[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48502-48505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23220]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-401-805]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden: 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 a 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 
Sweden (A-401-805). 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 to the United States 
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. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Patience or Jean Kemp, 
Office of Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 
482-3793. 

[[Page 48503]]


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 37213) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, and published an 
antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44168). 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 Department received a 
request for an administrative review from Svenskt Stal AB (SSAB). On 
September 8, 1994 (59 FR 46391), we initiated the administrative review 
of SSAB.
    The Department is now conducting this review in accordance with 
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). 
This review covers sales of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate 
from Sweden. The POR is February 4, 1993 through July 31, 1994.

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 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 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.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we verified 
information provided by the respondent by using standard verification 
procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, 
and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
versions of the verification reports.

United States Price

    All of SSAB's U.S. sales were based on the packed price to the 
first unrelated purchaser in the United States. Because the sales were 
made prior to importation to the United States, the Department 
determined that purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of the 
Tariff Act, was the appropriate basis for calculating USP. For terms of 
sale, please see Analysis Memorandum to the File, August 31, 1995. We 
made deductions from purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight and insurance, ocean freight, marine insurance, 
brokerage and handling, port charges, U.S. customs duties and fees, 
wharfage, and U.S. inland freight.
    We used as date of sale the date of contract (if the contract set 
quantity and value) or, if either price or quantity was not set, the 
date of order confirmation (the date on which price and quantity are 
fixed).
    We adjusted USP for Swedish value-added taxes (VAT) in accordance 
with our practice as outlined in recent determinations, including 
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 59 FR 55435, 55439 (November 7, 1994).

 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 because 
the amount of similar merchandise sold in the home market is more than 
five percent of the amount sold to third countries. See 19 CFR 
353.48(a). Further, SSAB had sales both to related and unrelated 
parties in the home market during the POR. 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. When the price ratio of 
related to unrelated purchases was less than 99.5 percent, we 
determined that those sales were not arm's length sales and disregarded 
those sales. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, (58 FR 
37062, July 9, 1993).
    We used prices to related purchasers only if such sales were made 
at arm's length as defined above. In addition, we determined that sales 
made by SSAB through its related distributor, Tibnor AB (TAB), were a 
significant portion of the home market sales listing. We asked SSAB to 
report the portion of home market sales made through TAB to the first 
unrelated customer. SSAB claimed TAB could not identify the supplying 
producer for sales to unrelated customers. We verified this claim. We 
also verified that TAB's reported price is set without regard to the 
supplying producer. We asked SSAB to develop an allocation methodology 
to account for SSAB sales through TAB to unrelated customers. However, 
TAB's proposed allocation methodology for reporting the downstream 
sales is inconsistent with standard accounting principles because it 
does not consider the impact of purchases from non-SSAB suppliers, it 
assumes that TAB's beginning inventory was zero, and it assumes that 
the first plate sold is always SSAB plate. It is also inconsistent with 
TAB's normal methodology for valuing its inventory. Additionally, at 
verification, we found that the percentage of TAB purchases of SSAB 
merchandise is significantly less than respondent's methodology 
assumes. Therefore, the impact of merchandise sourced from producers 
other than SSAB is greater than indicated by respondent's methodology. 
After evaluating the larger percentage of non-SSAB merchandise 
purchased by TAB, the lack of information regarding 

[[Page 48504]]
non-SSAB purchases, and the inconsistencies with standard accounting 
practices, we decided not to use respondent's methodology. However, we 
determined that as the final price to the customer was set regardless 
of producer and that TAB accurately reported most of its expenses and 
adjustments, it was reasonable to use TAB's sales listing. Therefore, 
we rejected TAB's allocation methodology, revised TAB's reported sales 
to neutralize the effect of non-SSAB suppliers and used the revised 
sales listing in our calculations. For more information on our use of 
SSAB's downstream sales, see Analysis Memorandum to the File, August 
31, 1995.
    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. SSAB reported a number of sales 
in its home market database in currencies other than the Swedish 
currency. Company officials explained these are typically sales where 
the merchandise was shipped to an address in Sweden, as indicated by 
the destination code of the sale, but customer's invoicing address was 
not in Sweden. We verified that SSAB properly included these home 
market sales in its reporting to the Department. Therefore, we included 
these sales in our calculations.
    SSAB had sales of secondary merchandise (non-prime) in the home 
market; however, there were no sales of secondary merchandise in the 
U.S. market during the POR. Therefore, as per our established model 
match criteria, the Department only compared prime merchandise sold in 
the United States to prime merchandise sold in the home market.
    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, SSAB had made sales of subject merchandise in the home 
market at prices less than the COP. As a result, we investigated 
whether SSAB sold such or similar merchandise in the home market at 
prices below the COP 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 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP for SSAB 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 upon data collected during verification of SSAB, we 
recalculated SSAB's general and administrative expenses, after 
adjusting cost of goods sold for one subsidiary for the effect of 
inter-company transfers. We also recalculated finance expense using 
SSAB's consolidated financial statements.
    Pursuant to the Department's 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 from the calculation of FMV those home 
market sales which were 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. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the 
United Kingdom, (60 FR 10558, February 27, 1995).
    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. 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 SSAB 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.
    SSAB did not report COP information for all product models. This 
affected both the home market and downstream sales listings. For 
certain of these models, respondent provided a methodology for 
assigning average costs for similar products. We used their methodology 
to the extent possible. However, this methodology did not cover all 
product models with missing COP. We have assigned the highest costs for 
similar products to the sales of models missing COP information as 
partial BIA. For more information, see our Analysis Memorandum of 
August 31, 1995.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, the Department 
normally uses the constructed value (CV) of those models for which home 
market price has been disregarded as below COP. See, e.g., Mechanical 
Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994). We did not use CV as 
FMV for those U.S. models for which we were unable to find a home 
market match because we found during verification that SSAB had not 
reported certain home market sales of subject merchandise. We therefore 
assume that all unmatched sales were the result of this reporting 
failure. We used a margin based upon BIA only for those unmatched U.S. 
sales. As BIA, we applied to those sales SSAB's final margin determined 
in the less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation. We have determined 
that resorting to total BIA is not warranted because SSAB's U.S. 
database is not sufficiently flawed such that the response as a whole 
is unreliable. See National Steel Corporation v. United States, 870 F. 
Supp. 1130, 1135 (CIT 1994).
    In accordance with section 773 (a)(1)(A) 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 home market sales 
price to unrelated and related purchasers in the home market. For terms 
of sale, please see Analysis Memorandum to the File, August 31, 1995.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 
353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments to FMV, where 
applicable, for credit expenses, handling expense, inland freight, 
discounts and rebates. Where appropriate, we deducted from FMV home 
market packing costs and added to FMV packing expenses incurred in 

[[Page 48505]]
Sweden for U.S. sales. We also adjusted FMV, where appropriate, for 
physical differences in the merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.57. Due to discrepancies found at verification, reporting errors, 
and unsupported adjustments, we disallowed and/or recalculated certain 
expenses and adjustments. See Analysis Memorandum to the File, August 
31, 1995 for more information on these disallowed and/or recalculated 
adjustments.

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                        Manufacturer                          (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSAB.......................................................        10.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 this administrative review 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 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 Sweden 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 24.23 
percent, which 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 Sweden, (58 FR 37213, 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: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23220 Filed 9-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P