[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48213-48218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24278]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-423-805]
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium: 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 requests from petitioners and respondent, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium (58 FR 44164). This review covers one
manufacturer and exporter of the subject merchandise. The period of
review (``POR'') is August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.
We preliminarily determine that a de minimis dumping margin of 0.22
percent exists for Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit
[[Page 48214]]
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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen McPhillips, Enforcement Group
III, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-0405.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, 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).
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44164). The
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 1995/96
review period on August 12, 1996 (61 FR 41768). On August 20, 1996,
respondent Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, S.A. (``FAFER'') requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium. On August
30, 1996, petitioners (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Company
(a Unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel industries, Inc. Geneva
Steel, Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, and
Lukens Steel Company) requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of this order. We published a notice of
initiation of this review on September 17, 1996 See 61 FR 48882
(September 17, 1996).
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review constitute one
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain cut-to-length carbon steel
plate. These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill
plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed
box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250
millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in
coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither
clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished,
or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain
hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, or
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and
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 7208.40.3030 7208.40.3060,
7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,
7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030,
7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and
7212.50.0000. Included 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 is grade X-70 plate. 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 the respondent using standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public
versions of the verification reports.
Transactions Reviewed
In accordance with section 751 of the Act, the Department
determined the constructed export price (CEP) and normal value (NV) of
each sale to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States
during the POR.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
plate products produced by the respondent, covered by the descriptions
in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, supra, and sold
in the home market during the POR, to be a foreign like product for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most
similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed
in Appendix V of the Department's September 19, 1996, antidumping
questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched each
foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by
the respondent and verified by the Department. Where sales were made in
the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. sales (e.g.,
theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities to the
same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the
respondent, before making our fair value comparisons.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of cut-to-length carbon steel plate by
the respondent to the United States were made at less than fair value,
we compared CEP to NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export Price''
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with
section 77A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted average prices for NV
and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.
Constructed Export Price (CEP)
We have preliminarily determined the U.S. sales reported as EP
sales were CEP sales. Our determination is based on the evidence in the
record of this review establishing that U.S. sales were made through an
affiliated sales agent in which FAFER has a substantial equity interest
and which performed more than clerical functions for the producer/
exporter, as detailed in a proprietary memorandum to the file dated May
5, 1997.
Whenever sales are made prior to importation through an affiliated
sales agent in the United States, The Department typically determines
whether to characterize the sales as EP based upon the following
criteria: (1) Whether the merchandise was shipped directly to the
unaffiliated buyer, without being introduced into the affiliated
selling agent's inventory; (2) whether this procedure is the customary
sales channel between the parties; and (3) whether the affiliated
selling agent located in the United States acts only as a processor of
documentation and a
[[Page 48215]]
communication link between the foreign producer and the unrelated
buyer. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR
18389, 18391 (April 15, 1997); Large Newspaper Printing Presses and
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled From Germany, 61
FR at 38174, 38175 (July 23, 1996); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 18547, 18551 (April 26, 1996). This test
has been approved by the CIT. Independent Radionic Workers of America
v. United States, Slip Op. 95-45 at 2-3 (CIT Mar. 15, 1995); PQ Corp.
v. United States, 652 F. Supp. at 733-35 (CIT 1987).
Applying the first two criteria to the present review, the
merchandise was shipped directly to the unaffiliated U.S. customer
without being introduced into the agent's inventory. The Department
verified that the terms of sale during the POR were CIF to a port of
entry near the customer's plant, and that the agent did not take
physical possession of the shipment. Moreover, we determined that this
procedure was the customary sales channel between the two parties.
Concerning the third criterion, however, the Department has
determined that the agent did act as more than a processor of sales
documents and a communications link between the unaffiliated U.S.
customer and FAFER, the producer in Belgium. Although FAFER sets
minimum list prices, its sales agent negotiates the sale with the
customer. See Verification Exhibit 10. The sales agent essentially
negotiates all sales in accordance with FAFER's minimum price list and
the sales take place in the United States, not in Belgium.
Because we have determined that the CEP methodology is appropriate,
we sought to deduct from CEP the allocated actual selling expenses
incurred by the agent, pursuant to section 772(d)(1) (C) and (D). In
addition, we adjusted CEP, where appropriate, for all value added in
the Untied States, including the proportional amount of profit
attributable to the value added, pursuant to section 772(d)(2) and
772(d)(3) of the Act. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from South Africa, 60 FR 22550, 22552-53
(1995). In this case, however, respondent did not report indirect
selling expenses incurred in either the U.S. or the home market.
Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the Department
has deducted from CEP, as the ``facts otherwise available,'' the
commission that FAFER paid its agent in connection with the U.S. sales.
We also rejected as unverifiable the interest rate reported by
FAFER to calculate imputed credit expenses in the U.S. market, in
accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In its place, as the
facts available, we used the average prime rate on short-term business
loans in 1996, as reported by the Federal Reserve System.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at
which the foreign like product was first sold to an unaffiliated
customer for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
We have preliminarily determined that sales of subject merchandise
to a Belgian university research center were outside the ordinary
course of trade. The relevant statutory provision defines the term
``ordinary course of trade'' as ``the conditions and practices which,
for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the subject
merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with
respect to merchandise of the same class or kind.'' The statute defines
certain sales below cost of production and sales to affiliated parties
that are not made at arm's length as sales outside the ordinary course
of trade. See section 771(15) of the Act. However, the statute does not
specify any criteria that the Department should use in determining
appropriate ``conditions and practices.''
The purpose of the ordinary course of trade provision is to prevent
dumping margins from being based on sales which are not representative
of the home market. See Monsanto Co. v. United States, 698 F. Supp.
275, 278 (CIT 1988). Commerce examines the totality of the facts in
each case to determine if sales are being made for ``unusual reasons''
or under ``unusual circumstances.'' Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR
28551, 28552 (1993).
In its Section B response of November 18, 1996, FAFER asked the
Department to consider the sales to the university ``separately, as
they cannot be deemed part of traditional mercantile operation.'' In
making its determination to consider these sales as outside the
ordinary course of trade, the Department took into account all facts,
including the small number of these sales, the circumstance that these
sales were made directly by FAFER, rather than by its sales agent in
the home market, the fact that the models were unique during the POR,
the fact that the merchandise was intended to be used for research at a
welding institute and not for commercial purposes, and the fact that
these were unprofitable. During the POR, the overwhelming majority of
FAFER's home market sales was made through its affiliated sales agent
to industrial end-users.
We have preliminarily determined that one home market customer, a
steel service center to which FAFER sells directly, is an affiliated
party. This finding is based on common control by the Boel family group
within the meaning of section 771(33)(F), as detailed in a proprietary
analysis memorandum to the file dated, May 5, 1997.
In regard to affiliated party transactions, the SAA states (quoting
the statute):
The traditional focus on control through stock ownership fails
to address adequately modern business arrangements, which often find
one firm ``operationally in a position to exercise restraint or
direction'' over another even in the absence of an equity
relationship. A company may be in a position to exercise restraint
or direction, for example, through corporate or family groupings,
franchises or joint venture agreements, debt financing, or close
supplier relationships in which the supplier or buyer becomes
reliant upon the other. SAA at 168 (emphasis added).
In FAFER's response to the Department's original questionnaire
FAFER reported all of its customers as unaffiliated. However,
information on corporate structure and possible affiliations revealed
relationships that led us to examine the possibility that the Boel
family exercises control over many business entities, including FAFER
and one of its customers, a steel service center. In an effort to
determine the nature and extent of the Boel family's control over its
numerous affiliations, the Department requested FAFER to supply
specific information on the shareholders of its various business
associations. To date, FAFER has failed to provide the requested
information on the Boel family's shareholdings.
Since this information is critical to our analysis, we have
preliminarily determined that the Boel family controls both FAFER and
the steel service center. It controls FAFER through the Board of
[[Page 48216]]
Directors (three out of five Directors are members of the Boel family)
and, as facts otherwise available, controlling equity interests. In
addition, FAFER holds shares in a private investment holding company
whose Chairman is a member of the Boel family. This investment holding
company owns a significant percentage of the shares of one of FAFER's
customers, the steel service center. Because FAFER did not provide
complete information on its shareholders and the shareholders of
several holding companies, as requested by the Department, we
preliminarily determine that the Boel family controls FAFER's customer
through its board members and, as facts available, controlling equity
interests.
Consequently, we ran our arm's length test and found that sales to
the affiliated customer were not made at arm's length prices, i.e., at
prices comparable to prices at which the respondent sold identical
merchandise to unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we did not use these
sales in our calculations of the margin.
Based on the Department's previous determination to disregard sales
made at below the cost of production (COP) in the original LTFV
investigation, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that
sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the
determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below
the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore,
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by FAFER in the home market.
We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market
with the model-specific cost of production figure for the POR. In
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP
based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the foreign like product plus selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to
placing the foreign like product in condition ready for shipment. Based
on our verification of the cost responses submitted by FAFER, we
adjusted the company's reported COP to reflect certain adjustments to
the cost of manufacturing and general and administrative expenses.
Specifically, we eliminated the double counting of scrap revenue,
adjusted the raw material inputs for certain products to the actual
quantities used, added an amount for major repair provisions to fixed
overhead, recalculated G&A as a percentage of COM, and corrected
several minor data errors.
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of
subject merchandise were made at prices below COP and, if so, whether
the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities. Because each individual price was compared
against the average COP during the extended window period, any sales
that were below cost were also not at prices which permitted cost
recovery within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific
COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable movement
charges.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices
less than the weighted-average COPs for the extended window period, we
disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made within an
extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with
sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and were at prices which
would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where we
disregarded all contemporaneous sales of a specific product, we
calculated NV based on CV.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,
interest expenses, and profit. In accordance with sections
773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and
realized 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 foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the
weighted-average home-market selling expenses. Based on our
verification of the cost response submitted by FAFER, we adjusted the
reported CV to reflect adjustments to COM and G&A, as described in the
COP section.
Differences in Levels of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales
at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When
there are no sales at the same level of trade we compare U.S. sales to
home market (or, if appropriate, third country) sales at a different
level of trade.
For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for level of trade 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 EP results in a price that would have been charged
if the importer had not been affiliated. We calculate the CEP by
removing from the first resale to an independent U.S. customer the
expenses under section 772(d) and the profit associated with these
expenses. These expenses represent activities undertaken by, or on
behalf of, the affiliated importer. Because the expenses deducted under
section 772(d) represent selling activities in the United States, the
deduction of these expenses normally yields a different level of trade
for the CEP than for the later resale which is used for the starting
price. Movement charges, duties and taxes deducted under 772(c) do not
represent activities of the affiliated importer, and we do not remove
them to obtain the level of trade. The NV level of trade is that of the
starting price of sales in the home market. When NV is based on
constructed value, the level of trade is that of the sales from which
we derive SG&A and profit.
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of
trade than U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales are 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, regardless of
whether the final user is an individual consumer or an industrial user.
The chain of distribution between the producer and 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 U.S. export
markets, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent
and level of selling expenses for each claimed level of trade. Customer
categories such as distributor, original equipment manufacturer (OEM),
or wholesaler are commonly used by respondents to describe levels of
trade but, without substantiation, are insufficient to establish that a
claimed level of trade is valid. An analysis of selling functions
substantiates or invalidates claimed levels of trade. If the claimed
levels are different, the selling functions performed in selling to
those levels should also be different.
[[Page 48217]]
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 level of trade. Differences in levels
of trade are characterized by purchasers at different places in the
chain of distribution and sellers performing qualitatively or
quantitatively different functions in selling to them.
When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different
level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference
in level of trade affects price comparability. Any effect on price
comparability is determined by examining sales at different levels of
trade in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home
market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of
trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we
calculate the difference in the average of the net prices of the same
models sold at different levels of trade. We use the average difference
in net prices to adjust the NV when NV is based on a level of trade
different from that of the export sale. If there is a pattern of no
price differences, then the difference in level of trade does not have
a price effect, and no adjustment in necessary.
The statute also provides for an adjustment to NV when NV is based
on a level of trade different from that of the CEP, provided the NV
level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level, and we are
unable to determine whether there is or is not a price effect of
different levels of trade in the home market. See section 773(a)(7)(B).
This latter situation can occur where there is no home market level of
trade equivalent to the U.S. sales level, or where there is an
equivalent home market level, but the data are insufficient to support
a conclusion on price effect. This adjustment, the CEP offset, is the
lower of the two following:
The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale
The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting
price used to calculate CEP.
The CEP offset is not automatic each time export price is
constructed. We only make a CEP offset when the level of trade of the
home market sale is more advanced than the level of trade of the CEP
and there is not an appropriate basis for determining whether the
different levels of trade affect price comparability.
In our supplemental questionnaire dated October 28, 1996, we asked
FAFER to respond to the original questionnaire's inquiry on level of
trade. In its November 5, 1996, response, FAFER stated that its selling
activities in the U.S. and home markets did not warrant an adjustment
related to level of trade. We found no indication at verification that
FAFER sells at different levels of trade. Therefore, we made no
adjustment.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the Preliminary results, we made currency
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in
order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily
rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's
practice, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily
exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g.,
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918--March 6,
1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the
past 40 business days.
Duty Absorption
On October 7, 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) 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 interim 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, section
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 cut-
to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium 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 that
is ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that there is a dumping
margin on one hundred percent of FAFER's sales. In addition, we cannot
conclude from the record that the unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States will pay the ultimate assessed duty. Therefore, under these
circumstances, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been
absorbed by FAFER on one hundred percent of its U.S. sales. If
interested parties wish to submit evidence that the unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States will pay any ultimately assessed duty
charged to affiliated importers, they must do so no later than 15 days
after publication of these preliminary results. This information would
be considered by the Department if we determine in our final results
that there are dumping margins on certain U.S. sales.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Margin
Manufacturer/exporter review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi............. 8/1/95-7/31/96 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48218]]
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 of this notice. The Department will publish a
notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Cash Deposit
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of cut-to-length carbon steel plate form Belgium 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) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
company will be the rate established in the final results of this
administrative review; (2) for exporters not covered in this review,
but covered in the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published from the LTFV
investigation; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, or the original LTFV, 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 6.84 percent, the
``all others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain if effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
Sec. 353.22.
Dated: September 2, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-24278 Filed 9-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M