[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