[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44105-44107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21961]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-822]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Canada: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rick Johnston, 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.

Scope of This Review

    The merchandise under review is certain corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products. Although the Hamonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.
    These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of 
rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-
resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- 
or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished 
or coated with plastics or other

[[Page 44106]]

nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils 
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 
0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness 
less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 
which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 
4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 
and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in 
the HTSUS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 
7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 
7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 
7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 
7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in 
this review are corrosion-resistant 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 from this review are flat-
rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, 
chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium 
and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted, 
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in 
addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this review are 
clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite 
thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at 
least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this review are certain 
clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters 
in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
    The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1994, through July 31, 
1995.

Amendment of Final Results

    On April 15, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada (62 
FR 18448-18468). The review covering corrosion-resistant steel includes 
three manufacturers/exporters (Stelco, Inc.; Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco, 
Inc., collectively ``Dofasco''; and Continuous Colour Coat, Ltd. 
(``CCC'')) of the subject merchandise to the United States and the 
period August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995.

Interested Party Comments

Dofasco
    Comment 1: In a letter to the Department dated May 8, 1997, 
petitioners alleged that the Department made a ministerial error by 
failing to correct for certain missing freight charges on U.S. sales. 
Specifically, when Dofasco sales were reported as direct to the U.S. 
customer, with a certain term of sale, and for which Dofasco reported a 
value in the computer field for prepaid freight, petitioners alleged 
that Dofasco should have reported a value in the field for maximum 
freight. Petitioners have proposed computer language to correct the 
error, and have also argued that in those instances in which no maximum 
freight value exists on the record for a particular destination, the 
Department should assign the highest maximum freight value reported by 
Dofasco for any destination as the freight rate for that sale.
    In a letter to the Department dated May 20, 1997, respondent 
disagrees with petitioners that the alleged error is a clerical error. 
Instead, Dofasco notes that the alleged error was not brought to the 
attention of the Department in a timely manner during the course of the 
proceeding. Dofasco argues that, because the Department was unaware of 
this alleged error, it could not have committed a ``clerical error'' by 
not making petitioners' requested corrections.
    Dofasco also disputes petitioners' proposal to assign the highest 
maximum freight value reported by Dofasco for any destination as the 
freight rate for certain sales, in the event that the Department 
determines that the error is clerical in nature. Dofasco contends that 
there is verified information on the record for each destination which 
the Department could apply in those cases for which maximum freight was 
incorrectly excluded from the database.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the error was 
a ministerial error. As is clear from the Department's April 3, 1997 
analysis memorandum for the final results of review, the Department 
intended to account for those instances in which ``no maximum freight 
expenses has been reported in any of the relevant computer fields. . . 
.'' Thus, the Department's failure to apply maximum freight values for 
the sales identified by petitioners was an unintentional error which is 
appropriately considered to be ministerial.
    Additionally, we agree with respondent that there is adequate 
record evidence regarding the appropriate values to assign as maximum 
freight values, with the exception of sales to one customer. Thus, with 
the exception of sales to one customer, there is no cause for applying 
the highest maximum freight values for any destination to the affected 
sales. See the Department's Clerical Error Memorandum, dated June 11, 
1997 (pp. 1-2) for a complete discussion of this issue.
CCC
    Comment 2: CCC alleges that the Department incorrectly recalculated 
its selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense ratio. CCC 
states that the Department inadvertently included selling expenses for 
CCC in calculating the SG&A expense ratio which were already included 
in CCC's sales response. CCC asserts that the Department should 
recalculate this ratio using the general and administrative expenses 
figure provided by CCC in its February 14, 1996 supplemental response.
    Petitioners state that if the Department agrees with CCC and 
corrects its SG&A expense ratio, the Department should use petitioners' 
submitted computer programming language to correct the SG&A expense.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent and petitioners. 
Respondent is correct in stating that, when calculating CCC's SG&A 
expense ratio, the Department inadvertently used an SG&A figure in the 
numerator derived from CCC's November 22, 1995 response rather than 
from CCC's February 14, 1996 supplemental response (in which CCC 
provided an SG&A expense ratio which excluded selling expenses already 
included in the sale response). In addition, we agree with petitioners' 
proposed computer programming language to correct this error. 
Therefore, for these amended final results, we have recalculated CCC's 
SG&A expense ratio using the ratio provided by CCC in its February 14, 
1996 supplemental response and have corrected our computer programming 
language in the

[[Page 44107]]

margin calculation program. See Clerical Error Memorandum at page 3.
    Comment 3: Petitioners argue that the Department introduced new 
computer programming lines and values in the constructed value section 
of its margin calculation program and that the new lines failed to 
function properly because the new values were overwritten by old 
values. Therefore, petitioners state that the Department should correct 
this error in its programming.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Therefore, for 
these amended final results we have corrected the constructed value 
section of our margin calculation program. See Clerical Error 
Memorandum at pp. 4-5.

Amended Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/Exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dofasco, Inc..............................     8/1/94-7/31/95       0.59
CCC, Ltd..................................     8/1/94-7/31/95       1,31
Stelco, Inc...............................     8/1/94-7/31/95       0.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 353.28 of the Department's regulations, parties 
to the proceeding will have five days after the date of publication of 
this notice to notify the Department of any new ministerial or clerical 
errors, as well as five days thereafter to rebut any comments by 
parties.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between sales to the United States and normal 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 certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products 
from Canada, 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 rates for the reviewed companies will be 
the rates for those firms as stated above (except that if the rate is 
de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash deposit rate of zero 
will be required for that company); (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 will be the ``all others'' rate made effective by the 
final results of the 1993-1994 administrative review of these orders 
(see Certain Corrision-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 13815 (March 28, 1996)).
    These 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 amendment of final results of 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: August 12, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-21961 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M