home market COP for these sales. We then
multiplied this percentage by the COP for each U.S. model to derive an
actual profit.
Commission Offset
Because there are commissions on U.S. sales and not on home market
sales, we made an adjustment for indirect selling expenses in the home
market to offset the U.S. commissions. We applied the offset to NV or
CV, as appropriate, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1).
We based the commission offset amount on the amount of the home
market indirect selling expenses. We limited the home market indirect
selling expense deduction by the amount of the commissions incurred on
sales to the United States.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of EP and NV, we preliminarily
determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter Period (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Engineering Steels, Limited (UES), (now British Steel, Engineering
Steels Limited)............................................................... 3/1/94-2/28/95 1.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice,
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with
their comments (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of
the comment. The Department will publish a notice of final results of
this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such comments.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between EP and NV may vary from the percentage stated
above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative 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 for by
section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of
this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters
not covered in these reviews but covered in the original less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit
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 or a
previous review, or the original 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.
These deposit rates, 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 notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: April 26, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-11248 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
