[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 150 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40399-40400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19728]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-602-803]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Australia: Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 29, 1996, the Department of Commerce published the 
final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from 
Australia. The review covered one manufacturer/exporter and the period 
February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994. Based on the correction of a 
ministerial error, we are amending the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Jean Kemp, Office of 
Agreements Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 29, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the final results of its 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Australia (61 FR 
14049). The review covered one manufacturer/exporter, The Broken Hill 
Proprietary Company Ltd. (BHP), and the period February 4, 1993, 
through July 31, 1994.
    After publication of our final results, we received a timely 
allegation from respondent that the Department had made ministerial 
errors in calculating the final results for corrosion-resistant steel 
from Australia. The petitioners (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. 
Steel Company, a Unit of USX Corporation, Inland Steel Industries, 
Inc., Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel 
Corporation, and Lukens Steel Company) filed a timely rebuttal to 
respondent's ministerial error allegation.
    BHP alleges that the Department incorrectly applied a BIA credit 
rate for certain sales by BHP Steel Building Products USA (Building 
Products). BHP agrees that for sales in which respondent did not report 
payment dates it was appropriate for the Department to use a BIA rate 
for credit expenses. However, BHP states that in applying the BIA rate 
to all sales where the credit expense equaled zero, the Department 
applied the punitive rate to a certain number of sales for which a 
payment date was in fact reported. Petitioners argue that in correcting 
its program in response to BHP's allegation, the Department should 
ensure that BIA will only be applied to those sales which had missing 
payment and shipment dates. We agree with respondents that we 
incorrectly applied a BIA credit rate on certain sales by Building 
Products in which payment dates had been submitted. We also agree with 
petitioners' rebuttal that the Department must continue to apply BIA to 
those sales in which payment and shipment dates were not reported. 
Therefore, we have recalculated credit costs using BIA only for those 
sales where payment and shipment dates were inaccurately reported.
    In addition, respondent alleges that the Department incorrectly 
used both the average foreign manufacturing cost and average profit as 
derived from Coated Steel Corp. (Coated) to calculate a surrogate 
further manufacturing cost for BHP Trading, Inc. (Trading). BHP stated 
that once Coated's average foreign manufacturing figure was derived in 
the Department's calculation of further manufacturing costs for 
Trading, an actual profit could have been calculated using Trading's 
data, and using a surrogate profit from Coating was unnecessary. 
Petitioners argue the Department made a reasonable and correct decision 
to apply BIA (i.e., surrogate amounts for average foreign manufacturing 
cost and average profit) to certain of Trading's sales because 
respondent failed to provide the Department with the necessary 
information for calculating further manufacturing cost and profit for 
these sales. Petitioners state that the Department was correct to rely 
on Coated's further manufacturing cost and profit in calculating the 
same for Trading and that this is not a ministerial error as defined in 
19 CFR section 353.28(d) as ``an error in addition, subtraction, or 
other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate 
copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional 
error which the Secretary considers ministerial.''
    The determination to calculate a surrogate profit on Trading's 
further manufactured sales of subject merchandise by relying on the 
average profit of Coating's sales of the same merchandise was 
intentional. The Department determined that since Trading had not 
submitted its cost of manufacturing and actual profit for each of these 
sales, calculating an average profit, then applied to each sale at 
issue, was an appropriate methodology, regardless of whether Trading 
made a profit on every sale. Respondent is correct in stating that the 
Department could have constructed Trading's actual profit on every sale 
in which Trading had a profit because the Department could have derived 
Trading's actual profit by using Coating's surrogate foreign 
manufacturing costs and Trading's's gross unit price. However, the 
Department rejected this methodology as inappropriate under the 
circumstances. Therefore, using a surrogate profit was not a 
ministerial error and the Department will not amend its final results.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our correction of the ministerial error, we have 
determined the following margin exists for the period February 4, 1993, 
through July 31, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BHP........................................................        39.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
Furthermore, the

[[Page 40400]]

following deposit requirements shall be effective, upon publication of 
this notice of amended final results of administrative review, for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from Australia that are entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for BHP will be the rate established 
above; (2) for previously 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 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 24.96 percent, the all others rate established in the 
final results of the less than fair value investigation (58 FR 44161, 
August 19, 1993).
    The deposit requirements, when imposed, 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 serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO 
materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and 19 CFR 353.28(c).
    Dated: July 29, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-19728 Filed 8-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P