[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44105-44107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21961]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-822]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Canada: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rick Johnston, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3793.
Scope of This Review
The merchandise under review is certain corrosion-resistant carbon
steel flat products. Although the Hamonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under
investigation is dispositive.
These products include 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
[[Page 44106]]
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 HTSUS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000,
7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,
7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000,
7212.20.0000, 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,
7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in
this review are corrosion-resistant 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 from this review 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 from this review 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 from this review 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.
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1994, through July 31,
1995.
Amendment of Final Results
On April 15, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the final results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada (62
FR 18448-18468). The review covering corrosion-resistant steel includes
three manufacturers/exporters (Stelco, Inc.; Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco,
Inc., collectively ``Dofasco''; and Continuous Colour Coat, Ltd.
(``CCC'')) of the subject merchandise to the United States and the
period August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995.
Interested Party Comments
Dofasco
Comment 1: In a letter to the Department dated May 8, 1997,
petitioners alleged that the Department made a ministerial error by
failing to correct for certain missing freight charges on U.S. sales.
Specifically, when Dofasco sales were reported as direct to the U.S.
customer, with a certain term of sale, and for which Dofasco reported a
value in the computer field for prepaid freight, petitioners alleged
that Dofasco should have reported a value in the field for maximum
freight. Petitioners have proposed computer language to correct the
error, and have also argued that in those instances in which no maximum
freight value exists on the record for a particular destination, the
Department should assign the highest maximum freight value reported by
Dofasco for any destination as the freight rate for that sale.
In a letter to the Department dated May 20, 1997, respondent
disagrees with petitioners that the alleged error is a clerical error.
Instead, Dofasco notes that the alleged error was not brought to the
attention of the Department in a timely manner during the course of the
proceeding. Dofasco argues that, because the Department was unaware of
this alleged error, it could not have committed a ``clerical error'' by
not making petitioners' requested corrections.
Dofasco also disputes petitioners' proposal to assign the highest
maximum freight value reported by Dofasco for any destination as the
freight rate for certain sales, in the event that the Department
determines that the error is clerical in nature. Dofasco contends that
there is verified information on the record for each destination which
the Department could apply in those cases for which maximum freight was
incorrectly excluded from the database.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the error was
a ministerial error. As is clear from the Department's April 3, 1997
analysis memorandum for the final results of review, the Department
intended to account for those instances in which ``no maximum freight
expenses has been reported in any of the relevant computer fields. . .
.'' Thus, the Department's failure to apply maximum freight values for
the sales identified by petitioners was an unintentional error which is
appropriately considered to be ministerial.
Additionally, we agree with respondent that there is adequate
record evidence regarding the appropriate values to assign as maximum
freight values, with the exception of sales to one customer. Thus, with
the exception of sales to one customer, there is no cause for applying
the highest maximum freight values for any destination to the affected
sales. See the Department's Clerical Error Memorandum, dated June 11,
1997 (pp. 1-2) for a complete discussion of this issue.
CCC
Comment 2: CCC alleges that the Department incorrectly recalculated
its selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense ratio. CCC
states that the Department inadvertently included selling expenses for
CCC in calculating the SG&A expense ratio which were already included
in CCC's sales response. CCC asserts that the Department should
recalculate this ratio using the general and administrative expenses
figure provided by CCC in its February 14, 1996 supplemental response.
Petitioners state that if the Department agrees with CCC and
corrects its SG&A expense ratio, the Department should use petitioners'
submitted computer programming language to correct the SG&A expense.
Department's Position: We agree with respondent and petitioners.
Respondent is correct in stating that, when calculating CCC's SG&A
expense ratio, the Department inadvertently used an SG&A figure in the
numerator derived from CCC's November 22, 1995 response rather than
from CCC's February 14, 1996 supplemental response (in which CCC
provided an SG&A expense ratio which excluded selling expenses already
included in the sale response). In addition, we agree with petitioners'
proposed computer programming language to correct this error.
Therefore, for these amended final results, we have recalculated CCC's
SG&A expense ratio using the ratio provided by CCC in its February 14,
1996 supplemental response and have corrected our computer programming
language in the
[[Page 44107]]
margin calculation program. See Clerical Error Memorandum at page 3.
Comment 3: Petitioners argue that the Department introduced new
computer programming lines and values in the constructed value section
of its margin calculation program and that the new lines failed to
function properly because the new values were overwritten by old
values. Therefore, petitioners state that the Department should correct
this error in its programming.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Therefore, for
these amended final results we have corrected the constructed value
section of our margin calculation program. See Clerical Error
Memorandum at pp. 4-5.
Amended Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we have determined that the following
margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dofasco, Inc.............................. 8/1/94-7/31/95 0.59
CCC, Ltd.................................. 8/1/94-7/31/95 1,31
Stelco, Inc............................... 8/1/94-7/31/95 0.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
from Canada, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be
the rates for those firms as stated above (except that if the rate is
de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash deposit rate of zero
will be required for that company); (2) for previously 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
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) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers will be the ``all others'' rate made effective by the
final results of the 1993-1994 administrative review of these orders
(see Certain Corrision-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 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 the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
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: August 12, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-21961 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
