[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11870]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 16, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-812]

 

Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Calcium Aluminate Flux From France

Agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: V. Irene Darzenta or Katherine 
Johnson, Office of Antidumping Duty Investigations, Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6320 
or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

Amendment to the Final Determination

    We are amending the final determination of sales at less than fair 
value of calcium aluminate (CA) flux from France to reflect the 
correction of a ministerial error made in the margin calculations in 
that determination. We are publishing this amendment to the final 
determination in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is CA flux, other 
than white, high purity CA flux. This product contains by weight more 
than 32 percent but less than 65 percent alumina and more than one 
percent each of iron and silica.
    CA flux is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2523.10.0000. Although the 
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this investigation remains 
dispositive.

Case History and Amendment of Final Determination

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), on March 25, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published its final determinations that CA cement, cement 
clinker and flux from France were being sold at less than fair value 
(59 FR 14136). Subsequent to the final determinations, we received 
ministerial error allegations by both petitioner and respondent in 
these investigations.
    On April 8, 1994, Lafarge Fondu International and its U.S. 
subsidiary Lafarge Calcium Aluminates, Inc. (collectively Lafarge), the 
sole respondent in these investigations, alleged that the Department 
made a ministerial error in the final margin calculation for CA cement 
and clinker. Respondent alleged that the Department ``inadvertently'' 
used the wrong fixed costs for the period of investigation (POI) to 
calculate the constructed value (CV) of CA clinker and the foreign 
manufacturing cost of CA clinker used to allocate profit on U.S. sales 
of further manufactured CA clinker (i.e., U.S. sales of CA cement). 
Specifically, respondent claimed that the Department ``inadvertently'' 
used the POI fixed costs that Lafarge reported in its initial response 
to Section D of the Department's questionnaire submitted on August 19, 
1994, for its clinker CV and further manufacturing profit calculation. 
Respondent argued that the Department should have used the revised POI 
costs that were submitted in a subsequent supplemental questionnaire 
response dated September 28, 1993, and ultimately verified by the 
Department after some minor corrections were made based on the 
information contained in a relevant cost verification exhibit.
    On April 20, 1994, we rejected respondent's allegation on the 
grounds that the alleged error did not constitute a ``ministerial 
error'' as defined in the Department's regulations. (See April 20, 
1994, Memorandum to Barbara R. Stafford from The Team Re. Ministerial 
Error Allegations.) We stated in the Federal Register notice announcing 
our final determinations that we were ``us[ing] only the reported fixed 
costs for the POI as [best information available] BIA.'' (emphasis 
added) (See 59 FR 14136, March 25, 1994.) That is, we explicitly chose 
the cost data that we used. Moreover, respondent alleged a 
``ministerial'' error based on our choice of fixed costs used in the 
final determination. These are not ``ministerial'' actions. 19 CFR 
353.28(d) defines ``ministerial error'' as ``an error in addition, 
subtraction or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from 
inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of 
unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.'' 
Contrary to respondent's allegation, the alleged error was neither 
``clerical'' nor ``unintentional'' in nature. As our choice of BIA is a 
methodological issue, this is not an issue of ministerial error 
properly raised under 19 CFR 353.28. On April 12, 1994, we received an 
allegation from the petitioner, Lehigh Portland Cement Company 
(Lehigh), that the Department made a ministerial error in the final 
margin calculation for CA flux. Lehigh alleged that the Department 
erred by double counting the cost of raw materials used to calculate 
the foreign manufacturing cost of CA flux for purposes of allocating 
profit on U.S. sales of further manufactured flux. Specifically, Lehigh 
alleged that the Department's computer program for calculating the 
weighted-average dumping margin for CA flux contained an instruction 
which overstated the cost of foreign manufacture used to calculate 
profit associated with U.S. further manufacturing because it double 
counted the cost of raw materials. Petitioner requested that the 
Department correct this clerical error by deleting the extraneous field 
from the computer program.
    We agree that this alleged error is a ministerial one. Upon re-
examination of the final computer program relevant to CA flux, we noted 
that raw material costs had indeed been inadvertently double counted in 
the manner described above. Therefore, we have corrected the data in 
question, and have recalculated the margin in our final determination 
for CA flux to reflect this correction in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.28(c). The corrected margin is 37.93 percent.
    Based on the foregoing, the cash deposit or bonding rate for 
Lafarge is now 37.93 percent. The cash deposit or bonding rate for the 
``All Others'' category is also now 37.93 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

    We are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of CA flux from France that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after March 25, 1994, at the revised 
cash deposit or bonding rates specified above.

Notification of International Trade Commission (ITC)

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we have notified the ITC of our amended final 
determination.
    This amended determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(d)) and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

    Dated: May 9, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-11870 Filed 5-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P