[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 194 (Friday, October 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51891-51897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25533]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-822; A-122-823 ]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion-resistant 
carbon steel flat

[[Page 51892]]

products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada. 
These reviews cover four manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States and the period August 1, 1994 through 
July 31, 1995.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (``NV'') by various companies subject to these reviews. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these 
administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price 
(``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling (Continuous Colour Coat 
(``CCC'')), Eric Johnson (Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco Inc. (``Dofasco'')), 
Daniel Miller (Algoma, Inc. (``Algoma'')), N. Gerard Zapiain (Stelco, 
Inc. (``Stelco'')), or Jean Kemp, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute refer 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).

Background

    On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 44162) the antidumping duty orders on certain 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products and certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada. On August 29, 1995, Algoma (cut-
to-length steel plate) requested review of its exports of subject 
merchandise. On August 31, 1995, the following companies also requested 
reviews for their exports of subject merchandise: CCC (corrosion-
resistant steel), Dofasco (corrosion-resistant steel), and Stelco 
(corrosion-resistant steel and cut-to-length steel plate). Manitoba 
Rolling Mills (``MRM'') also requested a review, but subsequently 
withdrew its request. We therefore terminate MRM's review with this 
notice. On August 31, 1995, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel 
Group (a Unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel Industries Inc., Gulf 
States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, Geneva Steel, 
and Lukens Steel Company, petitioners, requested reviews of the above 
four respondents (but not MRM) and both classes or kinds of 
merchandise. On September 9, 1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), 
we initiated administrative reviews of these orders for the period 
August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1995 (60 FR 46818).
    On February 28, 1996, the petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by Algoma, 
Dofasco, and Stelco (for corrosion-resistant only) during the POR, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Section 751(a)(4) provides 
that the Department, if requested, will determine during an 
administrative review initiated two years or four years after 
publication of the order whether antidumping duties have been absorbed 
by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if the subject 
merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer who is 
affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) 
was added to the Act by the URAA.
    For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the 
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section 
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed regulations provides that 
the Department will make a duty absorption determination, if requested, 
for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. See Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308, 7366 
(February 27, 1996) (``Proposed Regulations''). The commentary to the 
proposed regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be 
considered initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998 
will be considered initiated in the fourth year. Id. at 7317. Although 
these proposed regulations are not yet binding upon the Department, 
they do constitute a public statement of how the Department expects to 
proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the amended statute. This 
approach assures that interested parties will have the opportunity to 
request a duty absorption determination on entries for which the second 
and fourth years following an order have already passed, prior to the 
time for sunset review of the order under section 751(c). Because the 
orders on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products and cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada have been in effect since 1993, 
these are transition orders. Therefore, based on the policy stated 
above, the Department will first consider a request for a duty 
absorption determination for reviews of these orders initiated in 1996. 
Because this review was initiated in 1995, we have not considered the 
issue of absorption in this review. However, if requested, we will do 
so in the next review.
    Under the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for 
completion of administrative reviews if it determines that it is not 
practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit of 
365 days. On April 1, 1996, the Department extended the time limits for 
the preliminary and final results in this case. See Extension of Time 
Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 14291 (1996). 
The new deadline for the final results of review is April 2, 1997.
    The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with 
section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Reviews

    The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two 
separate ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: (1) certain corrosion-
resistant steel and (2) certain cut-to-length plate.
    The first class or kind, certain corrosion-resistant steel, 
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 millimeters 
and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (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,

[[Page 51893]]

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 non-rectangular 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 beveled 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 second class or kind, certain cut-to-length plate, includes 
hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled 
products rolled on four faces or in a 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 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 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 
non-rectangular 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 beveled 
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.
    The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1994, through July 31, 
1995.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by respondents, using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site 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.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the 
Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the home market during 
the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix III of 
the Department's September 14, 1995 antidumping questionnaire. In 
making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based 
on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent and verified 
by the Department.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP to 
the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted-average prices 
for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For calculation of the price to the United States, we used EP, in 
accordance with subsections 772(a) and (c) of the Act where the subject 
merchandise was sold directly or indirectly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. In addition, we used 
CEP in accordance with subsections 772 (b), (c), and (d) of the Act, as 
appropriate, for those sales that took place after importation into the 
United States.

Algoma

    The Department calculated EP for Algoma. EP was based on packed, 
prepaid or delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made 
adjustments to the starting price for movement expenses (foreign and 
U.S. movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties).
    We used Algoma's date of invoice as the date of sale for both U.S. 
sales and home market sales because that was the date when price and 
quantity are fixed.

CCC

    The Department calculated EP for CCC. EP was based on packed, 
prepaid or delivered prices to customers in the United States.
    We made deductions to the starting price for movement expenses 
(foreign movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties), 
and for discounts and rebates.
    We used CCC's date of invoice as the date of sale for U.S. sales 
because that was the date when price and quantity were fixed.

Dofasco

    For purposes of these reviews, we treated Dofasco, Inc. and 
Sorevco, Inc. as one respondent (see Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Canada; Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value, 58 FR 37099 (1993), and Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 42511 (1995)). These 
companies have submitted no information which would cause us to 
question that treatment. The Department calculated EP for Dofasco. EP 
was based on packed prices to customers in the United States.
    We made deductions to the starting price for discounts, a rebate, 
movement expenses, and U.S. Customs duty and brokerage. As in the prior 
review, U.S. further processing expenses for certain sales have not 
been treated as part of the export price.

[[Page 51894]]

    For Dofasco, Inc., we used the date of order acknowledgment as date 
of sale for all sales in both the U.S. and the home market (except 
sales made pursuant to long-term contracts) because this was the time 
at which price and quantity were fixed. For Dofasco, Inc.'s sales made 
pursuant to long-term contracts, we used date of the contract as date 
of sale because the contract terms fixed price and quantity.
    For Sorevco, Inc., we used the date of order confirmation as the 
date of sale because both price and quantity are fixed in its order 
acknowledgments. When Sorevco shipped more merchandise than the 
customer ordered, but which the customer accepted, and such overages 
were in excess of accepted industry tolerances, we used date of 
shipment as date of sale for the excess merchandise.

Stelco

    Corrosion-resistant products: We calculated EP or CEP, as 
appropriate, based on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in, 
or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions to the 
starting price for movement expenses including freight, U.S. 
transportation expenses, brokerage and handling, U.S. Customs duties 
and warehousing.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) which accompanied the passage of the 
URAA (at 823-824), for CEP we also deducted selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States, including 
credit, technical services, other direct selling expenses, indirect 
selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs. Finally, we made an 
adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to these expenses in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    We used Stelco's date of invoice as the date of sale for both EP 
and CEP corrosion-resistant sales because that was the date when price 
and quantity were fixed.
    Plate: We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in, or for exportation, to the United States. We made 
deductions for movement expenses including foreign movement, brokerage 
and handling, U.S. Customs duty and warehousing. We made no other 
adjustments for EP.
    We used the date of invoice as the date of sale for plate sales 
because that was the date when price and quantity were fixed.

Normal Value

    The Department determines the viability of the home market as the 
comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of home market 
and U.S. sales. We found that each company's quantity of sales in its 
home market exceeded five percent of its sales to the U.S. Moreover, 
there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market 
situation in the exporting country that would not permit a proper 
comparison of home market and U.S. prices. We, therefore, have 
determined that each company's home market sales are viable for 
purposes of comparison with sales of the subject merchandise to the 
United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the 
prices at which the foreign like products were first sold for 
consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and 
in the ordinary course of trade.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unrelated 
customers.
    Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of 
production (``COP'') in the last completed review with respect to CCC 
and Stelco for both the classes or kinds of merchandise under review 
(see Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 61 FR 13815 (March 28, 1996)), 
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the 
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in 
this review may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales by CCC 
and Stelco in the home market. On January 11, 1996, petitioners alleged 
that Algoma and Dofasco made home market sales of subject merchandise 
below COP. On January 26, 1996, we initiated COP investigations of 
sales by Algoma and Dofasco.
    We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market 
with the model-specific cost of production figure for the POR 
(``COP''). In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we 
calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and 
fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product plus 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and 
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in condition 
packed and ready for shipment. In our COP analysis, we used home market 
sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses.
    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of 
subject merchandise were made at prices below COP and, if so, whether 
they were made within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities, at prices that did not permit recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time. Because each individual price was compared 
against the POR-long average COP, any sales that were below cost were 
also not at prices which permitted cost recovery within a reasonable 
period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported home 
market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and 
rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the weighted-average COPs for the POR, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because they were made within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) 
(B) and (C) of the Act, and were at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we 
disregarded some below-cost sales with respect to all of the above 
companies and classes or kinds of merchandise.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV 
on sales at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. If NV 
was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an additional 
adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with section 
773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level of Trade below.)
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with 
section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and 
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A

[[Page 51895]]

expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average 
home market selling expenses.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56 for circumstance of sale 
(COS) differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses except those deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. We also made 
adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling 
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.

Algoma

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers (Algoma made no home market sales to affiliated parties), in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market prices were based on the 
packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the home market. We deducted discounts and rebates. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for differences in packing and movement 
expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. 
We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in 
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses. These included direct selling expenses 
(credit and warranty) in the home market and credit and warranty 
expenses in the U.S. market. When comparisons were made to EP sales on 
which commissions were paid, we made adjustments for home market 
indirect selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions.

CCC

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated or 
unaffiliated parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market 
prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for packing and movement expenses in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We adjusted 
for discounts and rebates. We also made adjustments for differences in 
cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for COS 
differences in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
353.56. For comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home 
market direct selling expenses (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit). When comparisons were made where commissions were 
paid on EP sales, we made adjustments for home market indirect selling 
expenses to offset U.S. commissions.

Dofasco

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated 
(when made at prices determined to be arm's-length) or unaffiliated 
parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market prices were 
based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to affiliated or 
unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We deducted discounts and 
rebates. We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and 
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of 
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for COS differences in 
accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For 
comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market 
direct selling expenses (credit, royalties and warranty expenses) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, royalties and warranty 
expenses). When comparisons were made where commissions were paid on EP 
sales, we made adjustments for home market indirect selling expenses to 
offset U.S. commissions.

Stelco

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated or 
unaffiliated parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market 
prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made 
deductions for discounts and rebates. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, for packing and movement expenses, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 
of the Act and for COS differences in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56.
    Corrosion resistant steel: We adjusted home market prices for 
interest revenue on certain sales to one customer. For comparison to 
EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses (credit, warranties, technical services) and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses (credit, technical services and other direct 
selling expenses). For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses except those deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
    Plate: For comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting 
home market direct selling expenses (commissions, credit, warranties, 
technical services) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, 
technical services and other direct selling expenses).

Level of Trade (``LOT'')

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA 
accompanying the URAA at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the 
Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade 
as the U.S. sale. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the 
Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at a 
different level of trade. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value; Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996).
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare 
U.S. sales at one level of trade to NV sales at a different level of 
trade, the Department will adjust the NV to account for the difference 
in level of trade if two conditions are met. First, there must be 
differences between the actual selling functions performed by the 
seller at the level of trade of the U.S. sale and the level of trade of 
the normal

[[Page 51896]]

value sale. Second, the difference must affect price comparability as 
evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at 
the different levels of trade in the market in which NV is determined.
    When CEP is applicable, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes 
the procedures for making a CEP offset when: (1) NV is at a more 
advanced level of trade, and (2) the data available does not provide an 
appropriate basis for a level of trade adjustment.
    In order to determine that there is a difference in level of trade, 
the Department must find that two sales have been made at different 
phases of marketing, or the equivalent. Different phases of marketing 
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences 
in selling functions (even substantial ones) are not alone sufficient 
to establish a difference in the level of trade. Similarly, seller and 
customer descriptions (such as ``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'') are 
useful in identifying different levels of trade, but are insufficient 
to establish that there is a difference in the level of trade.
    In implementing this principle in these reviews, we obtained 
information about the selling activities of the producers/exporters 
associated with each phase of marketing, or the equivalent. We asked 
each respondent to establish any claimed LOTs based on these marketing 
activities and selling functions.
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondents, we 
considered all types of selling activities that had been performed on 
both a qualitative and quantitative basis. In analyzing whether 
separate LOTs existed in these reviews, we found that no single selling 
activity in the flat-rolled steel industry was sufficient to warrant a 
separate LOT (see Proposed Regulations, 61 FR, at 7348).
    To test the claimed LOTs, we analyzed the selling activities 
associated with the classes of customers and marketing phases 
respondents reported. In applying this test, we expect that, if claimed 
LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be 
similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for 
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be dissimilar. The Department does not only count activities, 
but weighs the overall function performed by each claimed level of 
trade. In determining whether separate LOTs existed in the home market, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we considered the 
selling functions reflected in the starting price of the home market 
sales before any adjustment. In identifying the LOT for CEP sales, we 
considered only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price 
after deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.

Algoma

    Algoma reported one LOT and one channel of distribution with two 
classes of customers: end-users and steel service centers (SSCs) in 
both the home market and the United States. Algoma sells all of its 
material directly to the customer. Every order is custom made. We 
examined the selling functions performed for both classes of customers 
in both markets. We found that Algoma's selling activities were 
substantially similar for both classes of customers for sales of 
subject merchandise and, therefore, warrant one level of trade. Thus, 
no adjustment was appropriate.

CCC

    CCC reported three different LOTs in the home market: original 
equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel service centers, and scrap 
merchants. However, we examined and verified the reported selling 
functions and found that CCC provides the same selling functions to its 
home market customers regardless of distribution level, marketing 
phase, or the equivalent. Overall, we determine that the selling 
functions between the reported LOTs are sufficiently similar to 
consider them as one LOT in the comparison market.
    CCC stated that it sells to two LOTs in the United States: OEMs and 
steel service centers. Again, we examined the selling functions at both 
claimed levels, and found they were the same. Therefore, we determine 
that the selling functions between the reported LOTs are sufficiently 
similar to consider them as one LOT in the United States market. 
Finally, we compared the selling functions performed at the home market 
LOT and the LOT in the United States and found them substantially 
similar. Therefore, no adjustment is appropriate.

Dofasco

    Dofasco reported four LOTs in the home market. Dofasco defined its 
LOT categories by customer category: service center, automotive, 
construction, and ``others.'' We examined and verified the selling 
functions performed at each claimed level and found that, of 14 selling 
functions, the automotive and service center sales levels only 
overlapped with respect to two selling functions. Moreover, Dofasco has 
established a separate sales division for its automotive sales. 
Therefore, given these types of differences, we conclude that these are 
separate levels of trade.
    Between the automotive and construction sales channels, Dofasco 
performed only five of the same or similar selling functions. The 
activities differed with respect to numerous other activities. We have 
concluded that the extent of these similar selling activities, taken as 
a whole, is not sufficient to consider these the same level of trade.
    Between the construction and service center sales channels, Dofasco 
performed eight of the same or similar selling functions. The 
activities differed in numerous other areas. Again, we do not conclude 
that the extent of these similar activities, taken as a whole, renders 
these the same level of trade.
    However, between the construction and ``other'' sales channels, the 
selling functions performed overlapped with respect to eleven of the 
fourteen selling functions analyzed.
    Overall, we determine that the selling functions between the 
construction and ``other'' sales channels are sufficiently similar to 
consider them a single LOT in the comparison market. For the 
automotive, service center, and construction/''other'' customer 
categories, we determine that the selling functions between these sales 
channels are not sufficiently similar to consider them as the same LOT 
in the comparison market. Therefore, we determine that the automotive, 
service center, and construction/''other'' customer categories should 
be treated as three LOTs in the comparison market.
    Respondents reported four LOTs in the U.S. market: automotive, 
service center, construction, and ``other.'' The only difference in 
selling functions between the comparison market and the U.S. market are 
as follows: for certain sales to construction customers in the U.S. 
market, one selling activity is offered which is not offered to home 
market construction customers; and for certain other sales to 
construction customers, there is one selling function which is not 
provided in the U.S. market but which is offered in the comparison 
market.
    We determine that the results of our analysis of U.S. LOTs are 
identical to those of the comparison market--there are three LOTs in 
the U.S. market: automotive, service center, and construction/
``other.''

Stelco

    Stelco identified one level of trade and two phases of marketing 
(to end-users or to resellers) in the home market for each class or 
kind of merchandise. We examined and verified the selling functions 
performed in each phase and

[[Page 51897]]

found that Stelco provided many of the same or similar selling 
functions in each, including: inventory maintenance, after sales 
service, technical advice, and freight and delivery arrangements. We 
found few differences between selling functions for transactions made 
through the two channels of trade and that Stelco's prices did not vary 
consistently based on the type of customer. Overall, we determine that 
the selling functions between the two sales channels are sufficiently 
similar to consider them one LOT in the comparison market for sales of 
both corrosion-resistant products and plate products.
    In the United States, Stelco sold both products through one sales 
channel and to one class of customer: corrosion-resistant products were 
sold only to end users and plate products were sold to service centers 
in the United States. For EP sales, we determine that the results of 
our analysis of U.S. LOTs are identical to those of the comparison 
market: the selling functions performed for sales to the United States 
are sufficiently similar to consider them one LOT for both corrosion-
resistant products and plate products. Additionally, we consider this 
LOT to be the same as that identified in the comparison market. 
Therefore, no adjustment is appropriate. For CEP sales, we compared the 
selling activities associated with the sale to the affiliated reseller 
to those associated with the home market level of trade and found them 
to be dissimilar. For example, the level of trade of the CEP sales 
involved no after sales services, or technical advice. Therefore, we 
considered the home market sales to be at a different level of trade 
and at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP. Because the 
sole home market level of trade was different from the level of trade 
of the CEP, we could not match to sales at the same level of trade in 
the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment 
based on Stelco's home market sales of merchandise under review. 
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate 
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. Accordingly, for 
Stelco, we determined NV at the sole home market level of trade and 
made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(b) of 
the Act.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period August 1, 
1994, through July 31, 1995 to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin    
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosion-Resistant Steel:                                              
  Dofasco...............................................            0.84
  CCC...................................................            1.01
  Stelco................................................            0.45
Cut-to-Length Plate:                                                    
  Algoma................................................            0.70
  Stelco................................................               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date 
of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or 
other written comments from interested parties may be submitted not 
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 its analysis of issues 
raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not later than 180 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Because the inability to link sales 
with specific entries prevents calculation of duties on an entry-by-
entry basis, we will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rate for each class or kind of merchandise based on the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the 
sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the 
POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping 
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory 
NV and statutory EP or CEP, by the total statutory EP or CEP value of 
the sales compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference 
between EP or CEP and customs value for all merchandise examined during 
the POR).
    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 these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those rates established in the final results of these 
reviews (except that no deposit will be required for firms with zero or 
de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (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 less-than-fair-
value (``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 the ``all 
others'' rate made effective by the final results of the 1993-1994 
administrative reviews of these orders (see Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
61 FR 13815 (March 28, 1996)). As noted in those final results, these 
rates are the ``all others'' rates from the relevant LTFV 
investigations which were 18.71 percent for corrosion-resistant steel 
products and 61.88 percent for plate (see Amended Final Determination, 
60 FR 49582 (September 26, 1995)). These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative reviews.
    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 Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22(c)(5).

    Dated: September 25, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25533 Filed 10-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P