[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26473-26475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12649]



[[Page 26473]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-401-805]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden: 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 interested parties, 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 Sweden. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter 
of the subject merchandise to the United States and the period August 
1, 1995 through July 31, 1996. SSAB failed to submit a response to our 
questionnaire. As a result, we have preliminarily determined to use 
facts otherwise available for cash deposit and appraisement purposes.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Patience or Steve Jacques, 
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.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to 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 August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 44168) the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Sweden. On August 30, 1996, 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 a review for SSAB Svenskt Stal AB (SSAB). On September 3, 
1996, SSAB also requested a review for its exports of subject 
merchandise. On September 17, 1996, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 
353.22(c), we initiated the administrative review of this order for the 
period August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996 (61 FR 48882). The 
Department is now conducting this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    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 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 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, 1995, through July 31, 
1996.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Following the initiation of this review, the Department sent 
respondent a questionnaire seeking information necessary to conduct a 
review of any shipments that firm may have made to the United States 
during the POR. SSAB did not respond to the questionnaire. Because 
necessary information is not available on the record for the POR as a 
result of SSAB withholding the requested information, we must make our 
preliminary determination based on facts otherwise available (section 
776(a) of the Act).
    On October 21, 1996, the due date for section A of the Department's 
questionnaire, SSAB made a timely withdrawal of its request for a 
review of this POR. However, because petitioners had also requested an 
administrative review, the review is still in progress. Additionally, 
SSAB stated it would not be participating in the review and requested 
assignment, as facts available, of the first administrative review 
margin, 8.28 percent. SSAB also failed to respond to sections B, C and 
D of the questionnaire, which were due November 4, 1996.
    On January 8, 1997, petitioners requested that the Department 
assign to SSAB as facts available, 34 percent, the highest rate from 
the antidumping petition. Petitioners argued that this rate was more 
appropriate than the average petition rate, 24.23 percent, which was 
also used as the best information available in the final determination 
of the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation. Because the LTFV rate 
had not induced SSAB to cooperate, petitioners argue the Department 
should use alternative sources of facts available rates or the 
respondent could be in a position to manipulate the administrative 
review process by refusing to cooperate when its actual margin of 
dumping may exceed the LTFV investigation margin. See Steel Wire Rope 
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 55964, 55967-68, (October 30, 1996) (Steel 
Wire Rope). See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 42833, 42835 (August 
19, 1996). See Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 41876, 
41878 (August 14, 1995). Accordingly, petitioners proposed that the 
Department use as facts available the highest rate from the petition 
which is a rate of 34 percent.

[[Page 26474]]

    On January 16, 1997, respondent submitted a rebuttal to 
petitioners' submission. Noting that on September 4, 1996, in the 
second administrative review of this order, the Department had 
preliminarily determined to apply facts available to SSAB, and that 
this decision was based on SSAB's failure to reconcile its cost 
response to its audited financial statements, respondent argued that it 
is precluded from participating in future administrative reviews until 
the Department reconsiders the cost verification standard it applied to 
SSAB in the second administrative review, or until the company revises 
its cost accounting system to conform to the Department's thinking as 
to how the company should maintain its audited financial statements. 
Respondent asserted that its withdrawal from participation in the third 
review does not stem from an intentional failure to cooperate or a 
desire to ``control the review process'' or ``practice injurious price 
discrimination to a greater degree than at the time of the LTFV 
investigation.'' Rather, respondent argued that the cost accounting 
system for SSOX, one of SSAB's two plants producing subject 
merchandise, has been rejected by the Department in a prior 
administrative review and that SSOX has no alternative method for 
reporting costs in the current review. Respondent argued that because 
the relevant period for the third administrative review already expired 
before SSAB was made aware that the SSOX cost accounting system and 
reported costs would be rejected, SSAB had no choice but to withdraw 
from participating in the third administrative review. Therefore, 
respondent maintains that the Department should reject the petitioners' 
request for a 34 percent facts available margin.
    Respondent's voluntary withdrawal from this, the third 
administrative review, followed the Department's preliminary facts 
available determination in the second administrative review, but 
preceded the final results of that review. SSAB made no attempt in the 
third review to contact the Department to discuss how it should proceed 
in responding to section D, the cost of production section of the 
questionnaire, nor did it respond to any other section of the 
questionnaire. Thus, the Department finds that, in not responding to 
the questionnaire, SSAB failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
Department. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we may, 
in making our determination, use an adverse inference in selecting from 
the facts otherwise available. This adverse inference may include 
reliance on data derived from the petition, a previous determination in 
an investigation or review, or any other information placed on record. 
We agree with petitioners that the 24.23 percent margin has not induced 
SSAB to cooperate in this review and a higher margin is warranted. Our 
decision to use a rate higher than the LTFV rate is consistent with our 
decision in the previous segment of the proceeding in which we assigned 
the LTFV rate as total adverse facts available because ``* * * while 
SSAB did not act to the best of its ability in responding to our cost 
information requests, it did cooperate with respect to certain aspects 
of this review.'' See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Sweden, Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 51898, 51900 (October 4, 1996); see, also, Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18396, 18401 (April 15, 1997). 
Accordingly, in this case, because SSAB has not cooperated with any 
aspects of this review, we preliminarily assign to SSAB a more adverse 
margin of 34 percent, the highest margin from the original petition in 
the LTFV investigation.
    Section 776(b) authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts 
available information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. Section 776(c) provides that the Department 
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate ``secondary information'' 
by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA, 
at 870, makes it clear that ``secondary information'' includes 
information from the petition in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation and information from a previous section 751 review of the 
subject merchandise. The SAA also provides that ``corroborate'' means 
simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. Id.
    As noted above, the Department used an average of the petition 
rates as total adverse facts available in the previous segment of this 
proceeding. The Department explained in that review that it had 
corroborated the petition information. For the purposes of these 
preliminary results, we continue to regard the petition information as 
corroborated, though we intend to consider further, for purposes of the 
final results of review, whether or not further corroboration, based on 
updated information, is both appropriate and possible.

Duty Absorption

    On October 7, 1996, petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. 
On October 8, 1996, respondent opposed petitioners' request stating 
this review is ineligible for an absorption inquiry because the review 
was initiated three years, not two or four years, after publication of 
the antidumping duty order. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for 
the Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative 
review initiated two 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. The Department's interim regulations do not address this 
provision of the Act.
    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 antidumping regulations 
provide 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, 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 
1996). The preamble to the proposed antidumping 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 antidumping 
regulations are not yet binding upon the Department, they do constitute 
a public statement of how the Department expects to proceed in applying 
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 order on 
subject merchandise from Sweden has been in effect since 1993, this 
qualifies as a transition order. Therefore, based on the policy stated 
above, the Department will first consider a request for an absorption 
determination during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review 
initiated in 1996, we are making

[[Page 26475]]

a duty-absorption determination as part of this segment of the 
proceeding.
    In this case, we are unable to calculate a margin based on SSAB's 
response and have therefore determined its dumping margin entirely on 
the basis of adverse facts available. We also determined, based on 
adverse facts available, that there are margins on all sales. Lacking 
other information, we find duty absorption on all sales.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin 
of 34 percent exists for SSAB for the period August 1, 1995 through 
July 31, 1996. 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. Case briefs 
and/or 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 the case 
briefs and comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date 
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. The 
Department will publish the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of administrative review for all 
shipments of subject merchandise, 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 that established in the final results of this 
administrative review; (2) for exporters not covered in this review, 
but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-value (LTFV) 
investigation, 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, previous reviews, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be that 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 be 24.23 percent, the ``all others'' 
rate established in the final notice of the LTFV investigation (58 FR 
37213, July 9, 1993).
    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 in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: May 5, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-12649 Filed 5-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P