[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31787-31789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15289]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-412-810]
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from
the United Kingdom: Notice of Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of amendment of final results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending our final results of administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth
carbon steel products from the United Kingdom, published on April 17,
1997, to reflect
[[Page 31788]]
the correction of ministerial errors made in the margin calculation in
those final results. We are publishing this amendment to the final
results in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery,
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 stated, 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 December 10, 1996, we published the preliminary results of our
administrative review of certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon
steel products from the United Kingdom (61 FR 65022). We published the
final results of review on April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18744). On May 1,
1997, we received a timely allegation from respondent, British Steel
Engineering Steels Limited (BSES), alleging that the Department made
ministerial errors in the final results.
Scope of 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 or more 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.
Amended Final Results
On May 1, 1997, BSES alleged that the Department of Commerce (the
Department) committed ministerial errors in calculating the final
antidumping duty margin. BSES argues that, in calculating constructed
value (CV) profit, the Department made a ministerial error in failing
to ensure that the profit ratio and the value by which the ratio was
multiplied shared the same basis. BSES argues that the Department
overstated the CV profit by including direct selling expenses, indirect
selling expenses, and packing in ``CVPROFIT,'' the value by which the
profit ratio (``PRATE2CV'') was multiplied, but excluding those
expenses from the total cost of production used in the denominator of
the profit ratio. In order to ensure that denominator ``TOTHMCOP'' of
the profit ratio and value ``CVPROFIT'' shared the same basis, BSES
suggests that the Department either delete such expenses from
``CVPROFIT'' or include them in the denominator ``TOTHMCOP.''
We agree with BSES that the Department made a ministerial error by
inadvertently excluding direct selling expenses, indirect selling
expenses and packing expenses in the calculation of CV profit. These
items should have been included. Furthermore, we note that we erred by
deducting these expenses from gross price before the comparison of
gross price with cost of production. Therefore, we have excluded these
expenses from the net cost of production, ``NPRICOP,'' and have added
them to the total cost of production, ``TOTCOP,'' for these amended
final results.
Second, BSES alleges that, in the calculation of CV, the Department
understated imputed credit and inventory carrying costs. BSES points
out that the Department calculated credit and inventory carrying costs
for CV by first creating CV credit and inventory carrying costs ratios.
The Department then multiplied the ratios by total CV to yield the unit
values of CV credit and inventory carrying costs. BSES argues that,
since the denominator of the ratios was on a different basis than total
CV (the value by which the ratio was multiplied), the results of the
calculations were understated. BSES claims that the Department normally
creates these variables by weight-averaging values from above-cost home
market sales. As support for its argument, BSES cites our Final Results
Analysis memorandum of April 9, 1997, where the Department states that
``we weighted-averaged the variables, including credit and inventory
carrying costs.'' BSES notes that the total CV (``TOTCV'') does not
include movement expenses, while the home market total unit price
(``HMTOTUPR''), which serves as the denominator of the imputed credit
and inventory carrying costs ratios, does include movement expenses.
BSES argues that the resulting unit values for credit and inventory
carrying costs are therefore understated. BSES suggests that the
Department correct this error by using the Department's standard
weighted-average method; alternatively, BSES suggests, if the
Department continues to use the ratio, the Department may correct its
error by either deducting movement expenses from the denominator
``HMTOTUPR'' or by adding the movement expenses to ``TOTCV.''
We agree that the Department made a ministerial error as it
intended to calculate a weighted-average of the listed variables
including credit and inventory carrying costs. See Final Analysis
memorandum dated April 9, 1997. Therefore, we have revised the margin
calculation program by replacing ``SUM'' with ``MEAN'' at line 441, and
deleting lines 454, 455, 456, 457, 1009, 1010, 1014, and 1015.
Amended Final Results of Review
Upon review of the submitted allegation, the Department has
determined that the following margin exists for the period March 1,
1995 through February 29, 1996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter Period of Review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Steel Engineering Steels
Limited (BSES) (formerly United
Engineering Steels Limited)........... 3/1/95-2/29/96 4.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31789]]
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the
percentage stated above. Because there is a concurrent review of the
countervailing duty order on the subject merchandise, final assessments
for BSES will reflect the final results of the countervailing duty
administrative review in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the
Act. 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 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 by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
reviewed company will be the rate listed above; (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, a prior 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) 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 (58 FR 6207,
January 27, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a final 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 subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
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 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written 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 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 30, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-15289 Filed 6-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
