[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31787-31789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15289]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-412-810]


Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from 
the United Kingdom: Notice of Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of amendment of final results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending our final results of administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth 
carbon steel products from the United Kingdom, published on April 17, 
1997, to reflect

[[Page 31788]]

the correction of ministerial errors made in the margin calculation in 
those final results. We are publishing this amendment to the final 
results in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1997.

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 stated, 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 December 10, 1996, we published the preliminary results of our 
administrative review of certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon 
steel products from the United Kingdom (61 FR 65022). We published the 
final results of review on April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18744). On May 1, 
1997, we received a timely allegation from respondent, British Steel 
Engineering Steels Limited (BSES), alleging that the Department made 
ministerial errors in the final results.

Scope of 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.

Amended Final Results

    On May 1, 1997, BSES alleged that the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) committed ministerial errors in calculating the final 
antidumping duty margin. BSES argues that, in calculating constructed 
value (CV) profit, the Department made a ministerial error in failing 
to ensure that the profit ratio and the value by which the ratio was 
multiplied shared the same basis. BSES argues that the Department 
overstated the CV profit by including direct selling expenses, indirect 
selling expenses, and packing in ``CVPROFIT,'' the value by which the 
profit ratio (``PRATE2CV'') was multiplied, but excluding those 
expenses from the total cost of production used in the denominator of 
the profit ratio. In order to ensure that denominator ``TOTHMCOP'' of 
the profit ratio and value ``CVPROFIT'' shared the same basis, BSES 
suggests that the Department either delete such expenses from 
``CVPROFIT'' or include them in the denominator ``TOTHMCOP.''
    We agree with BSES that the Department made a ministerial error by 
inadvertently excluding direct selling expenses, indirect selling 
expenses and packing expenses in the calculation of CV profit. These 
items should have been included. Furthermore, we note that we erred by 
deducting these expenses from gross price before the comparison of 
gross price with cost of production. Therefore, we have excluded these 
expenses from the net cost of production, ``NPRICOP,'' and have added 
them to the total cost of production, ``TOTCOP,'' for these amended 
final results.
    Second, BSES alleges that, in the calculation of CV, the Department 
understated imputed credit and inventory carrying costs. BSES points 
out that the Department calculated credit and inventory carrying costs 
for CV by first creating CV credit and inventory carrying costs ratios. 
The Department then multiplied the ratios by total CV to yield the unit 
values of CV credit and inventory carrying costs. BSES argues that, 
since the denominator of the ratios was on a different basis than total 
CV (the value by which the ratio was multiplied), the results of the 
calculations were understated. BSES claims that the Department normally 
creates these variables by weight-averaging values from above-cost home 
market sales. As support for its argument, BSES cites our Final Results 
Analysis memorandum of April 9, 1997, where the Department states that 
``we weighted-averaged the variables, including credit and inventory 
carrying costs.'' BSES notes that the total CV (``TOTCV'') does not 
include movement expenses, while the home market total unit price 
(``HMTOTUPR''), which serves as the denominator of the imputed credit 
and inventory carrying costs ratios, does include movement expenses. 
BSES argues that the resulting unit values for credit and inventory 
carrying costs are therefore understated. BSES suggests that the 
Department correct this error by using the Department's standard 
weighted-average method; alternatively, BSES suggests, if the 
Department continues to use the ratio, the Department may correct its 
error by either deducting movement expenses from the denominator 
``HMTOTUPR'' or by adding the movement expenses to ``TOTCV.''
    We agree that the Department made a ministerial error as it 
intended to calculate a weighted-average of the listed variables 
including credit and inventory carrying costs. See Final Analysis 
memorandum dated April 9, 1997. Therefore, we have revised the margin 
calculation program by replacing ``SUM'' with ``MEAN'' at line 441, and 
deleting lines 454, 455, 456, 457, 1009, 1010, 1014, and 1015.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Upon review of the submitted allegation, the Department has 
determined that the following margin exists for the period March 1, 
1995 through February 29, 1996.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
         Manufacturer/Exporter            Period of Review    (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Steel Engineering Steels                                        
 Limited (BSES) (formerly United                                        
 Engineering Steels Limited)...........      3/1/95-2/29/96         4.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31789]]

    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. Because there is a concurrent review of the 
countervailing duty order on the subject merchandise, final assessments 
for BSES will reflect the final results of the countervailing duty 
administrative review in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the 
Act. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of amended 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: May 30, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-15289 Filed 6-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P