[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29262-29263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13847]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or David J.
Goldberger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone, (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4136,
respectively.
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 regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of porcelain-on-steel
cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware
currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not
subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Amendment to Final Results
In accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, on May 18, 1999, the
Department published the final results of the 1996-1997 eleventh
administrative review on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, in
which we determined that sales of porcelain-on-steel cookware from
Mexico were made at less than normal value (64 FR 26934). On May 17,
1999, we received allegations, timely filed pursuant to 19 CFR
351.224(c)(2), from the petitioner Columbian Home Products, LLC that
the Department made two ministerial errors in its final results. We did
not receive ministerial error allegations from Cinsa, S.A. de C.V.
(Cinsa) or Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA).
However, on May 20, 1999, Cinsa and ENASA alleged that the petitioner's
ministerial error allegations exceeded the limited scope of the
corrections authorized by the Department's regulations. Respondents
also claim that the Department is barred from making the suggested
corrections on the grounds that an appeal for review by a NAFTA panel
has now been docketed with respect to this case. We disagree with
respondents. The definition of a ministerial error provides not only
for correction of errors in arithmetic but also for ``any other similar
type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers
ministerial.'' 19 CFR 351.224(f). Furthermore, the Department does not
lose jurisdiction for the purpose of correcting clerical errors with
the filing of a Request for Panel Review.
After analyzing petitioner's submission, we have determined, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that two ministerial errors were made
in our final margin calculations for Cinsa and ENASA. Specifically, we
failed to state our final determination of duty absorption, including
the percentage of U.S. sales on which duty absorption occurred. Because
the Department did not intend to avoid finalizing its statutorily-
required determination with respect to duty absorption, failure to
state our final determination in the Federal Register constitutes a
[[Page 29263]]
ministerial error within the meaning of the Department's regulations.
We also inadvertently failed to deduct inventory carrying costs
incurred in the United States from the total selling expenses used in
the CEP profit calculation. For a detailed discussion of the
ministerial error allegations and the Department's analysis, see the
Memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team, dated May 21, 1999.
Duty Absorption
On February 18, 1998, petitioner requested that the Department
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by Cinsa and
ENASA during the period of review (POR), pursuant to section 751(a)(4)
of the Act. Section 751(a)(4) provides that the Department, if
requested, will determine during an administrative review initiated two
years 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 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations
provides that, for transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C)
of the Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, the
Department will make a duty absorption determination upon request in
administrative reviews initiated in 1996 and 1998. See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27394 (May 19,
1997). This approach ensures that interested parties will have the
opportunity to request a duty absorption determination prior to sunset
reviews for entries for which the second and fourth years following an
order have already passed. Because the order on porcelain-on-steel
cookware from Mexico has been in effect since 1986, this is a
transition order within the meaning of section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.
Thus, as there has been a request for an absorption determination in
this review (initiated in 1998), we are making a duty-absorption
determination.
The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption with
respect to subject merchandise that is sold in the United States
through an affiliated importer. In this case, both Cinsa and ENASA made
all of their sales of subject merchandise to the United States through
an importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 751(a)(4)
of the Act. With respect to Cinsa, we have determined that there is a
dumping margin on 68.03 percent of its U.S. sales during the POR. For
ENASA, we have determined that there is a dumping margin on 98.52
percent of its U.S. sales during the POR. In addition, for Cinsa's and
ENASA's sales of subject merchandise, we cannot conclude from the
record that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay
the ultimately assessed duty. Under these circumstances, therefore, we
find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Cinsa on 68.03
percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise and by ENASA on 98.52
percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise.
CEP Profit Calculation
We also failed to deduct inventory carrying costs incurred in the
United States from the total selling expenses used in the calculation
of CEP profit. The Department's policy is to exclude all imputed
expenses (i.e., credit expenses and inventory carrying costs) from the
calculation of total actual profit for CEP sales of subject merchandise
and sales of the foreign like product. See Policy Bulletin 97.1:
Calculation of Profit for Constructed Export Price Transactions.
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.224(e), we are amending the final results of the 1996-1997
antidumping duty administrative review on porcelain-on-steel cookware
from Mexico.
The revised weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Revised
final final
Manufacturer/ exporter margin margin
percentage percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa......................................... 25.34 25.42
ENASA......................................... 65.23 65.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This amended 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)),
section 777(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)), and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
Dated: May 25, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-13847 Filed 5-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
