[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47418-47422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-421-804]


Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands: 
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 a request from the petitioners and respondent, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.
    We have preliminarily determined that respondent has made sales 
below normal value during the period of review. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument (no longer than five pages, including 
footnotes).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen M. Kramer or Linda Ludwig, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0405 or 482-3833, 
respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Trade and 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 of 1994 
(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
Department's regulations are to part 353 of 19 CFR, (1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department of Commerce published an antidumping duty order on 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands on August 
19, 1993 (58 FR 44172). The Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the antidumping 
duty order for the 1995/1996 review period on August 12, 1996 (61 FR 
41768). On August 23, 1996, the respondent, Hoogovens Staal BV, filed a 
request for review. On August 30, 1996, the petitioners filed a similar 
request. We published a notice of initiation of the review on September 
17, 1996 (61 FR 48882).
    Due to the complexity of issues involved in this case, the 
Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary 
results until September 2, 1997, in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A)). The deadline for 
the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. The Department is conducting this 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act, as amended.

[[Page 47419]]

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review include cold-rolled (cold-
reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled products, of rectangular shape, 
neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, 
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 
7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030, 
7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550, 
7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 
7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 
7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085, 
7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015, 
7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 
7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
and 7217.90.5090. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of 
nonrectangular 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 is certain 
shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil that 
is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 0.002 percent, 
is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in width, and 
has an ultra flat, isotropic surface. These HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by Hoogovens at its headquarters in IJmuiden, the 
Netherlands, using standard verification procedures, including 
inspection of the manufacturing facilities, examination of relevant 
sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation 
containing relevant information. We also verified information provided 
by Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc. at its office in Scarsdale, New York.

United States Price (USP)

    In calculating USP, the Department treated respondent's sales as 
export price (EP) sales, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, when 
Hoogovens first sold the merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers 
prior to the date of importation. The Department treated respondent's 
sales as constructed export price (CEP) sales, as defined in section 
772(b) of the Act, when the merchandise was first sold to unrelated 
U.S. purchasers after importation by an affiliated seller in the United 
States. All of the CEP sales of prime merchandise were further 
manufactured in the United States. A small number of CEP sales of 
secondary merchandise were sold ``as is.''
    We calculated EP based on the delivered, duty-paid price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments, 
where applicable, for foreign inland freight, post-sale warehousing, 
ocean freight and marine insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. customs duties, early payment discounts and post-sale 
price adjustments in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    We based CEP on the delivered price to unaffiliated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, ocean 
freight and marine insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 
freight, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including credit expenses, indirect selling expenses, inventory 
carrying costs and where applicable, commissions and post-sale price 
adjustments. We split the reported indirect selling expenses into two 
groups: one consisting of the expenses of the New York office plus 
warranty and technical service expenses for U.S. sales, and the other 
consisting of indirect selling expenses incurred in the Netherlands and 
allocated to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We deducted the first 
group from the CEP, but we did not deduct the second group or inventory 
carrying costs incurred in the home market for U.S. sales, because 
these expenses did not relate to economic activities in the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also 
deducted the cost of further manufacturing, including repacking 
expenses. We added general, administrative and interest expenses to the 
reported further manufacturing costs for certain sales involving 
additional processing by an unaffiliated contractor. Finally, we made 
an adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to these expenses in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, using information from 
respondent's audited financial statement.
    Hoogovens also claimed an offsetting adjustment to U.S. indirect 
selling expenses for CEP sales to account for the cost of financing 
cash deposits during the POR. In recent determinations in the bearings 
cases, we accepted such an adjustment, mainly to account for the 
opportunity cost associated with making a deposit (i.e., the cost of 
having money unavailable for a period of time). See e.g., Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 11826-30 
(March 13, 1997); Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts thereof From France, et al.; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 2081, 2104 (January 15, 
1997). However, we have preliminarily determined to change our practice 
of accepting such an adjustment.
    We are not convinced that there are such opportunity costs 
associated with paying deposits. Moreover, while it may be true that 
importers sometimes incur an expense if they borrow money in order to 
pay antidumping duty cash deposits, it is a fundamental principle that 
money is fungible within a corporate entity. Thus, if an importer 
acquires a loan to cover one operating cost, that may simply mean that 
it will not be necessary to borrow money to cover a different operating 
cost. We find that the calculation of the dumping margin should not 
vary depending on whether a party has funds available to pay cash 
deposits or requires additional funds in the form of loans.
    Therefore, we find that an adjustment to indirect selling expenses 
where parties have claimed financing costs for cash deposits is 
inappropriate and we have denied such adjustments for the preliminary 
results of this review. (See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts

[[Page 47420]]

Thereof from France, et. al.; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 31568 (June 10, 1997).) We invite 
interested parties to comment on this issue.

Normal Value (NV)

    In order to determine whether sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market are a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume 
of subject merchandise sold in the United States, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Hoogovens' aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of its respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales.
    Hoogovens made sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated customers 
in the home market during the period of review. We included sales to 
affiliated customers when we determined those sales to be at arms 
length (i.e., at weighted average prices that were 99.5 percent or more 
of weighted average prices for identical products sold to unaffiliated 
customers in the home market). When the weighted average price to an 
affiliated customer was less than 99.5 percent of the weighted average 
price to unaffiliated customers, or there were no sales of identical 
merchandise to unaffiliated customers, we excluded sales to that 
affiliated customer from our calculation of NV. See e.g., Rules and 
Regulations, Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties 62 FR 27296, 
27355 (May 19, 1997): ``The Department's current policy is to consider 
transactions between affiliated parties as `arm's length' if the prices 
to affiliated purchasers are on average at least 99.5 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated purchasers.''
    Home market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or 
delivered prices to customers. We made deductions to NV for inland 
freight and insurance, early payment discounts, rebates, credit 
expenses, and packing. We made deductions or additions, as appropriate, 
for post-sale price adjustments.

Level of Trade (LOT)

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act, and the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA (at 
pages 829-831), to the extent practicable, the Department will 
calculate NV based on sales at the same LOT as the U.S. sale (either EP 
or CEP). When there are no sales in the comparison market at the same 
LOT as the U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. 
and foreign markets at a different LOT, and adjust NV if appropriate. 
The NV LOT is that of the starting price of sales in the home market. 
(See e.g., Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
62 FR 31070 (June 6, 1997)).
    As the Department explained in Gray Portland Cement and Clinker 
from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
(Cement from Mexico) 62 FR 17148, 17156 (April 9, 1997), for both EP 
and CEP, the relevant transaction for the LOT analysis is the sale from 
the exporter to the importer. While the starting price for CEP is that 
of a subsequent resale to an unaffiliated buyer, the construction of 
the CEP results in a price that would have been charged if the importer 
had not been affiliated. Because the expenses deducted under section 
772(d) represent selling activities in the United States, the deduction 
of these expenses may yield a different LOT for the CEP than for the 
later resale (which we use for the starting price).
    To determine whether home market sales were at a different LOT than 
U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales were at different 
stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. The marketing 
process in both markets begins with goods being sold by the producer 
and extends to the sale to the final user. The chain of distribution 
between the producer and the final user may have many or few links, and 
each respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. In the United 
States, the respondent's sales are generally to an importer, whether 
independent or affiliated. We review and compare the distribution 
systems in the home market and the United States, including selling 
functions, class of customer, and the extent and level of selling 
expenses for each claimed LOT. Customer categories such as distributor, 
retailers or end-users are commonly used by respondents to describe 
levels of trade, but without substantiation, they are insufficient to 
establish that a claimed LOT is valid. An analysis of the chain of 
distribution and of the selling functions substantiates or invalidates 
the claimed levels of trade. If the claimed levels are different, the 
selling functions performed in selling to each level should also be 
different. Conversely, if levels of trade are nominally the same, the 
selling functions performed should also be the same. Different levels 
of trade necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but 
differences in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone 
sufficient to establish a difference in the levels of trade. 
Differences in levels of trade are characterized by purchasers at 
different stages of marketing or their equivalent, which may be 
different stages in the chain of distribution and sellers performing 
qualitatively different functions in selling to them.
    When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different LOT, 
we make a LOT adjustment if the difference in LOT affects price 
comparability. We determine any effect on price comparability by 
examining sales at different levels of trade in the home market (or the 
third-country market) used to calculate NV. Any price effect must be 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home 
market (or third-country) sales used for comparison and sales at the 
equivalent LOT of the export transaction. (See, e.g. Granular 
Polytetrafluorethylene Resin from Italy; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 26283, 26285 (May 13, 
1997); Cement from Mexico, at 17148.) To quantify the price 
differences, we calculate the difference in the weighted average of the 
net prices of the same models sold at different levels of trade in the 
home market. Net prices are used because any difference will be due to 
differences in LOT rather than other factors. We use the average 
percentage difference between these weighted averages to adjust NV when 
the LOT of NV is different from that of the export sale. If there is a 
pattern of no price differences, then the difference in LOT does not 
have a price effect and no adjustment is necessary.
    In the case of CEP sales, section 773 of the statute also provides 
for an adjustment to NV if it is compared to U.S. sales at a different 
LOT, provided the NV is more remote from the factory than the CEP sales 
and we are unable to determine whether the difference in levels of 
trade between CEP and NV affects the comparability of their prices. 
This latter situation might occur when there is no home market (or 
third-country) LOT equivalent to the U.S. sales level, or where there 
is an equivalent home market (or third-country) level, but the data are 
insufficient to support a conclusion on price effect. (See e.g., 
Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18448, 18466 (April 15,

[[Page 47421]]

1997)). This adjustment, the CEP offset, is identified in section 
773(a)(7)(B) and is the lower of the (1) indirect selling expenses of 
the home market (or third-country) sale; or (2) indirect selling 
expenses deducted from the starting price used to calculate CEP. The 
CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP. (See Mechanical 
Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 17148, 17156 (October 9, 1996)). The CEP 
offset is made only when the LOT of the home market (or third country) 
sale is more advanced than the LOT of the U.S. CEP sale and there is 
not an appropriate basis for determining whether there is an effect on 
price comparability. (See e.g., Cement from Mexico, at 17156.)
    In implementing this principle in this review, we requested 
information concerning the selling functions associated with each phase 
of marketing, or the equivalent, in each of Hoogovens' markets. In its 
response, Hoogovens stated that it cannot differentiate among the 
selling functions performed and services offered to different classes 
of home market and export price customers. Further, at verification, 
the senior sales executive stated that the same services are provided 
to all customers, including the U.S. affiliated companies.
    In this review, the affiliated importer of record did not take 
title to or possession of the merchandise, which was shipped directly 
by the manufacturer to affiliated steel service centers in the United 
States. We calculated the CEP by removing from the first resale to an 
independent U.S. customer the expenses under section 772(d) of the Act 
and the profit associated with these expenses. These expenses represent 
activities undertaken by the affiliated service centers, which further 
process the merchandise. Hoogovens claimed it had no home market sales 
at a LOT equivalent to the CEP LOT. The company argued that the CEP 
price is adjusted to the equivalent of an ex-factory LOT, but the 
starting price of its home market sales includes selling expenses not 
reflected in the adjusted CEP price, such as indirect selling 
activities, indirect warranty and technical service expenses, and 
inventory carrying costs. Hoogovens therefore claimed that the home 
market LOT is a more advanced LOT than the adjusted CEP LOT, and 
requested that the Department make an adjustment to normal value for 
indirect selling expenses up to the amount of indirect selling expenses 
deducted from CEP.
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by Hoogovens, we 
considered the selling functions performed in the home market for 
domestic sales and the selling functions performed in the home market 
for sales to the affiliated resellers in the United States (functions 
associated with allocated indirect expenses that we did not deduct from 
CEP). For this review, we determined that the following selling 
functions and activities occur in relation to Hoogovens' sales of 
subject merchandise in the domestic and U.S. markets: (1) Carrying 
inventory, and (2) maintaining a sales office and Quality Assurance 
Department in IJmuiden. We did not consider packing arrangements to be 
a selling function, since packing is accounted for in the Department's 
calculations as a separate adjustment.
    We examined the selling functions performed by Hoogovens with 
respect to both markets to determine whether U.S. sales can be matched 
to home market sales at the same LOT. Hoogovens' sales office in 
IJmuiden made EP sales directly to two categories of customers: end 
users and service centers. These are the same categories as in the home 
market, and in both markets there was only one channel of distribution, 
i.e., direct sales. In addition, Hoogovens reported the same types of 
selling activities in both markets. Therefore, the EP sales are at the 
same LOT as the comparison market sales.
    For the sales made by Hoogovens' affiliated companies, Rafferty-
Brown Steel Company, Inc. of Connecticut (RBC) and Rafferty-Brown Steel 
Company of North Carolina (RBN), the LOT of the U.S. sales is 
determined for the CEP rather than for the starting price to 
unaffiliated purchasers. In the current review, the CEP sales reflect 
certain selling functions, such as carrying inventory from the time 
between production at IJmuiden and Customs clearance at the U.S. port 
of entry, at which time the merchandise entered the inventory of either 
RBC or RBN, and maintaining a sales office in IJmuiden. Although 
delivery times are shorter for domestic sales, Hoogovens also carries 
inventory for these sales and operates the sales office. Therefore, we 
have determined that there are no differences in LOT and neither a LOT 
adjustment nor a CEP offset is warranted in this review.

Sales Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products in the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared USP to the NV, as described in the ``United States Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777(A) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV 
and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. When there were no 
contemporaneous home market sales of the foreign like product, we used 
constructed value (CV) as the basis for normal value, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. All the sales to which CV was 
applied were CEP sales of secondary merchandise. We calculated CV in 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act and the methodology 
enunciated in the Memorandum of April 19, 1995, entitled ``Treatment of 
Non-Prime Merchandise for the First Administrative Review of Certain 
Carbon Steel Flat Products.'' We included the cost of manufacture, and 
selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A). In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses on the amounts 
incurred by the respondent in connection with the production and sale 
of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for 
consumption in the home market. For selling expenses, we used the 
weighted average home market selling expenses. For profits we used the 
audited 1995 Profit and Loss Statement for Hoogovens Staalbedrijf 
(Steel Division) to determine the ratio of profit to expenses for 
merchandise in the same general category of products as the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. We 
adjusted CV for credit expenses.

Reimbursement

    Section 353.26 of the antidumping regulations requires the 
Department to deduct from USP the amount of any antidumping duty that 
is reimbursed to the importer. Based on verified evidence on the record 
in this review, including the revised agency agreement between 
Hoogovens and Hoogovens Steel USA, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that Hoogovens Steel USA, the importer of record, is solely 
responsible for the payment of antidumping duties. Therefore, for this 
period of review, we have determined that Hoogovens has not reimbursed 
Hoogovens Steel USA for antidumping duties to be assessed. See the 
public version of the proprietary memorandum on Reimbursement dated 
August 29, 1997, in Import Administration's Central Records Unit.

Duty Absorption

    On October 15, 1996, the petitioners requested, pursuant to section 
751(a)(4) of the Act, that the Department determine whether antidumping 
duties had been absorbed by respondent during the POR. Section 
751(a)(4)

[[Page 47422]]

provides for the Department, if requested, to determine, during an 
administrative review initiated two years 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 current 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, Sec. 351.213(j)(2) 
of the Department's new antidumping regulations provides that the 
Department will make a duty absorption determination, if requested, in 
any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. See 19 CFR 
Sec. 351.213(j)(2), 62 FR 27394 (May 19, 1997). While the new 
regulations are not binding on the Department in the instant reviews, 
which were initiated under the interim regulations, they nevertheless 
serve as a statement of departmental policy. Because the order on 
certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands has 
been in effect since 1993, it is a transition order in accordance with 
section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. Since this review was initiated in 
1996 and a request for a duty-absorption inquiry was made, the 
Department will undertake a duty absorption inquiry as part of this 
administrative review.
    The Act provides for a determination on duty absorption if the 
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. In this case, the reviewed firm sold through an importer of 
record, Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc., that is ``affiliated'' within the 
meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Furthermore, we have 
preliminarily determined that there are dumping margins for respondent 
with respect to 18.50 percent of its U.S. sales, by quantity.
    We presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales which 
were dumped. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence that the 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the ultimately 
assessed duty. However, there is no such evidence on the record. Under 
these circumstances, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have 
been absorbed by Hoogovens Steel BV on the percentages of U.S. sales 
indicated. If interested parties wish to submit evidence that the 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the ultimately 
assessed duty, they must do so no later than 15 days after publication 
of these preliminary results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the 
period August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                           Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoogovens Steel BV..........................................        1.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a 
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication. The Department will publish the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, 
within 120 days after the publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. The final results 
of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping 
duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future 
deposits of estimated duties.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the 
Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results of this administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed firm will be the rate established in the 
final results of administrative review, except if the rate is less than 
0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
353.6, in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) 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 
that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final 
results of this review; and (3) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or the 
original fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 19.32 
percent.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: September 2, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-23849 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P