[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 194 (Friday, October 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51901-51904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25536]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-405-802]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Finland: 
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 requests from the respondent, Rautaruukki Oy 
(Rautaruukki), and from 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), 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 Finland. 
This review covers the above manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is August 
1, 1994, through July 31, 1995.
    We preliminarily determine the dumping margin for Rautaruukki to be 
16.6 percent during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment 
on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this 
proceeding should also submit with the argument (1) a statement of the 
issue, and 2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Gray or Jacqueline Wimbush, 
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0159 or (202) 482-1394, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 Rounds 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 Fed. Reg. 25130).

Background

    On July 9, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(58 Fed. Reg. 37136) the final affirmative antidumping duty 
determination on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Finland. 
We published an antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 
44165). On August 1, 1995, the Department published the Opportunity to 
Request an Administrative Review of this order for the period August 1, 
1994-July 31, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 39150). The Department received 
requests for an administrative review of Rautaruukki's exports from 
Rautaruukki itself, a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, and 
from the petitioners. We initiated the review on September 8, 1995 (60 
Fed. Reg. 46817).
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of an administrative review 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

[[Page 51902]]

case. See Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 61 Fed.Reg. 14291 (April 1, 1996).
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Act.

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 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 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 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent by 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 verification reports, the 
public versions of which are available at the Department of Commerce, 
in Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B099.

Transactions Reviewed

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act, the Department is 
required to determine the normal value and export price (EP) of each 
entry of subject merchandise during the relevant review period.
    In determining normal value, based on a review of Rautaruukki's 
submissions and verification findings, the Department determined that 
Rautaruukki need not report its home market downstream sales because 
they would most likely not be used in the calculation of normal value. 
See Decision Memorandum on Reporting Downstream Sales, July 26, 1996.

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.
    Rautaruukki's reported control numbers were not prepared in 
accordance with the characteristics listed in Appendix III of the 
Department's September 14, 1995 antidumping questionnaire. 
Specifically, Rautaruukki has reported multiple plate specification 
codes under a single control number, rather than limiting a single 
control number to a unique plate specification code. Rautaruukki has 
also created multiple control numbers for products with the same 
identical physical characteristics, effectively adding new physical 
characteristics for beveling and plate manufactured by different 
processes or having different end uses. As we stated in the Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Finland, 61 Fed. Reg. 2792, 2795 
(January 29, 1996), the Department has no basis upon which to 
differentiate beveled plate from non-beveled plate for matching and 
price comparison purposes. Similarly, the Department does not have a 
basis to differentiate plate manufactured by different processes or 
having different end uses. Consequently, for these preliminary results, 
the Department has modified Rautaruukki's submitted control numbers so 
that they more closely conform to the Department's model match 
hierarchy. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like 
products based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
respondent and verified by the Department, modified as described above. 
We note that for future reviews, Rautaruukki must properly report its 
control numbers.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate by Rautaruukki to the United States were made at less than fair 
value, we compared the export price (EP) to the normal value (NV), as 
described in the ``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

    We used EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated 
EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
for brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, 
other transportation expenses, certification charges and credit.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the 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 price at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade, at the same level of trade as the export price (see 
level of trade analysis below).
    Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, discounts, credit expenses, 
inland freight, certification charges, warranty and packing.
    In comparisons to EP sales, we also increased NV by U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of

[[Page 51903]]

the Act. We made adjustments to NV for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the 
Department's practice, where for the most similar product match the 
difference in merchandise adjustment for any product comparison 
exceeded 20 percent, we based NV on constructed value (CV).
    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) at pages 829-831, to the 
extent practicable, the Department will calculate normal values based 
on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. When the 
Department is unable to find sales 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 different levels of trade. See, Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from 
Italy, 61 Fed. Reg. 30326, 30330 (June 14, 1996) (``Pasta from 
Italy'').
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A), if sales at different 
levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the normal 
value to account for the difference in level of trade if two conditions 
are met. The differences between the level of trade 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 
normal value is determined.
    In its questionnaire responses, Rautaruukki stated that there were 
no differences in its selling activities by customer categories within 
each market. In order to independently confirm the absence of separate 
levels of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we 
examined Rautaruukki's questionnaire responses for indications that 
Rautaruukki's function as a seller differed among customer categories. 
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, and the SAA at 827, in 
identifying levels of trade for directly observed (i.e., not 
constructed) export price and normal values sales, we considered the 
selling functions reflected in the starting price, before any 
adjustments. Where possible, we further examined whether each selling 
function was performed on a substantial portion of sales. (See Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 Fed. Reg. 7308, 7348 (February 27, 1996).
    Rautaruukki sold to a single customer in the U.S. market. In the 
home market, Rautaruukki sold to three categories of customers and 
performed the same selling functions between sales to all its home 
market customers. Thus, our analysis of the questionnaire response 
leads us to conclude that sales within each market and between markets 
are not made at different levels of trade. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily find that all sales in the home market and the U.S. 
market are made at the same level of trade. Therefore, all price 
comparisons are at the same level of trade and an adjustment pursuant 
to section 773(a)(7)(A) is unwarranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the fact that the Department had disregarded sales in the 
LTFV investigation (the most recently completed investigation/review of 
Rautaruukki at the time of initiation in this review) pursuant to a 
cost investigation on Rautaruukki's home market sales, the Department 
found reasonable grounds in this review, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, to believe or suspect that respondent made 
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether the respondent made home market sales during the POR 
at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act. Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP 
analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), 
and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. 
Based on our verification of Rautaruukki's cost response, we adjusted 
Rautaruukki's reported COP and CV to reflect certain adjustments to the 
cost of manufacturing and the general and administrative expenses.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We used the respondent's weighted-average COP, as adjusted (see 
above), for the period July 1994 to June 1995. We compared the 
weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the foreign like 
product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining 
whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below the COP, we 
examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were 
made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices 
which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, 
discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we found 
that sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities,'' in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, and were not at prices 
which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. When we found 
that below-cost sales had been made in ``substantial quantities'' and 
were not at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, we disregarded the below-cost sales in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where all sales of a 
specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales 
of that product, and calculated NV based on CV.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
U.S. packing costs, interest expenses and profit as reported in the 
U.S. sales database. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we based SG&A 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 we compared CV to EP, we 
deducted from CV the weighted-average home market direct selling 
expenses and added the weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct 
selling expenses, in accordance with Section 353.56(a)(2) of the 
Department's regulations.

Facts Available

    We preliminarily determine that, in accordance with section 776(a) 
of the Act, the use of facts available is appropriate because the 
Department was unable to verify Rautaruukki's COP and CV data for 
certain home market plate products. (See the Department's cost 
verification report.) As a result of the failure on the part of 
Rautaruukki to provide verifiable COP and CV data for

[[Page 51904]]

certain home market products, the Department was unable to perform a 
cost test for home market sales of these products or to calculate a 
difference in merchandise adjustment. Accordingly, we must make our 
preliminary determination based on facts otherwise available, pursuant 
to section 776(a) of the Act. For those U.S. sales for which the best 
match is a home market sale for which we were unable to perform the 
cost test or to calculate a difference in merchandise adjustment, we 
have used the highest rate from any prior segment of the proceeding, 
32.80 percent, as NV for comparison to these U.S. sales. This is the 
rate for Rautaruukki that was calculated in the LTFV investigation for 
the period January 1, 1992, through June 30, 1992. For those U.S. sales 
for which the best match included both sales for which we were unable 
to perform the cost test or to calculate a difference in merchandise 
adjustment and sales for which we were able to calculate the cost test 
or a difference in merchandise, we calculated a weighted-average 
margin. The weighted-average margin was calculated using a facts 
available component and a calculated component. See the Department's 
analysis memorandum (for Rautaruukki) dated September 24, 1996.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, 
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with 
the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that 
a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a 
benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling 
average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine a 
fluctuation existed, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate. 
However, for the preliminary results in this review we have not 
determined that a fluctuation exists, and we have not substituted the 
benchmark for the daily rate, in accordance with Policy Bulletin 96-1 
(Import Administration Exchange Rate Methodology).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Manufacturer/exporter                  Period        Margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rautaruukki Oy..............................    8/1/94-7/31/95     16.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party 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 from interested parties may 
be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in those briefs, 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 the case and 
rebuttal briefs, not later than 180 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this antidumping duty review for 
all shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Finland, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) 
the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that established 
in the final results of review; (2) for exporters not covered in this 
review, but covered in the LTFV investigation or previous review, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from 
the LTFV investigation; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, a previous 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; (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 36.00 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by 
the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice 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.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: September 25, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25536 Filed 10-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P