[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 164 (Thursday, August 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44009-44014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20934]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-810]


Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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


[[Page 44010]]

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On February 23, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1992-94 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom 
(60 FR 10061). The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this 
merchandise, United Engineering Steels Limited (UES). The review period 
is September 28, 1992, through February 28, 1994. We gave interested 
parties the opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on 
our analysis of the comments received, we have adjusted UES's margin 
for these final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 23, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 10061) the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and 
bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324, 
March 22, 1993). The Department has now completed that administrative 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Tariff Act).
Applicable Statutes and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of 
nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by 
weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent of bismuth, in 
coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded from 
the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72, 
note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason 
of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or 0.1 percent or 
more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-
finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered 
in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00 and 
7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also 
enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings: 
7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10, 
00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 
and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. They are not determinative of the products subject to 
the order. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers sales of the subject merchandise manufactured by 
UES and entered into the United States during the period September 28, 
1992, through February 28, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results as provided by section 353.22(c) of our 
regulations. At the request of the petitioner, Inland Steel Bar 
Company, and respondent, UES, we held a public hearing on April 10, 
1995. We received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and 
respondent.
    Comment 1: Petitioner claims that the Department failed to adjust 
for actual antidumping duties UES paid on lead and bismuth steel. It 
argues that, since the actual dumping duties are paid by UES, the 
Department should treat the duty as a direct selling expense and make 
an adjustment for the amount of the actual dumping duties. Petitioner 
notes that the Department, in previous cases, has not considered 
estimated dumping duty deposits to be expenses within the meaning of 
section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act because of the possibility that 
the estimated duties may vary from actual duties that may be assessed. 
However, it contends that, where UES is paying the actual dumping 
duties, the statute requires that the Department treat these duties the 
same way as any other direct selling expense.
    UES disagrees with petitioner and cites, as support, Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from 
France, et. al. (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995). UES also notes that, 
as part of the debate prior to the passage of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, attempts were made to persuade Congress to change the 
law to permit the Department to consider dumping duty as a cost, but 
these attempts did not succeed. UES argues that to deduct the dumping 
duty from the U.S. price (USP) would be double-counting, because actual 
duties assessed will offset any price discrimination.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. Antidumping 
duties are intended to offset the effect of discriminatory pricing 
between two markets. In this context, making an additional deduction 
from USP for the same antidumping duties that correct this price 
discrimination would result in double-counting. Therefore, we have not 
treated cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties as direct selling 
expenses. See Color Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea, 
Final Results of Administrative Review (58 FR 50333, September 27, 
1993) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof from France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Reviews (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995).
    Comment 2: Petitioner argues that the Department should use the 
date of order entry rather than shipment date as the date of sale, as 
it did in the original investigation. Petitioner argues that UES has 
offered insufficient reason in this review to justify a change in its 
date of sale methodology from the original investigation; in fact, 
petitioner notes, UES has conceded that the sales terms have not 
changed since the period of investigation (POI). Petitioner contests 
the analysis of order changes UES provided and the Department attached 
as an exhibit to its verification report. Petitioner notes that leaded 
bar is typically produced to order, and thus that the basic terms of 
sale--including price, quantity, and physical specifications--must 
generally be fixed prior to manufacturing and shipment. Petitioner 
contends that, due to the decrease in the value of the British pound 
during the period of review (POR), UES changed its methodology in order 
to use the date of shipment as the date of sale, thus benefitting from 
exchange rate changes which result in lower dumping margins.
    UES maintains that, during the POR, more than half the orders 
placed were amended with respect to their essential terms--price, 
quantity, or product specifications. UES agrees that it has not changed 
its policy since the POI. According to UES, there were numerous 
amendments during the POI, but it lacked the computer capability at 
that time to analyze and quantify the order amendment type and 
frequency. Therefore, in the investigation of sales at 

[[Page 44011]]
less than fair value (LTFV), the Department used the order date as the 
date of sale. UES states that, since the POI, UES installed a new 
computer system, able to quantify the number of amendments for each 
order, and to identify which orders modify essential terms. UES 
contends that the Department's verifiers thoroughly examined the 
computer code, confirmed that the program identified only amendments to 
essential terms, and also examined hard copy orders and amendment 
documents.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. During the 
course of verification, the verifying team thoroughly examined computer 
programs and associated documents, and confirmed that a significant 
percentage of U.K. orders and U.S. sales were amended subsequent to the 
original purchase order. See Verification Report dated February 22, 
1995 at page 4. Therefore, because the essential terms of sale were not 
final until the date of shipment, the Department has used, for these 
final results, the date of shipment as the appropriate date of sale.
    Comment 3: Petitioner disputes the model match methodology used by 
the Department. Petitioner claims that in the LTFV investigation, the 
Department used the variable ``CONNUM'' as the product identification 
number for identifying identical products, and the variable ``CONSIM'' 
as the product identification number for identifying similar products. 
Petitioner argues that, in the preliminary results of review, the 
Department deviated from that methodology in that it did not use 
similar home market products as the basis for foreign market value 
(FMV) when a match with an identical product code could not be found. 
As a result, the Department eliminated most of the comparisons to 
similar merchandise and instead based FMV on constructed value (CV). 
Petitioner argues that similar products should be matched on the basis 
of CONSIM, not the product code.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. Products should 
be matched by CONNUM, not by CONSIM. In this case, the product code is 
an internal company code assigned in the normal course of business. The 
CONNUM, on the other hand, reflects the criteria which the Department 
has established for purposes of defining identical and similar 
merchandise. CONSIM is identical to CONNUM, except that the grade 
designation is less specific than that identified by CONNUM. That is, 
it ignores ``residuals,'' or trace elements. As we noted in the 
preliminary results, product differences due to residuals are 
commercially significant and not incidental, as they are designed into 
the product. Therefore, CONNUM is the appropriate variable to be used 
for model matching. However, in the preliminary results of this review, 
we erred by matching the product by CONNUM and product code. For these 
final results, we have revised our computer programming language to 
match the product by CONNUM only.
    Comment 4: Petitioner argues that the Department should use 
identical matches when available, even if quantities differ. It 
maintains that the Department erroneously matched the U.S. product to a 
similar U.K. product in the same quantity grouping, rather than to the 
identical product in a different quantity grouping, thereby allowing 
the quantity of the sale to take precedence over the similarity of the 
sale. Petitioner contends that this conflicts with the Department's 
past practice of giving physical similarity precedence over other 
matching criteria.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner, and have revised 
the computer programming language to match the U.S. product to the 
identical U.K. product regardless of its quantity grouping before 
matching it to a similar product.
    Comment 5: The petitioner argues that, for the CV calculations, the 
Department should compute profit exclusive of UES's non-arm's-length 
related party sales. Petitioner asserts that these prices are 
essentially transfer prices rather than market prices, and it makes 
little sense to use the profit on such sales in calculating CV when the 
sales themselves are excluded from the price-to-price comparisons.
    UES contends that, since UES's sales to its related customers were 
at arm's length, the petitioner's argument is moot. Furthermore, UES 
asserts that, contrary to the petitioner's argument, related party 
sales that fail the arm's-length test should not necessarily be 
excluded from the profit calculation. As support, UES cites 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, et al. (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995 (AFB Final 
Results)). According to UES, the essential factor is whether the prices 
used in calculating CV reflect the market under consideration.
    Moreover, UES notes that the petitioner relies on a simplistic 
analysis showing that UES's related customers, on average, pay a lower 
per-unit net price. UES asserts, however, that these related customers 
paid a lower price because they purchased large quantities. UES notes 
that it provides the same price advantages to high-volume related and 
unrelated customers. UES contends that this does not represent non-
market, uneconomic transfer pricing. On the contrary, UES claims that 
it accepted lower per-unit profits to achieve higher overall company 
profitability. Consequently, UES insists these profits fairly reflect 
the amount usually earned on sales in the market.
    Department's Position: We disagree, in part, with both petitioner 
and UES. As we stated in AFB Final Results, there is no basis for 
automatically including, for the purposes of calculating profit for CV, 
sales to related parties that fail the arm's-length test. This is 
because in doing the arm's-length test we may not adjust for certain 
expenses that are reflected in the profit calculation. However, 
related-party sales that fail the arm's-length test can give rise to 
the possibility that certain elements of value, such as profit, may not 
fairly reflect an amount usually reflected in sales of the merchandise. 
We considered whether the amount for profit on UES's sales to related 
parties was reflective of an amount for profit usually reflected on 
sales of the merchandise. To do so, we compared profit on sales to 
related parties that failed the arm's-length test to profit on sales to 
unrelated parties and arm's-length sales to related parties. Because 
the profit on non-arm's-length sales to related parties varied 
significantly from the profit on sales to unrelated parties and arm's-
length sales to related parties, we disregarded non-arm's-length 
related-party sales for the purposes of calculating profit for CV for 
these final results. See proprietary memorandum from case analyst to 
file, ``Lead and Bismuth Steel from the United Kingdom--Profit 
Analysis,'' dated July 3, 1995. See also AFBs Final Results.
    Comment 6: The petitioner argues that UES excluded the cost of 
producing identical products sold in third countries from its submitted 
cost of production. According to the petitioner, UES did not identify 
the one U.S. product affected by this error. Therefore, petitioner 
asserts, the Department should make an adverse inference regarding 
UES's CV submission. Petitioner urges the Department to increase the 
cost of all U.S. products by the largest understatement of reported 
costs for the home market models.
    UES contends that, contrary to the petitioner's claim, the cost of 
production for U.S. products was not materially affected by excluding 
production costs for third-country sales. UES asserts that the 
petitioner misunderstood the data reported in certain cost verification 
exhibits. According to UES, these exhibits reveal 

[[Page 44012]]
that there were only four products manufactured in more than one mill 
and sold in both the United Kingdom and third countries. Additionally, 
UES claims that these documents show that its reported costs of those 
four products were slightly higher than the costs UES calculated by 
including the third-country production costs.
    Furthermore, UES asserts that the single product mentioned by 
petitioner would have the same cost with or without including 
production costs for third-country sales because the product was only 
manufactured at one of UES's mills. Therefore, UES contends the 
petitioner's proposed adjustment to UES's costs has no merit.
    Department's Position: We agree with UES that petitioner's proposed 
adjustment has no merit. During verification, UES presented support 
showing the product in question was only produced in one mill; thus, 
third-country production costs are irrelevant. Furthermore, the 
petitioner apparently misunderstood the results of UES's analysis 
regarding the impact of third-country production. During verification, 
UES demonstrated that there were only four products manufactured in 
multiple mills and sold in both the home market and third countries. 
The impact of weight averaging the production costs for these four 
products is minimal. Moreover, as respondent noted, its reported costs 
for the four products were slightly higher than the weighted-average 
costs it calculated by including the production costs for the third-
country sales of these products. Thus, we accepted UES's submission 
methodology for calculating the cost of production.
    Comment 7: Petitioner notes that, at the beginning of verification, 
UES reported a minor clerical error that increased the costs it 
reported it had incurred at one of its mills. The petitioner argues 
that the Department should increase CV for all U.S. products by the 
amount reported because many U.S. products were produced in that 
particular mill.
    Department's Position: Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.59 (1994), the 
Department may disregard insignificant adjustments to FMV. For 
individual adjustments, those which have an ad valorem effect of less 
than 0.33 percent of the FMV are deemed insignificant. Since UES's 
clerical error was less than 0.33 percent, we have disregarded this 
adjustment in calculating CV. UES reported its calculation of this 
clerical error in Cost Verification Exhibit 1.
    Comment 8: According to the petitioner, the Department should 
include the company's 1993 reorganization costs for its steel division 
in the general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation. 
Specifically, the petitioner suggests allocating these restructuring 
costs to UES's steel and forging divisions based on cost of sales.
    UES asserts that the Department should exclude the 1993 
restructuring costs because these costs reflect an estimate of expenses 
to be incurred for the company's 1994 reorganization. UES contends the 
restructuring costs were incurred after the POR and were less than the 
estimated amount. In addition, UES recorded the actual restructuring 
expenses by division in its financial accounts as the costs were 
incurred in 1994. Thus, UES states, these restructuring expenses would 
be appropriately captured in the next administrative review.
    Department's Position: At verification, UES demonstrated that the 
actual restructuring expenses for each division were incurred after the 
POR. Therefore, we have not allocated the company level 1993 estimate 
to each of UES's mills for purposes of this review.
    Comment 9: The petitioner contends that part of the closure costs 
for UES's Templeborough facility should be included in the company's 
G&A expense calculation. Specifically, the petitioner argues 
Templeborough closure costs should be allocated to the subject 
merchandise (leaded bar) using the same methodology the Department 
applied to the Woodstone mill closure costs.
    According to UES, the Department should exclude Templeborough 
closure costs because the facility did not produce leaded bar and did 
not have the capability of producing any leaded steel products. UES 
asserts that, in contrast, its Woodstone mill produced leaded bar; 
therefore, UES maintains that the Department properly allocated the 
Woodstone closure costs to the subject merchandise in its preliminary 
analysis. Furthermore, UES asserts that the Department normally 
excludes non-operating expenses related solely to entities producing 
only non-subject merchandise. UES notes it incurred only non-operating 
expenses in closing its Templeborough facility.
    Department's Position: At verification, UES showed that its 
Templeborough facility did not produce any leaded bar products. We 
therefore excluded these non-operating costs from our calculation of 
G&A because UES demonstrated that these closure costs related 
exclusively to an operation that had produced only non-subject 
merchandise. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol from South Africa, 60 FR 22550, May 8, 1995.
    Comment 10: UES maintains that the Department's determination to 
exclude home market related-party sales from the price comparison is 
inappropriate. UES contends that, even if its sales did not satisfy the 
traditional arm's-length test, other evidence on the record indicates 
that UES's related-party price are arm's length in nature. UES argues 
that it performed the Department's traditional test for determining 
when related-party prices are at arm's length, and the test shows that 
UES's prices to related customers are on average higher than its prices 
to unrelated customers. UES contests the Department's determination, 
stated in the preliminary review results, that ``UES's analysis of data 
from this review fails to provide an accurate assessment of whether its 
related-party sales were made at arm's length because it did not 
account for certain rebates and it did not perform its arm's-length 
test on a model group-by-model group basis.'' UES argues that it did 
perform its analysis on a model-by-model basis, exactly as, it asserts, 
the Department customarily performs the analysis. According to UES, it 
first calculated the weighted-average price of each product by CONNUM 
for each related customer and for all unrelated customers together, 
separately by level of trade. It then compared the average price for 
each related customer for each product to the average price for that 
same product to derive a ratio by which the related-customer price was 
over or under the unrelated price for that particular product. UES 
explains that it then weight-averaged each customer's ratios to derive 
an overall ratio for each related customer. Finally, UES weight-
averaged all related customers' ratios to yield the overall ratio 
between related and unrelated customers' prices. To support this 
explanation, UES has attached to its brief the model-specific output.
    UES argues that the Department improperly deducted ``Rebate 2'' 
from gross price in performing the arm's-length test, thus skewing the 
analysis. See UES's proprietary case brief at pages 4-6. It contends 
that this rebate is available on the same terms to both related and 
unrelated customers. UES asserts that the varying use of the rebate by 
different customers is outside of UES's knowledge and control, and does 
not change the fact that UES negotiates all customers' prices on an 
arm's-length basis.
    UES argues that, even if its sales did not satisfy the traditional 
arm's-length test, the Department should still confirm its previous 
determination that UES's prices are market-based and non-
discriminatory. UES contends that it 

[[Page 44013]]
deals with all home market customers on an arm's-length basis, whether 
related or unrelated. However, UES claims the one overriding 
determinant of price among customers--which has nothing to do with 
relatedness--is that UES negotiates lower prices with high-volume 
customers. UES argues that if the Department identifies any price 
difference between its large-quantity related customers and its small-
quantity unrelated customers, it would be attributed to the fact that 
UES negotiates lower prices with high-volume customers. UES claims that 
the same issue arose in the original LTFV investigation, and the 
Department determined that UES's related party prices were at arm's 
length. According to UES, it has confirmed to the Department that its 
policy has not changed since the original LTFV investigation and that 
it does not discriminate in favor of related customers.
    UES notes that, during the POR, it purchased one of its largest 
customers, Lee Bright Bar (LBB). UES maintains that, if there were 
price discrimination in favor of related parties, one would expect its 
prices to LBB to have decreased after the purchase. On the contrary, 
UES argues, its prices to LBB increased after it became a related 
party, and even increased at a higher rate than the average for UES's 
customers in general.
    UES asserts that, as further confirmation of its non-discriminatory 
pricing policy, it has demonstrated that its related prices are 
equivalent to prices it charged to an unrelated German customer which 
is comparable in size and purchase volume to UES's related home market 
customers. UES argues that its sales prices to this unrelated German 
customer are at or below the weighted-average prices to its related 
customers in the United Kingdom for the same products in the same 
months. UES counters petitioner's argument that differences in the U.K. 
and German markets might account for these price differences by stating 
that the European Union (EU) is a single, unified market, UES competes 
directly with German mills, and UES's customers can as freely purchase 
from European producers as from UES.
    Petitioner argues that the Department correctly included Rebate 2 
among the items it deducted from gross sales price in performing its 
arm's-length analysis, in accordance with its policy of using net sales 
price, after all discounts and rebates have been deducted, in that 
analysis. Further, petitioner asserts that UES failed to provide any 
written documentation in support of its claim that all customers are 
entitled to take advantage of Rebate 2. Petitioner contends that UES is 
practicing de facto price discrimination against unrelated customers 
through its rebate programs. Petitioner maintains that, even if UES 
were not intentionally price discriminating against unrelated customers 
through its rebate program, the terms of Rebate 2 are too onerous to 
unrelated parties for them to regularly take advantage of this program.
    Petitioner challenges what UES has offered as alternate evidence 
that it does not discriminate in favor of related customers. According 
to petitioner, UES's related-party profit margin demonstrates that 
sales to related parties are not made at arm's length. Petitioner 
argues that sales to a single related customer, LBB, are not 
representative of sales to all related parties. Petitioner maintains 
that the Department should disregard UES's claims regarding the German 
market, since the U.K. market is viable. Furthermore, petitioner 
asserts that UES failed to provide for the record detailed information, 
by CONNUM, on all German sales in order to show that the product mix 
was not responsible for the average price differences. Moreover, 
petitioner states that, contrary to UES's claim, the EU is not a single 
market, because significant currency variation occurs between EU member 
countries. Petitioner argues that UES's claim must be rejected because 
Congress has specifically prohibited looking at customs unions, such as 
the UE, as a single country in determining the occurrence of dumping. 
Petitioner contends that the Department should not make an adjustment 
to its arm's-length test to take into account differences in sales 
volumes because the analysis of UES's sales data demonstrates that 
there were no sales made at different levels of trade and different 
quantities during the POR.
    Department's Position: We disagree with respondent. The information 
UES originally presented did not indicate that UES had performed the 
arm's-length test on a model group-by-model group basis. The first time 
this was mentioned, and the model-specific output submitted to the 
Department, was in UES's case brief of March 27, 1995. In any event, 
UES's test was inaccurate since it failed to deduct certain rebates 
from the sales prices before comparisons were made. UES's argument that 
we should not deduct rebates prior to the arm's length test is 
incorrect. Because these rebates are adjustments to price which UES 
made, we must deduct them from UES's home market prices in order to 
fairly compare the prices ultimately paid by related and unrelated 
customers. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany (54 FR 19089, 19090, May 
3, 1989).
    Even if we were to abandon our traditional arm's-length test in 
this case, there is not sufficient evidence on the record to 
demonstrate that UES meets an acceptable alternate test. In order to 
determine whether UES's sales to related home market customers were 
arm's-length in nature, we conducted a three-pronged analysis. See the 
proprietary memorandum from case analyst to file concerning UES's 
related party sales dated July ____, 1995. Based on our analysis, we 
concluded that UES's home market sales to related parties were not at 
arm's length. Accordingly, we have not used these sales in our 
determination of FMV.
    Comment 11: UES states that the Department correctly decided that, 
where possible, it would match U.S. and U.K. sales within two quantity 
groups: one of 25 tons or more, and one of less than 25 tons. However, 
UES argues that, in its dumping margin computer program, the Department 
assigned all U.S. sales to the less-than-25-tons group by inadvertently 
using the wrong quantity variable.
    Department's Position: We agree and have revised the computer 
programming language accordingly.
    Comment 12: UES contends that, instead of using selling and packing 
expenses from the sales database in its cost of production 
calculations, the Department erroneously used the average selling and 
packing expenses from the cost database.
    Department's Position: We agree and have revised our calculations 
accordingly.
    Comment 13: UES maintains that the Department erred in failing to 
adjust invoice quantity by the amount shown in the quantity adjustment 
field. According to UES, this field shows corrections to invoice 
quantity which UES issues to its customers to correct invoice errors.
    Department's Position: We agree and have made the appropriate 
revision in our calculations.
Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 
1992, through February 28, 1994:

                                                                        

[[Page 44014]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
          Manufacturer/Exporter             Period of review   (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Engineering Steels Ltd. (UES).....     9/28/92-2/28/94       5.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions concerning all 
respondents directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be 
the rate shown above; (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, a prior 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) the cash deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 25.82 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final 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 Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO 
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of the 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and 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: August 17, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-20934 Filed 8-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M