[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44039-44041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21856]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-602-803]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Australia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 29, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products from Australia (61 FR 26876). The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States
and the period August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995. We gave interested
parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Based on
our analysis of the comments received, we have not changed the results
from those presented in the preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Jean Kemp, AD/CVD
Enforcement, Group III, 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 29, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 28676) the preliminary results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products from Australia (58 FR 44161, August 9, 1993). The
Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review constitute one
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain corrosion-resistant carbon
steel flat products. The class or kind 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 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
[[Page 44040]]
millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently
classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000,
7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030,
7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000,
7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 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, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000,
7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000,
7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included
are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular 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 bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded 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 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 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. These
HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The
written description remains dispositive.
The review covers BHP and the period August 1, 1994 through July
31, 1995 (POR).
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We only received comments from petitioners,
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX
Corporation, Inland Steel Industries, Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc.,
National Steel Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, Gulf States Steel
Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, WCI Steel, Inc., and Lukens
Steel Company, in this proceeding. Neither respondent (The Broken Hill
Proprietary Company Ltd. (BHP)) nor petitioners requested a hearing.
Comment 1: Petitioners stated that the Department correctly
concluded in its preliminary results that the use of facts available is
appropriate in this review because BHP did not respond to Sections B,
C, or D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. In
addition, petitioners noted that because BHP failed to cooperate and
withheld requested information, Section 776(b) of the Act permits the
Department to use an inference adverse to BHP in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available. (See, Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR
30326, 30328 (June 14, 1996)) Moreover, the petitioners argue that the
Department's practice under the old law was to view a respondent who
refuses to participate as non-cooperative and to subject said
respondent to the use of the most adverse facts available. (See,
Certain Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37091, 37094
(July 9, 1993))
Additionally, petitioners stated that the Department correctly
applied Section 776(c) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative
Action (SAA) in its preliminary results and correctly followed its
practice for assessing the probative value of the information to be
used by examining its reliability and relevance. (See, Mechanical
Transfer Presses from Japan, 61 FR 15036 (April 4, 1996)) Also,
petitioners note that the Department correctly recognized that in
selecting as adverse facts available the margin calculated in the prior
segment of this proceeding, ``it is not necessary to question the
reliability of the margin for that time period.'' Petitioners also
noted that the Department did consider information as to whether there
were circumstances that would render the margin not relevant, and
stated that the Department correctly concluded that there were no such
circumstances.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Our final results
are in accord with our reasoning in our preliminary results. Because
BHP failed to submit a response to sections B through E of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire we have determined that it is
appropriate to use as an adverse inference in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available, the margin calculated in a prior segment of
the proceeding. The Department will apply the antidumping margin of
39.05 percent for these final results, which is the antidumping margin
from the amended final results of the first administrative review.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we have determined that the following
margin exists for the period August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1995:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BHP.......................................................... 39.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective,
upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative
review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Australia
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for BHP will be the rate
established above; (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 or exporters will
continue to be 24.96 percent, the all others rate established in the
final results of the less than fair value investigation (58 FR 44161,
August 19, 1993).
The 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 serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information
[[Page 44041]]
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). Timely
written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulation 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 and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: August 20, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-21856 Filed 8-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
