[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