[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45228-45236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21568]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-822, A-122-823]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Intent To Revoke in
Part, Intent Not to Revoke in Part, and Rescission of Review in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty
administrative review, intent to revoke in part, intent not to revoke
in part, and rescission of review in part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion-resistant
carbon steel flat products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate
from Canada. These reviews cover four manufacturers/exporters of
corrosion resistant steel and two manufacturers/exporters of cut-to-
length steel plate (one respondent manufactured both products), and the
period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (``NV'') by various companies subject to these reviews.
See ``Preliminary Results of Reviews'' section below for the company-
specific rates. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of these administrative reviews, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference
between the export price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'')
and the NV.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gideon Katz at (202) 482-4255 (Dofasco
Inc. and Sorevco Inc. (collectively, ``Dofasco'')), Sarah Ellerman at
(202) 482-4106 (Continuous Colour Coat (``CCC'')), Mark Hoadley at
(202) 482-0666 (Gerdau MRM Steel (``MRM''), National Steel Co.
(``National''), and Algoma Steel Co. (``Algoma'')), Elfi Blum at (202)
482-0197 (Stelco, Inc.(``Stelco'')), or Maureen Flannery at (202) 482-
3020, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are 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 19 CFR
part 351 (April 1998).
Background
On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal
Register (58 FR 44162) the antidumping duty orders on certain
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products and certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada. On August 21, 1998, MRM
requested a review of its exports of cut-to-length steel plate and
requested that the Department revoke the order on cut-to-length steel
plate as it pertains to MRM. On August 31, 1998, Stelco requested a
review of its exports of cut-to-length steel plate and that the
Department revoke the order on cut-to-length steel plate as it pertains
to Stelco. On August 31, 1998, National, Dofasco, Stelco, and CCC
requested a review of their exports of corrosion-resistant steel, and
Algoma requested a review of its exports of cut-to-length carbon steel
plate.
On August 31, 1998, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group
(a unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Gulf States
Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, Geneva Steel, and
Lukens Steel Company, petitioners, requested reviews of Algoma and
Stelco exports of cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
On August 31, 1998, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group,
Inland Steel Industries, Inc., AK Steel Corporation, LTV Steel Co.,
Inc., and National Steel Corporation, petitioners, requested reviews of
CCC, Dofasco, and Stelco exports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products.
On September 29, 1998, in accordance with section 751 of the Act,
we published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of these
orders for the period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998 (62 FR
50292).
Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the
statutory time limit of 365 days. On February 26, 1999, the Department
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary
results in the review to July 30, 1999. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products and Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate: Extension of
Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review, 64 FR 9475.
On July 30, 1999, the Department published a second notice of
extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in the review
from July 30, 1999 to August 6, 1999. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
From Canada: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 64 FR 42338.
On August 6, 1999 the Department extended the time limits for the
Preliminary Results in the review to August 16, 1999. See Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 64 FR 43984.
The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Act.
Scope of Reviews
The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two
separate ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: (1) certain corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products, and (2) certain cut-to-length
carbon steel plate.
The first class or kind, certain corrosion-resistant steel,
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
[[Page 45229]]
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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 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, and 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 second class or kind, certain cut-to-length plate, includes
hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width
exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a
thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without
patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor
coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon
steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape,
hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic
substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which
exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as
currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.40.3030,
7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,
7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,
7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
and 7212.50.0000. Included in this review are 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 is grade X-
70 plate. Also excluded is cut-to-length carbon steel plate meeting the
following criteria: (1) 100% dry steel plates, virgin steel, no scrap
content (free of Cobalt-60 and other radioactive nuclides); (2) .290
inches maximum thickness, plus 0.0, minus .030 inches; (3) 48.00 inch
wide, plus .05, minus 0.0 inches; (4) 10 foot lengths, plus 0.5, minus
0.0 inches; (5) flatness, plus/minus 0.5 inch over 10 feet; (6) AISI
1006; (7) tension leveled; (8) pickled and oiled; and (9) carbon
content, 0.03 to 0.08 (maximum).
With respect to both classes or kinds, the HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive of the scope of these reviews.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by MRM (cost and sales), Dofasco (cost and sales), and Stelco
(sales for plate, cost for both corrosion-resistant and plate) using
standard verification procedures, including on-site inspections of the
manufacturers' facilities and the examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in public
versions of the verification reports on file with the Central Records
Unit, in room B-099 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondents that are covered by the
description in the Scope of Reviews section above and sold in the home
market during the period of review (POR) to be foreign like products
for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S.
sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home
market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most
similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed
in Appendix V of the Department's September 19, 1998 antidumping
questionnaires.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or the CEP
to NV, as described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the
Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared
these to individual U.S. transaction prices.
Rescission of Review for Algoma
In Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination to Revoke in
Part, 64 FR 2173 (January 13, 1999) (``Canadian Steel 4th''), the
Department revoked the order on cut-to-length steel plate as it
pertains to Algoma. Before the Department's determination had been
finalized, however, we had already initiated our review, at the request
of both Algoma and petitioners, of Algoma's exports of cut-to-length
plate to the United States for the period August 1, 1997 through July
31, 1998. We now rescind this review insofar as it pertains to Algoma.
Intent To Revoke (MRM) and Intent Not to Revoke (Stelco)
On August 31, 1998, and August 21, 1998, respectively, Stelco and
MRM submitted requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b), that the
Department revoke the order covering cut-to-length carbon steel plate
from Canada with respect to their sales of this merchandise.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(iii), these requests were
accompanied by certifications from Stelco and MRM that they had not
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV for a three-year period,
including this
[[Page 45230]]
review period, and would not do so in the future. The Department
conducted verifications of Stelco's and of MRM's responses for this
period of review.
Prior to considering whether it is appropriate to revoke an order
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), the Department ``must be satisfied
that, during each of the three (or five) years, there were exports to
the United States in commercial quantities of the subject merchandise
to which a revocation or termination will apply.'' 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1)
(emphasis added). In other words, the Department must be satisfied that
the company participated meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of
the three years at issue, and that past margins are reflective of a
company's normal commercial activity. See Canadian Steel 4th; see also
Pure Magnesium from Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part,
63 FR 26147 (May 12, 1998).
Based on the current record, we preliminarily find that Stelco did
not sell merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities
during the current administrative review (one of the three consecutive
review periods cited by Stelco to support its request for revocation).
Stelco made only a few sales totaling 47 tons 1 of subject
merchandise in the United States during the POR. By contrast, during
the period covered by the antidumping investigation, which was only six
months long, Stelco made several thousand sales totaling approximately
30,000 tons.2 In other words, Stelco's sales for the entire
year of the current POR amount to only 0.173 percent of its sales
volume during the six months covered by the investigation. Similarly,
during the previous POR Stelco sold approximately 2,000 tons of subject
merchandise in the United States. While this amount is small in
comparison to the amount sold prior to issuance of the order, it is
over 40 times greater than the amount sold during the period covered by
the current administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stelco's response (public version) to Section A of the
Department's questionnaire in the current administrative review of
cut-to-length carbon steel products from Canada (Oct. 26, 1998) at
Exhibit A-1.
\2\ Stelco's response (public version) to Section A of the
Department's questionnaire in the antidumping duty investigations of
certain flat carbon steel (cut-to-length plate) products from Canada
(Sep. 11, 1992) at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of our preliminary finding that, in the instant period of
review, Stelco did not sell subject merchandise in the United States in
commercial quantities, we preliminarily determine that Stelco does not
qualify for revocation from the order on steel plate under sections
351.222 (b) and (d)(1).
We preliminarily determine that MRM's aggregate sales were made in
commercial quantities over the course of its three consecutive review
periods of zero margins. See Memorandum to the File: Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for MRM (August 12,
1999). Thus, we preliminarily determine that MRM qualifies for a review
of whether the order on steel plate should be revoked as to sales of
its products.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), in determining whether to revoke
an antidumping order in part, (1) we must conclude that the company has
sold subject merchandise at not less than normal value to the United
States for three consecutive review periods, (2) we must conclude that
it is not likely that the companies eligible for revocation will in the
future sell the subject merchandise at less than NV, and (3) the
company must agree to the immediate reinstatement of the order if the
Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation,
has sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
MRM has satisfied the three prongs of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In the
two prior reviews of this order, we determined that MRM sold cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada at not less than NV. As discussed
in detail below, we preliminarily determine that MRM sold cut-to-length
carbon steel plate at not less than NV during this review period.
Moreover, the Department's policy in the past has been that, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, three consecutive review periods
with no dumping margins is evidence that it is not likely that a
company eligible for revocation will in the future sell the subject
merchandise at less than NV. See Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors of One Megabyte or Above From the Republic of Korea,
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Determination Not To Revoke Order In Part, 62 FR 39809, 39810 (July 24,
1997). There is no evidence on the record, other than MRM's history of
zero margins over the past three review periods, indicating MRM's
likelihood to sell at less than NV in the future.
Finally, MRM agreed to the order's immediate reinstatement as it
pertains to its sales, as long as any firm is subject to the order, if
the Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that, subsequent to
revocation, it has sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. Since
we preliminarily conclude that all criteria for revocation have been
satisfied, we intend to revoke the order as to MRM.
Duty Absorption
On October 28, 1998, the petitioners requested that the Department
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR
for corrosion-resistant steel for Dofasco, CCC, and Stelco, and for
cut-to-length plate for MRM and Stelco. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act
provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an
administrative review initiated two or four years after publication of
the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign
producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United
States through an affiliated importer. In this case, Dofasco, CCC, MRM,
and Stelco sold to the United States through an affiliated importer.
Section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that
for transition orders (i.e., orders in effect on January 1, 1995), the
Department will conduct duty absorption reviews, if requested, for
administrative reviews initiated in 1996 or 1998. Because the order
underlying this review was issued prior to January 1, 1995, and this
review was initiated in 1998, we will make a duty absorption
determination in this segment of the proceeding.
We have preliminarily determined that there is no dumping margin on
any of MRM's and Stelco's U.S. sales of cut-to-length plate during the
POR. Therefore, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have not
been absorbed by MRM and Stelco on their U.S. sales of cut-to-length
plate.
We have preliminarily determined that there is a de minimis margin
on Dofasco's U.S. sales of corrosion-resistant steel during the POR.
Therefore, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have not been
absorbed by Dofasco on its U.S. sales of corrosion-resistant steel.
Also for corrosion-resistant steel, there is no evidence on the record
that unaffiliated purchasers of subject merchandise sold by CCC and
Stelco will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on
entries during the review period. Accordingly, based on the record, we
cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States
will pay the ultimately assessed duty. Therefore, we preliminarily find
that for CCC's and Stelco's sales of corrosion-resistant steel,
antidumping duties have been absorbed by the producer or exporter
during the POR. We will request that all the above companies place on
the record evidence that unaffiliated
[[Page 45231]]
purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on
entries during the review period for the respective class or kind of
merchandise.
United States Price
For United States price, we used EP when the subject merchandise
was sold directly or indirectly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise
warranted by facts on the record.
CCC
The Department calculated EP for CCC based on packed, prepaid or
delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions
from the starting price, net of discounts and price adjustments, for
movement expenses (foreign and U.S. freight, brokerage and handling,
and U.S. Customs duties), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the
Act.
We have determined to treat certain payments, which CCC reported as
``credit notes,'' as price adjustments which should be excluded from
the starting price. See Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of Review for CCC (August 12, 1999).
It is the Department's standard practice to use the invoice date as
the date of sale; we may, however, use a date other than the invoice
date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of
sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). Our questionnaire instructed CCC to report
the date of invoice as the date of sale; it also stated, however, that
for EP sales ``(t)he date of sale cannot occur after the date of
shipment.'' Therefore, we used date of invoice as date of sale, but, in
some instances, when shipment date preceded invoice date, we used the
date of shipment.
Dofasco
For purposes of these reviews, we treated Dofasco, Inc. and
Sorevco, Inc. as one respondent, as we have done in prior segments of
the proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Canada: Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value, 58 FR 37099 (1993), and Canadian Steel 4th.
The Department calculated EP for Dofasco based on packed, prepaid
or delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made
deductions from the starting price, net of discounts and rebates, for
movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, and post-sale
warehousing) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. As
discussed in prior reviews, certain Dofasco sales have undergone minor
further processing in the United States as a condition of sale to the
customer. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18461 (April 15,
1997). In order to determine the value of subject merchandise at the
time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the
Department has deducted the price charged to Dofasco for this minor
further processing from gross unit price to determine U.S. price.
It is the Department's current practice normally to use the invoice
date as the date of sale; we may, however, use a date other than the
invoice date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects
the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material
terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i) (62 FR at 27411). Our
questionnaire instructed Dofasco to report the date of invoice as the
date of sale; it also stated, however, for EP sales, that ``(t)he date
of sale cannot occur after the date of shipment.'' In this review,
Dofasco's date of shipment in many instances preceded the date of
invoice, and therefore we cannot use the date of invoice as the
regulations prescribe. Accordingly, as provided for in 19 CFR
351.401(i) of the regulations, we used the dates of sale described
below. These sale dates reflect the dates on which the exporter or
producer established the material terms of sale. We used the date of
order acknowledgment as date of sale, as reported by Dofasco for all
Dofasco sales in both the U.S. market and the home market, except for
sales made pursuant to long-term contracts. For Dofasco's sales made
pursuant to long-term contracts, we used date of the contract as date
of sale. In the rare instance of a rush order, we used the date of
shipment as date of sale if a coil was shipped before it was
acknowledged. We also used shipment date for sales of secondary
products for which there is no order acknowledgment. If there was a
change in price, we used the date of Dofasco's order reacknowledgement
as date of sale.
We used the date of order confirmation as the date of sale, as
reported by Sorevco Inc. (``Sorevco'') for its sales in the home
market, except when Sorevco shipped more merchandise than the customer
originally ordered, and such overages were in excess of accepted
industry tolerances. For those sales we used date of shipment as date
of sale.
MRM
The Department calculated EP for MRM based on packed, prepaid or
delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses (foreign and U.S.
movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties) and U.S.
selling commissions pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with standard Department practice, we used date of
invoice as date of sale for MRM's U.S. and home market sales. See 19
CFR 351.401(i).
National
The Department calculated CEP (there were no EP sales) for National
based on packed, prepaid or delivered prices to customers in the United
States.3 We made deductions from the starting price, net of
discounts and billing adjustments, for movement expenses (foreign and
U.S. freight, warehousing, insurance, brokerage and handling, and U.S.
Customs duties), pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National, a U.S.-based corporation, ships steel flat
products to the United States through its partially owned Canadian
subsidiary, DNN Galvanizing Corp (``DNN''). DNN, under a tolling
agreement, galvanizes National's steel flat products, which leads to
their categorization as subject merchandise. National, however,
provided U.S. selling functions for these products, and thus, we
considered them to be CEP sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National sold goods in the United States with and without U.S.
further manufacturing. Where appropriate, the Department reduced CEP by
National's costs of further manufacturing its goods in the United
States, in accordance with section 772(d)(2).
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we further reduced
CEP by direct selling expenses (credit, warranty, and technical service
expenses), indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs.
Finally, we made an adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to
selling expenses incurred in the United States, in accordance with
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
In this review period, National's date of shipment always either
was the same as or preceded the date of invoice, and, therefore, we
have chosen to use date of shipment as date of sale.
Stelco
Corrosion-resistant steel: We calculated EP based on the packed,
prepaid or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement
expenses, including foreign and U.S. freight,
[[Page 45232]]
brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties, and for discounts and
rebates, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
Plate: We calculated EP based on the packed, prepaid or delivered
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made
deductions for movement expenses, including foreign and U.S. freight,
brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with standard Department practice, we used date of
invoice as date of sale for both corrosion-resistant steel and cut-to-
length plate for Stelco's U.S. and home market sales. Only in the event
where shipment date was before invoice date did we use the date of
shipment.
Normal Value
The Department determines the viability of the home market as the
comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of home market
and U.S. sales. We found that each company's quantity of sales in its
home market exceeded five percent of its sales to the United States for
the relevant class or kind of merchandise. We, therefore, have
determined that each company's home market sales are viable for
purposes of comparison with sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Moreover,
there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market
situation in the exporting companies' country that would not permit a
proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption
in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same
level of trade as the EP or CEP sale.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, except for
National, we used CV as the basis for NV when there were no above-cost
contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the
comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e)
of the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, selling,
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit. In accordance
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit
on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection
with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the
ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For
selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling
expenses.
We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to
the prices at which the respondents sold identical merchandise to
unaffiliated customers.
For both classes or kinds of merchandise under review and for all
respondents (except National), the Department disregarded sales below
cost of production (``COP'') in the last completed review. See Canadian
Steel 4th. We therefore have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect,
pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of the
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in
this review may have been made at prices below COP. Pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales in the
home market by all respondents, except National.
We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market
with model-specific cost of production figures for the POR. In
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based
on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the foreign like product plus SG&A expenses and all costs and
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in packed
condition and ready for shipment. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we
used home market sales and COP information provided by each respondent
in its questionnaire responses. We made adjustments where warranted
based on our findings at verification.
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of
foreign like merchandise were made at prices below COP and, if so,
whether the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities and at prices that did not permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Because each
individual price was compared against the POR-long average COP, any
sales that were below cost were also not at prices which permitted cost
recovery within a reasonable period of time. Model-specific COPs were
compared to reported home market prices less any applicable movement
charges, discounts, and rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we
disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with
sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act. Based on this test, we
disregarded below-cost sales for both classes or kinds of merchandise
under review and for all respondents for which we conducted a cost
investigation.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, where
possible, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the
U.S. price. See the ``Level of Trade Section'' below.
The Department determined in the final results of a previous
administrative review, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 12725
(Mar. 9, 1998), that it would be inappropriate to resort directly to
constructed value (CV), in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis
for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise
identical or most similar to that sold in the United States to be below
cost or otherwise outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Therefore,
we match a given U.S. sale to foreign market sales of the next most
similar model when all sales of the most comparable model fail the cost
test. The Department will use CV as the basis for NV only when there
are no above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for comparison.
Therefore, in this proceeding, when making comparisons in
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products
sold in the home market as described in the ``Scope of Reviews''
section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of
trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the
home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like
product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the
characteristics listed in Appendix V of our antidumping questionnaire.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV for differences in
circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) and
(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made
COS
[[Page 45233]]
adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct selling expenses and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where
applicable, for home market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S.
commissions paid on EP sales pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(b). For
comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market
direct selling expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
CCC
For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated
parties. Home market starting prices were based on the packed, ex-
factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home
market, net of discounts and price adjustments, where applicable.
We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and movement
expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (a)(6)(B) of the
Act. We also made adjustments for differences in the costs of
manufacture for subject merchandise and matching foreign like products,
attributable to their differing physical characteristics, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for comparison to EP,
we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct selling
expenses (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit).
When comparisons were made to EP sales on which commissions were paid,
but where no commissions were paid on the matching foreign market
sales, we made adjustments for the respondent's home market indirect
selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR
351.410(e).
Dofasco
For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated
parties. We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in the
costs of manufacture for subject merchandise and matching foreign like
products, attributable to their differing physical characteristics,
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for comparison to EP,
we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct selling
expenses (credit, royalties, and warranty expenses) and adding U.S.
direct selling expenses (credit, royalties, and warranty expenses).
When comparisons were made to EP sales on which commissions were paid,
but where no commissions were paid on the matching foreign market
sales, we made adjustments for the respondent's home market indirect
selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR
351.410(e).
During verification we discovered that Dofasco did not incorporate
all sales order numbers in determining the cost for a few of its
CONNUMs. We tested three sales order numbers and compared the costs
associated with these to the reported costs for the respective product.
We found that the cost calculated for two of the missing sales order
numbers exceeded the reported costs for their respective products and
that the cost calculated for the other sales order number was less than
the cost of its respective product. For those CONNUMs whose sales order
numbers we tested, we adjusted their cost in accordance with the test
results. For the remaining CONNUMs, we determine that the use of facts
available is appropriate, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act,
because, as discovered at verification, Dofasco failed to include all
sales order numbers in its cost calculation. Where necessary
information is missing from the record, the Department may apply facts
available under section 776 of the Act. Further, where that information
is missing because a respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use
facts available that are adverse to the interests of that respondent,
which may include information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record. Dofasco did not act to the best of its ability in
the reporting of its costs. Even though its sales order number
documentation was readily available and company officials had knowledge
of these sales order numbers, Dofasco failed to ensure that all sales
order numbers were included in its cost calculations. This indicates
that Dofasco did not act to the best of its ability to comply with the
Department's request for information. We are therefore using an adverse
inference as facts available for this aspect of Dofasco's cost
calculation. For those CONNUMs whose sales order numbers we did not
test, as facts available we increased their cost by adding the highest
differential for the CONNUMs tested. We have also made other
adjustments to Dofasco's reported costs. We increased the variable cost
of manufacture by disallowing Dofasco's claimed adjustment for
byproduct profits and certain sundry expenses. Finally, we have
excluded capital gains and foreign exchange gains as offsets to
Dofasco's interest expense. We used adjusted COP and CV values to
appropriately reflect Dofasco's expenses associated with painting
services provided by an affiliate. For a full discussion, see
Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results
of Review for Dofasco, August 12, 1999.
MRM
For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated
purchasers (MRM made no home market sales to affiliated parties). Home
market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices
to purchasers in the home market.
We made adjustments to the starting price, net of rebates, for
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for comparison to EP, we made COS
adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct selling expenses
(credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit
expense). Because comparisons were made to EP sales on which
commissions were paid, but no commissions were paid on home market
sales, we made adjustments for the respondent's home market indirect
selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR
351.410(e).
As a result of our verification of MRM's response, we reclassified
as freight expenses data originally reported as billing adjustments.
Also as a result of our verification, we made an upwards adjustment to
MRM's cost of manufacture before performing our sales-below-cost test.
For a full discussion, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum
for the Preliminary Results of Review for MRM, August 12, 1999.
National
We based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers
(National made no home market sales to affiliated parties). Home market
prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to
purchasers in the home market.
We made adjustments to the starting price, net of billing
adjustments and discounts, for movement expenses in
[[Page 45234]]
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In accordance
with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), for comparison
to CEP, we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct
selling expenses (credit, warranty, and technical service expenses). We
also made adjustments for differences in the costs of manufacturing
subject merchandise and matching foreign like products, attributable to
their differing physical characteristics, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, we deducted home market indirect
selling expenses to the extent of U.S. indirect selling expenses
because all sales in the home market were made at a different level of
trade than sales in the U.S. market. See the National subsection of the
``Level of Trade'' section below.
Stelco
For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated
parties (when made at prices determined to be at arms-length, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403) or unaffiliated parties. Home market
starting prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered
prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market net
of discounts and rebates. We made adjustments, where applicable, for
packing and movement expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in
the costs of manufacture for subject merchandise and matching foreign
like products, attributable to their differing physical
characteristics, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In
accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for
comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting home
market direct selling expenses (credit, advertising, warranties and
technical services) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit,
advertising, warranties and technical services). There were no
commissions paid during the POR on either home market sales or U.S.
sales.
We made adjustments to COP and CV on corrosion-resistant steel to
appropriately reflect Stelco's expenses associated with painting
services provided by an affiliate.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same LOT as U.S. sales. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-
price sale in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed
value, the level of the sales from which we derive SG&A and profit. For
EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is
usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
In the present review, only Dofasco claimed that more than one LOT
existed. As discussed below, to evaluate LOTs, we examined information
regarding the distribution systems in both the U.S. and Canadian
markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and
selling expenses for each respondent.
CCC
In both the home market and the United States, CCC reported one
LOT. CCC reported three customer categories in the home market and two
in the U.S. market, but CCC claimed that the selling functions it
performed were the same in each market and did not vary according to
customer. CCC also reported two channels of distribution, but the
Department found no difference in the functions performed through these
channels of distribution. CCC did not claim a LOT adjustment.
We analyzed the selling functions performed for various customer
categories and channels of distribution in each market. We found that
CCC performed substantially similar selling functions regardless of the
type of home market customer and, therefore, that one level of trade
existed in the home market. We reached the same conclusion regarding
the U.S. market.
Finally, we compared the selling functions performed at the home
market LOT with those performed at the U.S. LOT and found them
substantially similar. Thus, no LOT adjustment was appropriate. For a
further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis with respect to
CCC, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of Review for CCC, August 12, 1999.
Dofasco
Dofasco reported three LOTs in the home market. Dofasco defined its
LOT categories by customer category: service center, automotive, and
construction and converters/manufacturers (``construction''). We
examined the selling functions performed at each claimed level and
found that there was a significant difference in selling functions
offered to these three categories. Of the several reported selling
functions, Dofasco performed only two of the same or similar selling
functions at both the automotive and service center sales levels.
Dofasco reported fourteen selling functions which were different
between these two levels. Additionally, sales to automotive customers
are sales to end users, while sales to service centers are sales to
resellers. Thus, sales to service centers and automotive customers were
made at different stages of marketing. Based upon this fact and the
different levels of selling functions described above, we preliminarily
conclude that sales to the automotive customers and service centers are
made at different levels of trade.
Although both automotive and construction customers are OEMs, we
note that both quantitatively and qualitatively, the selling functions
offered to automotive customers involve significantly greater selling
activities and thus represent a distinct stage of marketing.
Specifically, of the 16 reported selling functions, Dofasco performed
only seven of the same or similar selling functions to both automotive
and construction customers. Dofasco's functions for these two customer
categories differed with respect to nine other activities. Therefore,
given these differences, we preliminarily conclude that automotive and
construction constitute separate levels of trade.
There were numerous differences in selling functions between sales
to construction and service center customers. Dofasco performed six
reported selling functions for sales to service centers and only four
selling
[[Page 45235]]
functions for sales to construction customers. Of these selling
functions, only one was performed for both service centers and
construction customers. Additionally, sales to service center customers
are sales to resellers, while sales to construction customers are sales
to end users. Thus, sales to service centers and construction customers
were made at different stages of marketing. Based upon this fact and
the different levels of selling functions described above, we
preliminarily conclude that sales to service centers and construction
customers are made at different levels of trade.
Overall, we determine that the selling functions for the
automotive, service center, and construction customer categories are
substantially dissimilar to one another and that these sales are made
at different stages of marketing. Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that the automotive, service center, and construction customer
categories should be treated as three LOTs in the comparison market.
Dofasco reported the same three LOTs in the U.S. market: automotive,
service center, and construction. We preliminarily determine that the
results of our analysis of U.S. LOTs are identical to those of the
comparison market. In addition, there were only insignificant
differences in selling functions at each LOT between the comparison
market and the U.S. market. Therefore, we found that the three U.S.
LOTs corresponded to the three comparison market LOTs. The Department
did not find that there existed a pattern of consistent price
differences between the three levels of trade. Therefore, we did not
make LOT adjustments when comparing sales at different LOTs. For a
further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis with respect to
Dofasco, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of Review for Dofasco, August 12, 1999.
MRM
In both the home market and the United States, MRM reported one LOT
and one distribution system with two classes of customers in the home
market, distributors and OEMs, and one class of customer, OEMs, in the
U.S. market. We analyzed the selling functions and activities performed
for customers in each market. We found that MRM performed substantially
similar selling functions and activities for both classes of home
market customers and, therefore, that one level of trade existed in the
home market. Finally, we compared the selling functions performed at
the home market LOT with those performed at the U.S. LOT and found them
substantially similar. Thus, no LOT adjustment was appropriate.
National
National claimed only one LOT, but reported several different
distribution channels in both its home market and the United States
based on classes of customers (OEMs and steel service centers) and the
existence of warehousing or further manufacturing between National and
its customers.
We examined the reported selling functions and found that National
provides substantially the same selling functions to its home market
customers regardless of distribution channel. We reached the same
conclusion regarding the U.S. market.
National does not provide technical services to its service center
customers. We did not, however, consider the provision of technical
services to constitute a substantial difference between distribution
channels. National warehouses some of its products before shipping to
customers. Any one sale, however, can contain both warehoused and non-
warehoused products and the Department was unable to determine which
sales involved more warehoused goods than others.
We compared the channels of distribution and selling functions in
the U.S. and home markets. The channels of distribution are similar for
both markets with National providing substantially similar selling
functions to both its U.S. and home market customers. However, at the
level of constructed export sale to the United States, i.e., after
eliminating from consideration the selling functions associated with
deductions made under section 772 of the Act, we found that National's
sales to customers in the United States were made at a different level
of trade than its sales to home market customers.
Because there are no sales in the home market made at the same
level of trade as sales in the United States, we were not able to
determine whether the difference in level of trade affects price
comparability. Therefore, we made a constructed export price offset. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(f)(2), we deducted indirect selling
expenses from NV to the extent of U.S. indirect selling expenses. For a
further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis with respect to
National, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of Review for National, August 12, 1999.
Stelco
Stelco identified one level of trade and two channels of
distribution (to end-users or to resellers) in the home market for each
class or kind of merchandise. We examined the selling functions
performed in each channel and found that Stelco provided many of the
same or similar selling functions in each, including inventory
maintenance, warranty, technical advice, and freight and delivery
arrangements. We found few differences between selling functions for
transactions made through the two channels of trade. Overall, we
determine that the selling functions between the two sales channels are
sufficiently similar to consider them one LOT in the home market for
sales of both corrosion-resistant products and plate products.
In the United States, Stelco Inc. sold both products through the
two channels of distribution listed above. We found that the selling
functions performed for sales to the United States are sufficiently
similar between the two channels to consider them one LOT for both
corrosion-resistant products and plate products. Additionally, we
consider this LOT to be the same as that identified in the home market.
Therefore, no adjustment is appropriate.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the
weighted-average dumping margins for the period August 1, 1997 through
July 31, 1998 to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCC........................................................ 1.08
Dofasco.................................................... 0.11
National................................................... 5.65
Stelco..................................................... 4.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRM........................................................ 0.00
Stelco..................................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose to the parties to the proceeding
calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of
review within ten days after the date of public announcement, or, if
there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the
date of publication or
[[Page 45236]]
the first business day thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties
may be submitted not later than 30 days after publication. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later
than five days after the date of filing of case briefs. The Department
will publish the final results of this administrative review, including
its analysis of issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, not
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment
rates for each class or kind of merchandise based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to
the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties.
This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular
importer for that class or kind of merchandise made during the POR.
If the revocation is made final for MRM, it will apply to all
unliquidated entries of this merchandise produced by MRM, exported to
the United States and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, on or after August 1, 1998, which will be the effective
date of the revocation from the order for MRM.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for
each reviewed company will be that established in the final results of
review (except that no deposit will be required for firms with de
minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) for
exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the less than fair
value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, 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 previous review, or the 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; (4) the
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation, which was 18.71 percent for corrosion-resistant steel
products and 61.88 percent for plate (see Amended Final Determinations
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Orders: Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada, 60 FR 49582 (Sep. 26, 1995)).
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative reviews.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
These administrative reviews and notices are published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))
and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).
Dated: August 10, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-21568 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
