[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1821-1824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-609]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
[A-570-849]


Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of 
China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Baranowski, Doreen Chen, or 
Stephen Jacques, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th

[[Page 1822]]

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1385, (202) 482-0413 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this investigation are hot-rolled iron and 
non-alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products 
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 
mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, 
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 iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of 
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 mm or more in thickness and of a 
width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. 
Included as subject merchandise in this petition 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 
bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (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, 7212.50.0000. Although the 
HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Determination

    On November 20, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final determination of the less than fair value 
(``LTFV'') investigation on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from the People's Republic of China (``Final Determination''), 62 
FR 61964 (November 20, 1997). This investigation covered the following 
PRC firms unless otherwise indicated:
    (1) China Metallurgical Import & Export Liaoning Company 
(``Liaoning''), an exporter of subject merchandise; Wuyang Iron and 
Steel Company (``Wuyang''), which produced the merchandise sold by 
Liaoning;
    (2) Anshan Iron and Steel Complex (``AISCO''), a producer of 
subject merchandise; Angang International Trade Corporation (``Anshan 
International''), a wholly-owned AISCO subsidiary in China which 
exported subject merchandise made by AISCO, and Sincerely Asia, Limited 
(``SAL''), a partially-owned Hong Kong affiliate of AISCO involved in 
sales of subject merchandise to the United States (collectively, 
``Anshan'');
    (3) Baoshan Iron & Steel Corporation (``Bao''), a producer of 
subject merchandise; Bao Steel International Trade Corporation (``Bao 
Steel ITC''), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bao responsible for selling 
Bao material domestically and abroad; and Bao Steel Metals Trading 
Corporation (``B.M. International''), a partially-owned U.S. subsidiary 
involved in U.S. sales (collectively, ``Baoshan'');
    (4) Wuhan Iron & Steel Company (``Wuhan''), a producer of subject 
merchandise; International Economic and Trading Corporation (``IETC''), 
a wholly-owned subsidiary responsible for exporting Wuhan merchandise; 
Cheerwu Trader Ltd. (``Cheerwu''), a partially-owned Hong Kong 
affiliate of Wuhan involved in sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States (collectively, ``WISCO'');
    (5) Shanghai Pudong Iron and Steel Company (``Shanghai Pudong''), a 
producer and exporter of subject merchandise. During the investigation, 
we also requested information from and conducted verification of 
Shanghai No. 1, a non-exporting producer of subject merchandise which 
Shanghai Pudong had earlier indicated shared a common trustee, Shanghai 
Metallurgical Holding (Group) Co. (``Shanghai Metallurgical'').
    We consider Liaoning, Anshan, Baoshan, WISCO and Shanghai Pudong to 
be sellers of the subject merchandise during the period of 
investigation (POI). The POI is April 1, 1996, through September 30, 
1996.
    On November 7, 1997, we received a submission from Anshan, Baoshan, 
Shanghai Pudong, and WISCO (``respondents'') alleging clerical errors 
with regard to the final determination in the LTFV investigation of 
certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the PRC. On November 19, 
1997, counsel for the petitioning companies, Geneva Steel Company and 
Gulf States Steel Company (``petitioners'') submitted rebuttal 
comments. The allegations and rebuttal comments of both parties were 
filed in a timely fashion.
    Respondents allege that the Department made eleven ministerial 
errors in the final results. First, respondents contend that the 
Department did not value silicon sand in the same manner for all 
companies. In particular, the Department, they allege, valued silicon 
sand based on ``stones, sand, and gravel'' from the UN Trade Commodity 
Statistics for one company and based on pure silicon for another 
company. To avoid asymmetrical treatment of respondents, they argue 
that, in an amended final determination, the Department should value 
silicon sand using the value for ``stones, sand, and gravel'' for both 
companies using this input. Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    We agree with respondents that this error was clerical in nature 
and have made the suggested correction for the amended final 
determination.
    Second, respondents additionally contend that the Department erred 
in assigning consumption factor information field names for two inputs 
for WISCO. Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    We agree with respondents that this error was clerical in nature 
and have made the suggested correction for the amended final 
determination. Because this issue involves business proprietary 
information, please see the Concurrence Memorandum which corresponds to 
this Amended Final Determination for more information.
    Third, respondents allege that the Department incorrectly increased 
a certain factor for each of WISCO's control numbers, citing a clerical 
error in the spreadsheets for the iron-making stage of production. 
Respondents state that there does not appear to be any error in the 
calculation of this factor and the Department should use the original 
factor. Petitioners maintain that the Department was clear that it was 
correcting an error made by respondents, and thus the correction is not 
a ministerial error.
    We have determined that the correction at issue was not an error 
but an appropriate correction made as a result of the Department's 
identification of an error made by respondents in the spreadsheets. 
Because this information involves business proprietary information, 
please see the Concurrence Memorandum corresponding to this Amended 
Final Determination for a further explanation of this issue.
    Fourth, respondents argue that Department erred in assigning 
adverse

[[Page 1823]]

facts available to certain of WISCO's inputs which were not reported 
prior to verification. Instead, because the Department verified the 
actual consumption information, they argue that the Department should 
use the verified information as facts available. In addition, 
respondents state that it is the Department's practice, under Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the PRC, 59 FR 22585, 22591 (May 2, 1994) and Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cooking Ware from the PRC: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 32757, 32760 (June 17, 1997), to use 
verified information in the final determination. Petitioners disagree 
with respondents and state that this decision was clearly 
methodological in nature.
    We agree with petitioners that this decision was methodological in 
nature; see WISCO's Calculation Memorandum dated October 24, 1997 at 3 
and the Concurrence Memorandum dated October 24, 1997 (``Final 
Determination Concurrence Memorandum'') at 25-26. As much of this 
information is business proprietary, please see the Final Determination 
Concurrence Memorandum that corresponds to this Amended Final 
Determination for a more detailed explanation of this issue.
    Fifth, respondents allege that the Department erroneously used 
incorrect factor information for three of Anshan's factors. Petitioners 
argue that the Department's treatment of these factors is the result of 
a substantive methodological choice.
    We have determined that we did use the correct factor information 
for these factors in our margin calculation for Anshan. For a further 
explanation of this issue, please see the Concurrence Memorandum which 
corresponds to this Amended Final Determination.
    Sixth, respondents contend that the Department erroneously used 
incorrect factor information for one of Baoshan's factors. Petitioners 
argue that the Department should reject this allegation since Baoshan 
failed to state what the correct value should be for this input.
    The Department has determined that it used the correct consumption 
factor in its calculations. See Baoshan's Calculation Memorandum at 5 
and in Baoshan's Margin Calculation program at line 654 and 662. See 
the Concurrence Memorandum which corresponds to this Amended Final 
Determination for more information.
    Seventh, respondents argue that the Department incorrectly rejected 
gas factors for both Baoshan and WISCO. For Baoshan, respondents assert 
that the three justifications that the Department gives for not using 
the reported factors are factually incorrect; they claim that Baoshan 
submitted complete information within the deadline set for the 
supplemental questionnaire response, and that this information was 
verified by the Department. For WISCO, respondents contend that gas 
information was submitted within the deadline set by the Department's 
regulations, and thus rejection of this information constitutes a 
``manifest legal error.'' Petitioners contend that the record shows 
that the Department carefully considered Baoshan's and WISCO's claims 
that they had submitted complete, accurate, and timely information on 
factors of production for gases. Thus, the decision to reject 
information for both Baoshan and WISCO was clearly methodological in 
nature and involves the Department's rejection of information based on 
the fact that respondents failed to provide complete and timely 
information in a useable form.
    We agree with petitioners that the Department's decision with 
respect to the gas factors of both companies was clearly 
methodological. See Final Determination at 61976-61977 and Final 
Determination Concurrence Memorandum at 20-21 and 28-29. As much of 
this information is business proprietary, please refer to the 
Concurrence Memorandum that corresponds to this Amended Final 
Determination for a more detailed explanation of this issue.
    Eighth, respondents contend that the Department erred in applying 
adverse facts available to surrogate values for certain inputs and 
freight charges for WISCO and that the Department was, in fact, able to 
verify the terms of sale for these market economy purchases. 
Petitioners argue that the Department is clear that it was not able to 
verify all the terms of sale, and thus these items could not be 
considered ``verified.'' Because the Department is required to base its 
final determination on verified information, petitioners claim that the 
Department was correct in applying facts available to this input.
    We have determined that this decision was clearly methodological in 
nature. See Final Determination at 61997 and Final Determination 
Concurrence Memorandum at 27. As much of this information is business 
proprietary, please see the Concurrence Memorandum corresponding to 
this Amended Final Determination for a complete explanation of this 
issue.
    Ninth, respondents argue that the Department erred, in two 
respects, in its implementation of the decision of Sigma v. United 
States, 117 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (``Sigma''). First, respondents 
allege the Department misapplied the Sigma decision for all of WISCO's 
inputs valued using CIF surrogate data by adding freight charges to 
WISCO's inputs valued using CIF surrogate data when instead, the 
Department should not have added any freight cost to these inputs since 
WISCO is located on a port. Second, respondents allege that the 
Department misapplied the Sigma decision when determining the ``highest 
calculated freight rate'' as best information available for Anshan, 
Baoshan and WISCO. Respondents argue that the Department erred by using 
as the ``highest calculated freight rate'' the highest freight charge 
for any input based on a weighted average freight calculation of all 
suppliers of that input. Respondents maintain that based on the Sigma 
decision, the highest calculated freight rate for inputs valued using 
freight-inclusive surrogate values should be, instead, the highest of 
freight charges calculated for any input based on either (1) the 
shortest distance from the respondents to the closest port; or (2) the 
shortest distance from the respondent to the closest supplier. 
Petitioners argue that the Department's methodology conforms to the 
Sigma decision. Petitioners argue that the Department's choice of 
freight methodology is not a ministerial error, and the court in Sigma 
did not dictate what the Department's freight methodology should be.
    We agree that this decision was clearly methodological in nature. 
See Final Determination at 61977. See the Concurrence Memorandum which 
corresponds to this Amended Final Determination for a more detailed 
explanation.
    Tenth, respondents suggest that the Department committed a clerical 
error by averaging the river freight rates from two sources in the 
final determination. Petitioners state that the decision to average the 
two rates is a deliberate methodological choice, based on the 
Department's reservations about using either set of rates exclusively.
    We agree that the decision was clearly methodological in nature. 
See Final Determination at 61983-61984 and Final Determination 
Concurrence Memorandum at 13-14.
    Eleventh, respondents allege that the Department erred in its 
calculation of overhead, SG&A and profit rates because the Department 
based its calculations on only two Indian companies' annual reports 
used instead of using six submitted annual reports for Indian companies 
and the industry financial information from the Reserve

[[Page 1824]]

Bank of India Bulletin, all of which were also on the record. 
Respondents argue that one of the two Indian companies whose reports 
were used by the Department did not produce subject merchandise as of 
1993. Therefore respondents argue that the Department was not justified 
in rejecting the financial statements of the other four companies for 
not being ``actual producers of subject merchandise in the surrogate 
country.'' Petitioners argue that the Department's decision to use 
financial data from only two Indian companies, SAIL and TATA, was 
correct and consistent with Department's practice in other 
investigations. Petitioners point out that the Department stated that 
its decision to include TATA's annual reports in their calculations was 
based on the statement that TATA is a significant producer of steel and 
hot rolled coils and TATA may also produce products that the Department 
considers to be plate, but which may be incorporated into TATA's annual 
report in the category ``sheets.'' See Final Determination at 61970.
    We agree with petitioners this decision was clearly methodological 
in nature. See Final Determination at 61969-70. Although one sentence 
in TATA's annual report indicates that TATA has not produced any 
``plate'' since 1993, another section of the same annual report lists 
plate as a product produced by TATA. In addition, Iron and Steel Works 
of the World, 12th Edition lists both companies as producers of plate.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review of the errors alleged and the correction 
of the two ministerial errors described above, we have determined that 
the following margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
           Weighted-average manufacturer/exporter             (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anshan (AISCO/Anshan International/Sincerely Asia Ltd).....        30.68
Baoshan (Bao/Baoshan International Trade Corp/Bao Steel                 
 Metals Trading Corp)......................................        30.51
Liaoning...................................................        17.33
Shanghai Pudong............................................        38.16
WISCO (Wuhan/International Economic and Trading Corp/                   
 Cheerwu Trader Ltd).......................................       128.59
China-wide Rate............................................       128.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

China-wide Rate

    The China-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject 
merchandise except for entries from exporters that are identified 
individually above.
    On October 24, 1997, the Department entered into an Agreement with 
the Government of the PRC suspending this investigation. Pursuant to 
Section 734(g) of the Act, petitioners, Liaoning and Wuyang requested 
that this investigation be continued. Because the International Trade 
Commission's determination was affirmative, the Agreement shall remain 
in force but the Department shall not issue an Antidumping duty order 
so long as (1) the Agreement remains in force, (2) the Agreement 
continues to meet the requirements of subsection (d) and (l) of the 
Act, and the parties to the Agreement carry out their obligations under 
the Agreement in accordance with its terms. See Section 734(f)(3)(B) of 
the Act.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act.

    Dated: December 22, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-609 Filed 1-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P