[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