[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48502-48505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23220]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-401-805]
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by a respondent, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on Certain Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Sweden (A-401-805). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review
(POR) February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994.
We have preliminarily determined that sales to the United States
have been made below the foreign market value (FMV). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties
equal to the difference between the United States price (USP) and the
FMV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Patience or Jean Kemp,
Office of Agreements Compliance, 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.
[[Page 48503]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Background
On July 9, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 37213) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, and published an
antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44168). On August 3,
1994, the Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request
an Administrative Review'' of this order for the period February 4,
1993, through July 31, 1994 (59 FR 39543). The Department received a
request for an administrative review from Svenskt Stal AB (SSAB). On
September 8, 1994 (59 FR 46391), we initiated the administrative review
of SSAB.
The Department is now conducting this review in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
This review covers sales of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate
from Sweden. The POR is February 4, 1993 through July 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review constitute one
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain cut-to-length carbon steel
plate. These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill
plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in 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 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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under
item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000,
7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045,
7211.90.0000,7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 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 is grade X-70
plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we verified
information provided by the respondent by using standard verification
procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer's
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public
versions of the verification reports.
United States Price
All of SSAB's U.S. sales were based on the packed price to the
first unrelated purchaser in the United States. Because the sales were
made prior to importation to the United States, the Department
determined that purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of the
Tariff Act, was the appropriate basis for calculating USP. For terms of
sale, please see Analysis Memorandum to the File, August 31, 1995. We
made deductions from purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight and insurance, ocean freight, marine insurance,
brokerage and handling, port charges, U.S. customs duties and fees,
wharfage, and U.S. inland freight.
We used as date of sale the date of contract (if the contract set
quantity and value) or, if either price or quantity was not set, the
date of order confirmation (the date on which price and quantity are
fixed).
We adjusted USP for Swedish value-added taxes (VAT) in accordance
with our practice as outlined in recent determinations, including
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 59 FR 55435, 55439 (November 7, 1994).
Foreign Market Value
Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third
country sales, we determined that the home market was viable because
the amount of similar merchandise sold in the home market is more than
five percent of the amount sold to third countries. See 19 CFR
353.48(a). Further, SSAB had sales both to related and unrelated
parties in the home market during the POR. In order to determine
whether sales to related parties might be appropriate to use as the
basis of FMV, the Department compared prices of those sales to prices
to unrelated parties, on a model-by-model basis. When possible, the
Department used unrelated party sales at the same level of trade as the
related party sales for this comparison. When the price ratio of
related to unrelated purchases was less than 99.5 percent, we
determined that those sales were not arm's length sales and disregarded
those sales. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, (58 FR
37062, July 9, 1993).
We used prices to related purchasers only if such sales were made
at arm's length as defined above. In addition, we determined that sales
made by SSAB through its related distributor, Tibnor AB (TAB), were a
significant portion of the home market sales listing. We asked SSAB to
report the portion of home market sales made through TAB to the first
unrelated customer. SSAB claimed TAB could not identify the supplying
producer for sales to unrelated customers. We verified this claim. We
also verified that TAB's reported price is set without regard to the
supplying producer. We asked SSAB to develop an allocation methodology
to account for SSAB sales through TAB to unrelated customers. However,
TAB's proposed allocation methodology for reporting the downstream
sales is inconsistent with standard accounting principles because it
does not consider the impact of purchases from non-SSAB suppliers, it
assumes that TAB's beginning inventory was zero, and it assumes that
the first plate sold is always SSAB plate. It is also inconsistent with
TAB's normal methodology for valuing its inventory. Additionally, at
verification, we found that the percentage of TAB purchases of SSAB
merchandise is significantly less than respondent's methodology
assumes. Therefore, the impact of merchandise sourced from producers
other than SSAB is greater than indicated by respondent's methodology.
After evaluating the larger percentage of non-SSAB merchandise
purchased by TAB, the lack of information regarding
[[Page 48504]]
non-SSAB purchases, and the inconsistencies with standard accounting
practices, we decided not to use respondent's methodology. However, we
determined that as the final price to the customer was set regardless
of producer and that TAB accurately reported most of its expenses and
adjustments, it was reasonable to use TAB's sales listing. Therefore,
we rejected TAB's allocation methodology, revised TAB's reported sales
to neutralize the effect of non-SSAB suppliers and used the revised
sales listing in our calculations. For more information on our use of
SSAB's downstream sales, see Analysis Memorandum to the File, August
31, 1995.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.58 and 353.55, we compared U.S. sales
to home market sales made at the same level of trade, and in comparable
commercial quantities, where possible. SSAB reported a number of sales
in its home market database in currencies other than the Swedish
currency. Company officials explained these are typically sales where
the merchandise was shipped to an address in Sweden, as indicated by
the destination code of the sale, but customer's invoicing address was
not in Sweden. We verified that SSAB properly included these home
market sales in its reporting to the Department. Therefore, we included
these sales in our calculations.
SSAB had sales of secondary merchandise (non-prime) in the home
market; however, there were no sales of secondary merchandise in the
U.S. market during the POR. Therefore, as per our established model
match criteria, the Department only compared prime merchandise sold in
the United States to prime merchandise sold in the home market.
Based on the Department's previous determination of sales made at
below the cost of production (COP) in the original LTFV investigation
in accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we determined that
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that, for this
review period, SSAB had made sales of subject merchandise in the home
market at prices less than the COP. As a result, we investigated
whether SSAB sold such or similar merchandise in the home market at
prices below the COP over an extended period of time, and whether such
sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP for SSAB as the sum
of reported materials, labor, factory overhead, and general expenses.
We compared COP to home market prices, net of price adjustments,
discounts, and movement expenses.
Based upon data collected during verification of SSAB, we
recalculated SSAB's general and administrative expenses, after
adjusting cost of goods sold for one subsidiary for the effect of
inter-company transfers. We also recalculated finance expense using
SSAB's consolidated financial statements.
Pursuant to the Department's practice, for each model for which
less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the
POR were made at prices below COP, we included all sales of that model
in the computation of FMV. For each model for which 10 percent or more,
but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales during the POR were
priced below COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those home
market sales which were priced below COP, provided that they were made
over an extended period of time. For each model for which 90 percent or
more of the home market sales during the POR were priced below COP and
were made over an extended period of time, we disregarded all sales of
that model in our calculation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the
United Kingdom, (60 FR 10558, February 27, 1995).
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, to
determine whether sales below cost had been made over an extended
period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below
cost occurred for a particular model to the number of months in which
that model was sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months,
we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost
sales of that model in each month sold. If a model was sold in three or
more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were
sales below cost in at least three of the months in which the model was
sold. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less
in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729
(December 8, 1993).
Because SSAB provided no indication that its below-cost sales of
models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the ``between 10 and
90 percent'' categories were at prices that would permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal course
of trade, we disregarded those sales of models within the ``10 to 90
percent'' category which were made below cost over an extended period
of time.
SSAB did not report COP information for all product models. This
affected both the home market and downstream sales listings. For
certain of these models, respondent provided a methodology for
assigning average costs for similar products. We used their methodology
to the extent possible. However, this methodology did not cover all
product models with missing COP. We have assigned the highest costs for
similar products to the sales of models missing COP information as
partial BIA. For more information, see our Analysis Memorandum of
August 31, 1995.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, the Department
normally uses the constructed value (CV) of those models for which home
market price has been disregarded as below COP. See, e.g., Mechanical
Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994). We did not use CV as
FMV for those U.S. models for which we were unable to find a home
market match because we found during verification that SSAB had not
reported certain home market sales of subject merchandise. We therefore
assume that all unmatched sales were the result of this reporting
failure. We used a margin based upon BIA only for those unmatched U.S.
sales. As BIA, we applied to those sales SSAB's final margin determined
in the less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation. We have determined
that resorting to total BIA is not warranted because SSAB's U.S.
database is not sufficiently flawed such that the response as a whole
is unreliable. See National Steel Corporation v. United States, 870 F.
Supp. 1130, 1135 (CIT 1994).
In accordance with section 773 (a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act, for
those U.S. models for which we were able to find a home market such or
similar match, we calculated FMV based on the packed home market sales
price to unrelated and related purchasers in the home market. For terms
of sale, please see Analysis Memorandum to the File, August 31, 1995.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR
353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments to FMV, where
applicable, for credit expenses, handling expense, inland freight,
discounts and rebates. Where appropriate, we deducted from FMV home
market packing costs and added to FMV packing expenses incurred in
[[Page 48505]]
Sweden for U.S. sales. We also adjusted FMV, where appropriate, for
physical differences in the merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.57. Due to discrepancies found at verification, reporting errors,
and unsupported adjustments, we disallowed and/or recalculated certain
expenses and adjustments. See Analysis Memorandum to the File, August
31, 1995 for more information on these disallowed and/or recalculated
adjustments.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily
determine that the following margin exists for the period February 4,
1993, through July 31, 1994:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSAB....................................................... 10.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after
the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages
stated above.
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 of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. A cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties shall be required on shipments of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate from Sweden as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the
reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of
this review; (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, or the original 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) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer
is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 24.23
percent, which is the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation.
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, (58 FR 37213, July 9, 1993).
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23220 Filed 9-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
