[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44039-44041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-602-803]


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

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On May 29, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products from Australia (61 FR 26876). The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995. We gave interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. Based on 
our analysis of the comments received, we have not changed the results 
from those presented in the preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Jean Kemp, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group III, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 29, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(61 FR 28676) the preliminary results of the administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat products from Australia (58 FR 44161, August 9, 1993). The 
Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review constitute one 
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products. The 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

[[Page 44040]]

millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently 
classifiable in the 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 review covers BHP and the period August 1, 1994 through July 
31, 1995 (POR).

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We only received comments from petitioners, 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX 
Corporation, Inland Steel Industries, Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., 
National Steel Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, Gulf States Steel 
Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, WCI Steel, Inc., and Lukens 
Steel Company, in this proceeding. Neither respondent (The Broken Hill 
Proprietary Company Ltd. (BHP)) nor petitioners requested a hearing.
    Comment 1: Petitioners stated that the Department correctly 
concluded in its preliminary results that the use of facts available is 
appropriate in this review because BHP did not respond to Sections B, 
C, or D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. In 
addition, petitioners noted that because BHP failed to cooperate and 
withheld requested information, Section 776(b) of the Act permits the 
Department to use an inference adverse to BHP in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available. (See, Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 
30326, 30328 (June 14, 1996)) Moreover, the petitioners argue that the 
Department's practice under the old law was to view a respondent who 
refuses to participate as non-cooperative and to subject said 
respondent to the use of the most adverse facts available. (See, 
Certain Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37091, 37094 
(July 9, 1993))
    Additionally, petitioners stated that the Department correctly 
applied Section 776(c) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA) in its preliminary results and correctly followed its 
practice for assessing the probative value of the information to be 
used by examining its reliability and relevance. (See, Mechanical 
Transfer Presses from Japan, 61 FR 15036 (April 4, 1996)) Also, 
petitioners note that the Department correctly recognized that in 
selecting as adverse facts available the margin calculated in the prior 
segment of this proceeding, ``it is not necessary to question the 
reliability of the margin for that time period.'' Petitioners also 
noted that the Department did consider information as to whether there 
were circumstances that would render the margin not relevant, and 
stated that the Department correctly concluded that there were no such 
circumstances.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Our final results 
are in accord with our reasoning in our preliminary results. Because 
BHP failed to submit a response to sections B through E of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire we have determined that it is 
appropriate to use as an adverse inference in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available, the margin calculated in a prior segment of 
the proceeding. The Department will apply the antidumping margin of 
39.05 percent for these final results, which is the antidumping margin 
from the amended final results of the first administrative review.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists for the period August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 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 following deposit requirements shall be effective, 
upon publication of this notice of 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

[[Page 44041]]

disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: August 20, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-21856 Filed 8-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P