[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