[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36105-36108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17227]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-816]


Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany: 
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 one 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 
Germany (A-428-816). 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 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.

 
[[Page 36106]]

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Decker, Bruce Harsh or Linda 
Ludwig, Office of Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 
(202) 482-3793.

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 37136) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on 
certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Germany, for which we 
published an antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44170). 
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 respondent, 
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke (Dillinger), requested an administrative 
review. We initiated the review on September 8, 1994 (59 FR 46391). The 
Department is conducting this review, in accordance with section 751 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
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 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 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.
    The POR is February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994. This review 
covers sales of certain cut-to-length plate by Dillinger.

United States Price

    All of Dillinger's U.S. sales were based on the price to the first 
unrelated purchaser in the United States. The Department determined 
that purchase price, as defined in section 772 of the Tariff Act, was 
the appropriate basis for calculating USP. All sales were made through 
Francosteel, a related sales agent in the United States, to unrelated 
purchasers. Whenever sales are made prior to the date of importation 
through a related sales agent in the United States, we typically 
determine that purchase price is the most appropriate determinant of 
the USP based upon the following factors: (1) The merchandise in 
question was shipped directly from the manufacturer to the unrelated 
buyer, without being introduced into the inventory of the related 
shipping agent; (2) direct shipment from the manufacturer to the 
unrelated buyers was the customary commercial channel for sales of this 
merchandise between the parties involved; and (3) the related selling 
agent in the United States acted only as a processor of sales-related 
documentation and a communication link with the unrelated U.S. buyers. 
See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Final Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 58 FR 68865, 68868 (December 29, 
1993); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343, 50344 
(September 27, 1993). In the present review, we found that: the 
essential terms of sale were set prior to importation; the merchandise 
was shipped immediately to the customer upon importation into the 
United States, without being introduced into the inventory of the 
related shipping agent; direct shipment from the manufacturer to the 
unrelated buyers was the customary commercial channel for sales of this 
merchandise; the merchandise was not warehoused by Francosteel during 
the normal course of business; and the related selling agent in the 
United States acted only as a processor of sales-related documentation 
and a communication link with the unrelated U.S. buyers. We made 
adjustments to purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. and foreign brokerage 
and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S. inland freight.
    We also adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as 
outlined in various determinations, including Silicomanganese from 
Venezuela; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 
55435, 55439 (November 7, 1994). No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.
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. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act, 
we based FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in 
the home market, using date of shipment as date of sale (see Analysis 
Memorandum to the File, May 25, 1995).
    Based on a review of Dillinger's submissions, the Department 
determined that only a small percentage of Dillinger's U.S. sales were 
the same grades of steel as the home market sales made by Dillinger's 
related parties to the first unrelated party (downstream sales). 
Accordingly, the Department determined that Dillinger need not report 
its home market downstream sales because they could provide potential 
matches to only a very small portion of the company's reported U.S. 
sales.
    Based on the Department's previous determination of sales made at 
below the cost of production (COP) in the original less-than-fair-value 
(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, Dillinger made sales of subject 
merchandise in the home market at prices less than the COP. As a 
result, we investigated whether Dillinger sold such or similar 

[[Page 36107]]
merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP for Dillinger 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.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in determining 
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we 
examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities 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 our normal 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 those sales 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 and, in 
accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the 
constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, e.g., 
Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).
    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. We used CV as the basis for FMV when an insufficient number of 
home market sales were made at prices above COP. 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 Dillinger 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. In addition, as a result of our COP test for home 
market sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' category, 
we based FMV on CV for all U.S. sales for which there were insufficient 
sales of the comparison home market model at or above COP. Finally, 
where we found, for certain of Dillinger's models, home market sales 
for which less than 10 percent were made below COP, we used all home 
market sales of these models in our comparisons.
    We also used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there was no 
sale of such or similar merchandise in the home market. We calculated 
CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We included the 
cost of materials, labor, and factory overhead in our calculations. 
Where the general expenses were less than the statutory minimum of 10 
percent of the cost of manufacture (COM), we calculated general 
expenses as 10 percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were less 
than the statutory minimum of 8 percent of the COM plus general 
expenses, we calculated profit as 8 percent of the sum of COM plus 
general expenses. Based on our verification of Dillinger's cost 
response, we adjusted Dillinger's reported COP and CV to reflect 
certain adjustments to the cost of manufacturing, general and 
administrative expenses, indirect selling expenses and the calculation 
of profit.
    In accordance with section 773 of the Tariff Act, for those U.S. 
models for which we were able to find a home market such or similar 
match that had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on 
the packed, F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered prices to unrelated 
purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments, where applicable, 
for post-sale inland freight, and for home market direct expenses, such 
as certain rebates tied to specific sales, credit and discounts. In 
addition, we adjusted FMV for differences in physical characteristics, 
U.S. direct selling expenses, and the German value-added tax. Also, 
after deducting home market packing, we added packing expenses incurred 
in Germany for U.S. sales to FMV. No adjustment was made for home 
market related party commissions because Dillinger did not demonstrate 
that these commissions were at arm's length, but we offset an addition 
to FMV for U.S. commissions with home market indirect selling expenses.
    Due to discrepancies in Dillinger's reporting of certain customers 
and level of trade, we are not in a position to know which sales 
reported as end-user sales were in fact end-user sales and which were 
sales to service centers/distributors. The only known difference in 
terms of sale to service centers/distributors and end-users was that 
service centers/distributors received a trader discount. Consequently, 
in matching home market sales to sales to U.S. end-users, we adjusted 
FMV to account for this discount (see Analysis Memorandum to the File, 
May 25, 1995).

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Manufacturer                            Margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dillinger.....................................................  2.02%   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 these administrative reviews 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 

[[Page 36108]]
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 Germany 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 36.00 percent. This 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 
Germany, 58 FR 37136 (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: July 6, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-17227 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P