[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35153-35154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17050]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]


Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Notice of Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or Mary Jenkins, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone, (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-1756, 
respectively.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is porcelain-on-steel 
cookware, including tea kettles that do not have self-contained 
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of 
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware 
currently entering under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject 
to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

    On May 12, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico (62 
FR 25908). This review covered Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. (Cinsa) the exporter 
of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review 
(POR) is December 1, 1993, through November 30, 1994.
    On May 13, 1997, counsel for petitioner, General Housewares 
Corporation, filed an allegation of ministerial errors with regard to 
the final results in this review. We also received allegation of 
ministerial errors from counsel for respondent on May 16, 1997. On May 
20, 1997, respondent submitted comments regarding petitioner's 
allegation of ministerial errors and on May 23, 1997, petitioner 
submitted comments regarding respondent's allegation of clerical errors 
(see May 28, 1997, memorandum to Louis Apple for a detailed description 
of petitioner's and respondent's allegations and the Department's 
responses). All submissions from both parties were filed in a timely 
manner.

Petitioner's Allegations

    Petitioner alleged that:
    1. The Department added an incorrect amount for profit in the 
constructed value (CV) calculation.

DOC Response

    We agree that, in the calculation program for CINSA, we 
inadvertently transposed the sequence of commands to calculate the 
profit amount to be added to CV. We have corrected the ministerial 
error for the amended final results.
    2. The final results computer program performed separate cost tests 
for first-and second-quality merchandise of each model.

DOC Response

    Petitioner has raised a methodological issue rather than a 
ministerial issue in reference to its cost test allegation. The record 
indicated that second quality POS cookware is normally sold as a 
physically different product group in a different channel of trade from 
first quality cookware. Accordingly, we concluded that combining first 
quality and second quality sales for cost comparisons would not 
accurately reflect Cinsa's selling practices for such merchandise. 
Since our calculation methodology properly reflects our intention, we 
have not made any changes for these final results.

Respondent's Allegations

    Respondent alleged that:
    1. The Department improperly limited its calculation of CV profit 
earned from above-cost home market sales, rather than all home market 
sales of the subject merchandise.

DOC Response

    In accordance with section 353.28(d) of the Department's 
regulations, we have considered the programming for the calculation of 
profit an unintentional ministerial error and have made a correction 
for the amended final results. In the Notice of Amended Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipe and Tube from

[[Page 35154]]

Turkey, 62 FR 16547 (April 7, 1997), the case cited by petitioner in 
objecting to such a change, the Department's intention was to limit the 
application of a change in policy. In the instant case, however, the 
Department's calculation of profit for CV was unintentionally based on 
a methodology called for in the new definition of ``ordinary course of 
trade'' found at 771(15) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) using only above-cost sales, rather 
than the pre-URAA methodology which applies to this proceeding.
    2. The Department improperly used ``neutral'' best information 
available (BIA) in calculating a margin for Cinsa's sales of heavy 
gauge (HG) cookware in lieu of using ENASA's home market sales of HG 
cookware.

DOC Response

    Respondent's argument does not reflect a ministerial error. As 
stated in the notice, we did not collapse Cinsa and ENASA for purposes 
of this review. During the relevant POR, Cinsa purchased HG cookware 
from ENASA; Cinsa then resold that cookware to customers in the United 
States. Only ENASA sold HG cookware in the home market. Because the 
record contains no information on home market sales by Cinsa of HG 
cookware to which Cinsa's sales of HG cookware to the United States 
could be compared, and because an adverse selection of BIA was not 
warranted under these circumstances, the Department used ``neutral'' 
BIA for calculating margins for Cinsa's U.S. sales of HG cookware.
    3. The Department incorrectly articulated the basis for not 
initiating the cost investigation for ENASA.

DOC Position

    Respondent's argument does not reflect a ministerial error within 
the meaning of section 735(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 
The Department's position, as reflected in the Final Determination, 
accurately reflects our rationale for not requesting cost data for 
Cinsa's sales of HG merchandise produced by ENASA.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
          Manufacturer/exporter              Review period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa...................................     12/1/93-11/30/94      6.86 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between United States price and foreign market value may vary from the 
percentages stated above. 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 
porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate 
for the reviewed company will be the rate for the firm as stated above; 
(2) for previously 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, or the original 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 29.52 percent for porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, the all 
others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 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 the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    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 section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely 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: June 19, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-17050 Filed 6-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P