[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42511-42516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20210]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-820 (Lead Case Number) A-122-822 A-122-823]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; 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 requests by respondents, Algoma Steel Inc. 
(Algoma), Continuous Colour Coat (CCC), Dofasco, Inc. (Dofasco), 
Manitoba Rolling Mills (MRM), Sorevco, Inc. (Sorevco), Stelco Inc. 
(Stelco), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the 
first administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products (corrosion-resistant 
steel) (A-122-822) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate (A-122-
823) (cut-to-length plate) from Canada. These reviews cover five 
manufacturers/exporters, Algoma, CCC, Dofasco, MRM, Sorevco, and 
Stelco, and entries of corrosion-resistant steel and cut-to-length 
plate into 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 reviews, 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury (CCC), Eric Johnson 
(Dofasco/Sorevco), Elizabeth Patience (Algoma), Gerry Zapiain (Stelco), 
Steven Presing or Stephen Jacques, 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 37099) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on 
corrosion-resistant steel and cut-to-length plate from Canada, for 
which we published antidumping duty orders on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 
44162). On August 3, 1994, the Department published the notice of 
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of these orders for 
the period February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994 (59 FR 39543). The 
respondents, Algoma, CCC, Dofasco, MRM, Sorevco, and Stelco, requested 
administrative reviews. We initiated the reviews on September 8, 1994 
(59 FR 46391). The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 
Act).
    In the underlying investigations of less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
sales, the Department conducted an analysis of Sorevco's relationship 
with Dofasco to determine whether the relationship between the related 
parties is such that one company is in a position to manipulate the 
other company's prices and/or production decisions (See Brass Sheet and 
Strip from France, 52 Fed. Reg. 812, 814 (January 9, 1987); Certain 
Iron Construction Castings from Canada, 55 Fed. Reg. 460 (January 5, 
1990)). The Department's investigation revealed that, for the period of 
investigation, Sorevco should be ``collapsed'' with Dofasco. On October 
31, 1994, the U.S.-Canada Binational Panel upheld the Department's 
decision to collapse Sorevco with Dofasco for the investigation. In the 
matter of: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, USA-
93-1904-03.
    The Department considered whether Sorevco should remain collapsed 
with Dofasco for the purposes of this administrative review.
    It is the Department's practice to collapse related parties when 
the facts demonstrate that the relationship is such that there is a 
strong possibility of manipulation of prices and production decisions 
that would result in circumvention of the antidumping law. See Nihon 
Cement Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 93-80 (CIT May 25, 1993); 
Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada, 55 Fed. Reg. 460 
(1990); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of Germany, 54 Fed. Reg. 18992, 
19089 (1989). In determining whether to collapse related parties, the 
Department considered the level of common ownership; whether managerial 
employees or board members of one company sit on the board(s) of 
directors of the other related party(ies); the existence of production 
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
retooling either plant's facilities to implement a decision to 
restructure either company's manufacturing priorities; and whether the 
operations of the companies are intertwined (e.g., sharing of sales 
information; involvement in production and pricing decisions, sharing 
of facilities or employees; transactions between the companies).
    Although the Department considers all four factors, no one factor 
is determinative. Rather the determination whether to collapse is based 
on the totality of circumstances. See Nihon Cement Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 93-80 at 51.
    An analysis of the above-mentioned criteria as they relate to 
Dofasco and Sorevco for the current period of review revealed that 
collapsing of Dofasco and Sorevco is warranted. The two companies' 
close business relationship, Dofasco's 50 percent ownership of Sorevco 
and continuing presence on Sorevco's board, and the existence of 
similar production facilities demonstrates a strong possibility of 
future manipulation of production and 

[[Page 42512]]
pricing decisions (See Memorandum to the File dated May 30, 1995).
    During the Department's investigation of sales at less than fair 
value of steel from Canada, the Department also collapsed CCC and 
Stelco. However, the U.S.-Canada Binational Panel concluded that there 
was not substantial evidence on the record supporting the Department's 
decision to collapse the two companies, and directed the Department to 
``uncollapse'' CCC and Stelco in preparing the Department's 
redetermination. See USA-93-1904-03, supra.
    In a submission dated January 19, 1995, in conjunction with the 
first administrative review, petitioners again raised the issue of 
collapsing Stelco and CCC. Specifically, petitioners outlined available 
evidence in support of collapsing and requested that the Department 
collect more data and examine the issue in greater detail. As a result, 
the Department has undertaken a detailed analysis of the relationship 
between CCC and Stelco. Based on our analysis, we determined that CCC 
and Stelco are ``related parties'', but that CCC and Stelco should not 
be collapsed because the two companies do not make comparable products 
such that a shift in production could be accomplished without 
fundamental and expensive retooling. (See Memorandum to the File dated 
May 22, 1995).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two 
separate ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: (1) Certain corrosion-
resistant steel and (2) certain cut-to-length plate.
    The first 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 millimeters and measures at least 
twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (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 second class or kind, certain cut-to-length plate, includes 
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 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.

United States Price

    The Department used purchase price, in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act, when the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated 
purchasers in the United States. For Stelco, where certain corrosion-
resistant sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place after 
importation into the United States, we also based USP on exporters 
sales price (ESP), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    We adjusted USP for value-added taxes (VAT) 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).

Algoma

    The Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of 
the Tariff Act, in calculating USP for Algoma. USP was based on packed 
prices to customers in the United States. For terms of sale, please see 
Analysis Memorandum to the File, June 16, 1995.
    We made deductions from purchase price for movement expenses, U.S. 
Customs duties and fees, U.S. brokerage/handling fees, U.S. inland 
freight expense. We added to purchase price amounts for freight 
revenue, brokerage and duty revenue and billing adjustments.
    We used as date of sale the date of contract (if there was one that 
set quantity and value) or, if there was no 

[[Page 42513]]
such contract, the order date on which price and quantity were fixed.

CCC

    The Department used purchase price as defined in section 772(b) of 
the Tariff Act, in calculating USP for CCC. USP was based on packed, 
FOB or delivered prices to customers in the United States.
    We made deductions from purchase price for movement expenses (U.S. 
and foreign movement, brokerage, and handling), and discounts and 
rebates. We used the date of invoice as the date of sale for both U.S. 
sales and home market sales because that is the date when price and 
quantity are fixed.
    CCC was unable to report duty and brokerage paid for certain U.S. 
sales. As partial best information available (BIA) we used the highest 
duty rate calculation submitted by CCC to calculate duty and brokerage 
rates for the missing values. See, e.g., Certain Steel Products from 
France, 58 FR 37125, 37129 (July 9, 1993).

Dofasco/Sorevco

    The Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of 
the Tariff Act, in calculating USP for Dofasco. USP was based on packed 
prices to customers in the United States. As in the LTFV investigation, 
the Department used Dofasco's five reported levels of trade in which, 
according to Dofasco, pricing structure differs according to customer 
type: automotive, construction, service center, manufacturing, and 
converter.
    We made deductions from purchase price for two types of discounts, 
one type of rebate and total freight (for one term of sale). U.S. 
further processing expenses for certain sales are not treated as part 
of the purchase price for the reasons set forth in the memorandum from 
Edward Yang to Roland MacDonald.
    For Dofasco's sales of secondary merchandise, the Department 
determined at verification that only six of the eleven product 
characteristics were reported accurately: type, process, coating metal, 
thickness, width, and form. Thus, the Department performed its model 
match for these sales based only on these six characteristics. For a 
general discussion of the Department's treatment of secondary 
merchandise in this review, see the Department's April 19, 1995 
decision memorandum.
    For Dofasco, we used the date of order acknowledgement as date of 
sale for all sales made after July 4, 1993 (except sales made pursuant 
to long-term contracts) because this was the time at which price and 
quantity were fixed. Prior to July 4, 1993, we used date of shipment as 
date of sale because: (1) Order acknowledgements did not set price; and 
(2) Dofasco informed its customers that ``invoices will reflect prices 
at time of shipment.'' For Dofasco's sales made pursuant to long-term 
contracts, we used date of the contract as date of sale because the 
contract terms fixed price and quantity.
    For Sorevco, we used the date of order confirmation as the date of 
sale because Sorevco acknowledges both price and quantity on its order 
acknowledgement. When Sorevco shipped more merchandise than the 
customer ordered, and such shipments were in excess of accepted 
industry tolerances, we used date of shipment as date of sale for the 
excess merchandise.

MRM

    The Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of 
the Tariff Act, in calculating USP for MRM. USP was based on packed, 
delivered prices to customers in the United States.
    We made deductions from purchase price for brokerage and handling, 
movement expenses, U.S. duties and discounts.
    We used the date of shipment as the date of sale for both U.S. 
sales and home market sales because that is the date when price and 
quantity were fixed.

Stelco

    The Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of 
the Tariff Act, in calculating USP for Stelco for cut-to-length plate. 
USP was based on packed, delivered prices to customers in the United 
States.
    We made deductions from purchase price for movement expenses, 
brokerage and U.S. duties.
    In calculating USP for sales of corrosion-resistant steel, the 
Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of the 
Act. USP was based on packed, delivered prices to customers in the 
United States.
    We made deductions from purchase price for movement expenses, 
brokerage, U.S. duties and discounts and rebates.
    The Department also used ESP, as defined in section 772(c) of the 
Act, in calculating USP for Stelco for corrosion-resistant steel. USP 
was based on packed, delivered prices to customers in the United 
States.
    We made deductions from ESP for movement expenses (U.S. and foreign 
movement expenses, brokerage and handling); discounts and rebates; U.S. 
direct selling expenses such as warranties and service, billing 
corrections, other expenses (slitting and sheeting); credit expenses; 
U.S. indirect selling expenses such as technical services, inventory 
carrying costs, warehousing expenses, and bad debt; and commissions 
incurred in the U.S. market.
    In addition, we made further deductions from ESP, where 
appropriate, for all value added to the ``corrosion-resistant'' steel 
in the United States, pursuant to section 772(e)(3) of the Act. The 
value added consists of the costs associated with the production of the 
further manufactured products, other than the costs associated with the 
imported ``corrosion-resistant'' steel, and a proportional amount of 
any profit related to the further manufacture. Profit was calculated by 
deducting all applicable expenses from the sales price. The total 
profit was then allocated proportionally to all components of cost. 
Only the profit attributable to the value added was deducted from ESP. 
Because Stelco USA contracts the further manufacturing, and its 
function is primarily that of a sales office, the company does not 
provide selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses directly 
attributed to further manufacturing. In place of allocating certain 
SG&A expenses to further manufacturing calculation, we have made an 
adjustment to the ESP sales listing to account for SG&A expenses.

Foreign Market Value

    In calculating FMV, the Department used home market sales or 
constructed value (CV), as defined in section 773 of the Act.
    To determine whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as the basis for calculating FMV, we compared the 
volume of home market sales to the volume of third country sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. We found that 
sales in the home market constituted a sufficient basis for FMV, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.48(a).
    Algoma, Dofasco, MRM and Stelco made home market sales to related 
customers. 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.
    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. 

[[Page 42514]]

    Based on a review of the respondents' submissions, the Department 
determined that the respondents did not have to report any downstream 
sales through related parties since either there were no sales to 
related parties that are resold to unrelated customers as subject 
merchandise or sales to related parties that are resold to unrelated 
parties are a small percentage of home market sales.
    The Department is treating certain product groups, which included 
certain grades of non-prime material or secondary merchandise, as non-
prime material for purposes of matching U.S. and home market sales.
    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, Stelco and CCC had made sales of subject merchandise in 
the home market at prices less than the COP. As a result, we 
investigated whether Stelco and CCC sold such or similar merchandise in 
the home market at prices below the COP. In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.51(c), we calculated COP for Stelco and CCC 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 on petitioners' allegations, and in accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether Dofasco and Sorevco had home market sales of 
corrosion-resistant steel and whether Algoma and MRM had home market 
sales of cut-to-length plate that were made at prices less than the 
COP.
    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 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 had occurred for a particular model to the number of months in 
which the 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, e.g., 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 Review, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (Dec. 8, 
1993).
    We also used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were 
insufficient sales of the comparison home market model at or above COP 
and for those U.S. sales for which there was no contemporaneous 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 eight percent of the COM plus general expenses, we 
calculated profit as eight percent of the sum of COM plus general 
expenses.
    We adjusted FMV for value-added taxes (VAT) 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).

Algoma

    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, we calculated FMV based on the packed, FOB or delivered prices 
to related and unrelated purchasers in the home market. We used prices 
to related purchasers only if such prices were made at arm's length. We 
made adjustments, where applicable, for inland freight, home market 
packing costs, discounts and rebates, home market direct selling 
expenses such as credit and warranty expenses. We made circumstances-
of-sale adjustments for differences in physical characteristics. For 
comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of the 
Tariff Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments to FMV for 
commissions incurred in the U.S. market, U.S. credit, warranty. We also 
adjusted FMV for packing expenses.

CCC

    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, we calculated FMV based on the packed, FOB or delivered prices 
to related and unrelated purchasers in the home market. We used prices 
to related purchasers only if such prices were made at arm's length. We 
made adjustments, where applicable, for inland freight, home market 
packing costs, discounts and rebates, direct selling expenses 
(warranties and credit), and packing expenses. We made circumstance-of-
sale adjustments to FMV for differences in physical characteristics. 
For comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of the 
Tariff Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments to FMV for U.S. 
direct selling expenses such as warranties, warehousing, credit, and 
commissions which were paid in the U.S. market. We also adjusted FMV 
for U.S. packing expenses. When comparisons were made to PP sales on 
which commissions were paid, we made an adjustment for home market 
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions. U.S. sales of 
merchandise that was further processed in the United States were 
matched to home market sales of merchandise identical or similar to the 
subject merchandise as it entered the United States. In such cases, we 

[[Page 42515]]
adjusted FMV to account for the further processing in the United 
States.

Dofasco/Sorevco

    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 and for which there were sufficient above-cost sales, we 
calculated FMV based on packed prices to customers. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for Sorevco rebates, one customer-
specific Dofasco rebate, four types of discounts, warranties, royalty 
payments for one product type, warehousing, imputed home market credit 
expenses, home market packing expenses and certain rebates which we 
reclassified as post sale price adjustments. Additionally, for one term 
of sale we deducted inland freight. As in the LTFV investigation, the 
Department used Dofasco's five reported levels of trade in which, 
according to Dofasco, pricing structure differs according to customer 
type: automotive, construction, service center, manufacturing, and 
converter.
    We also made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where appropriate, 
for imputed U.S. credit expenses, U.S. warranty expenses, foreign 
warehousing expenses for U.S. sales and U.S. royalty expenses (for one 
product type). We also adjusted for U.S. duty and brokerage (where 
applicable), U.S. packing expenses, differences in merchandise (when 
less than 20%) for similar products, and U.S. commissions. When 
comparisons were made to purchase price sales on which commissions were 
paid, we made an adjustment for home market indirect selling expenses 
to offset U.S. commissions.
    For Dofasco's sales of secondary merchandise, the Department 
determined at verification that only six of the eleven product 
characteristics were reported accurately: type, process, coating metal, 
thickness, width, and form. Thus, the Department performed its model 
match for these sales based only on these six characteristics. For a 
general discussion of the Department's treatment of secondary 
merchandise in this review, see the Department's April 19, 1995 
decision memorandum.

MRM

    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, FOB or delivered prices to related and unrelated purchasers 
in the home market. We used prices to related purchasers only if such 
prices were made at arm's length. We made deductions, where applicable, 
for inland freight, rebates, home market direct selling expenses such 
as credit expenses and commissions incurred in the home market. We also 
adjusted FMV for differences in physical characteristics. For 
comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of the 
Tariff Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments to FMV for 
commissions incurred in the U.S. market, and U.S. credit expenses.
Stelco

    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 
packed, delivered or ex-factory prices to related and unrelated 
purchasers in the home market. We used prices to related purchasers 
only if such prices were made at arm's length. For Stelco's sales of 
cut-to-length plate, we made adjustments, where applicable, for inland 
freight, discounts and rebates, packing expenses, home market direct 
selling expenses such as credit expenses and warranty expenses. We also 
adjusted FMV for differences in physical characteristics. For 
comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of the 
Tariff Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments to FMV for U.S. 
warranty expenses and U.S. credit expenses. We also adjusted FMV for 
U.S. packing expenses.
    For Stelco's sales of corrosion-resistant steel, 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, we calculated FMV 
based on the packed, delivered or ex-factory prices to related and 
unrelated purchasers in the home market. We used prices to related 
purchasers only if such prices were made at arm's length. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for inland freight, discounts and 
rebates, packing expenses, home market direct selling expenses such as 
credit expenses and warranty expenses, home market indirect selling 
expenses such as technical services, inventory carrying costs, 
warehousing expenses and commissions incurred in the home market. We 
also adjusted FMV for differences in physical characteristics. For 
comparison to purchase price sales, pursuant to section 773 of the 
Tariff Act, we made for circumstance-of-sale adjustments for U.S. 
warranty expenses, U.S. credit expenses and U.S. sales commissions. We 
also adjusted FMV for U.S. packing expenses.
    For Stelco's ESP sales of corrosion-resistant steel, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) we made 
adjustments, where applicable, for inland freight, discounts and 
rebates, packing expenses, home market direct selling expenses such as 
credit expenses and warranty expenses, home market indirect selling 
expenses such as technical services, inventory carrying costs, 
warehousing expenses, and commissions. We also adjusted FMV for 
differences in physical characteristics. For comparison to ESP sales, 
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for home market indirect 
selling expenses, including, home market technical services, inventory 
carrying costs and presale warehousing expenses up to the amount of 
indirect selling expenses and commissions incurred on U.S. sales. We 
also adjusted FMV for U.S. packing expenses.
    In addition, we made further deductions from ESP, where 
appropriate, for all value added to the corrosion-resistant steel in 
the United States, pursuant to section 772(e)(3) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparisons of USP and FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following margins exist for the period February 4, 
1993, through July 31, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosion-Resistant Steel:                                              
Dofasco, Inc...........................................          3.87   
Continuous Colour Coat.................................          1.88   
Stelco, Inc............................................         13.95   
Cut-to-Length Plate:                                                    
Algoma Steel Inc.......................................          2.61   
Manitoba Rolling Mills.................................          2.44   
Stelco, Inc............................................          0.39   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 date. 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 

[[Page 42516]]
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 the 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 these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. A cash deposit of estimated antidumping 
duties shall be required on shipments of corrosion-resistant steel and 
cut-to-length plate from Canada as follows: (1) The cash deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies shall be those rates 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 these reviews or 
the original LTFV investigations, 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 these reviews, the 
cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigations See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR 37099, 
37121 (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 will result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: August 8, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-20210 Filed 8-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P