[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 213 (Friday, November 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56514-56515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28117]



[[Page 56514]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-810]


Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom; 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; certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from 
the United Kingdom.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon 
steel products from the United Kingdom. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter and the period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 
1995.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have changed the results from those presented in the preliminary 
results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 6, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(61 FR 20225) the preliminary results of its administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth 
carbon steel products from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324, March 22, 
1993). The Department has now completed the review in accordance with 
section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of 
nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by 
weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 
in coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded 
from the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72, 
note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason 
of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or 0.1 percent or 
more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-
finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered 
in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00 and 
7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also 
enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings: 
7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10, 
00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 
and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this order 
remains dispositive.
    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of certain hot-rolled 
lead and bismuth steel products, United Engineering Steels Limited 
(UES), now British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES), and the 
period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995.

Analysis of the Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results of review. We received comments from UES and 
petitioner.
    Comment 1: Petitioner contends that the Department erred in the way 
it matched home market products to products sold to the United States. 
Petitioner maintains that the language included in the concordance 
program keeps only the first record of the home market control number, 
which identifies a particular home market model, and drops other 
records containing the subsequent matches if the same home market 
control number is matched to subsequent U.S. products, or to the same 
U.S. products in different six-month windows. (A match is made within a 
window of time from three months prior to two months after the month of 
the U.S. sale.) As a result, petitioner claims, the Department dropped 
a number of legitimate home market product matches, and instead, used 
constructed value as the basis of normal value.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The original 
computer program contained an inadvertent error. We have revised the 
computer programming language to correct this error for the final 
results of this review.
    Comment 2: UES argues that the Department failed to match U.S. 
sales to home market sales in the most contemporaneous month. Instead, 
the Department matched each U.S. sale to all home market sales 
occurring within the six-month window. UES argues that, pursuant to the 
Department's matching rule, the most contemporaneous home market match 
is selected in the following order of preference: sales in the same 
month of the U.S. sale, sales in the month prior to the U.S. sale, 
sales in the second month prior to the month of the U.S. sale, sales in 
the third month prior to the month of the U.S. sale, sales in the month 
subsequent to the month of the U.S. sale, and finally, sales in the 
second month subsequent to the month of the U.S. sale.
    Department's Position: We agree with UES and have revised our 
computer programming language accordingly for these final results of 
review.
    Comment 3: UES maintains that the Department erred in its 
calculation of the profit in calculating constructed value. UES claims 
that the Department erred in calculating the ratio applied to the cost 
of production to calculate profit by first computing a profit 
percentage for each home market sales transaction, and then weight-
averaging the percentages by quantity. UES contends that this 
methodology introduces serious distortion. UES suggests that, under the 
Department's normal methodology, total home market profit is divided by 
total home market costs to calculate the profit ratio.
    Department's Position: We agree with UES and have revised our 
computer programming language accordingly for these final results of 
review.

Clerical Errors

    For the preliminary results of review, the Department did not 
deduct U.S. brokerage and handling charges from the U.S. price. For 
these final results of review, we have deducted such charges from the 
U.S. price. See section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

[[Page 56515]]

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
         Manufacturer/exporter            Period of review    (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Engineering Steels Limited                                       
 (UES) (now British Steel Engineering                                   
 Steels Limited)......................       3/1/94-2/28/95         1.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the 
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products 
from the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
company will be the rate listed above; (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) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 25.82 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (58 FR 6207, 
January 27, 1993). These deposit requirements 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 subsequent assessment 
of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations 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 (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: October 23, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-28117 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P