[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27258-27260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13138]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices  

[[Page 27258]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-822, A-122-823]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Johnson, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-3818.

Scope of This Review

    The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two 
separate ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: (1) Certain corrosion-
resistant steel and (2) certain cut-to-length plate.
    The first class or kind, certain corrosion-resistant steel, 
includes flat-rolled carbon steel products of rectangular shape, either 
clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, 
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or 
not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils 
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 
0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness 
less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 
which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 
4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 
and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 
7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 
7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 
7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 
7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 
7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 
7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 
7217.39.5000. Included are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular 
cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the 
rolling process (i.e., products which have been worked after rolling)--
for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. 
Excluded are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with 
tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne 
plate''), or both chromium and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), 
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also 
excluded are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more 
in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and 
measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded are certain clad 
stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters 
in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 
These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    The second class or kind, certain cut-to-length plate, includes 
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, 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 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 HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 
7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 
7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 
7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 
7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of 
non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
worked after rolling) --for example, products which have been beveled 
or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive.
    The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1995, through July 31, 
1996.

Amendment of Final Results

    On March 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published the final results of administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada (63 
FR 12725) (``Final Results''). These reviews cover five manufacturers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
period August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. We received comments on 
the final results from Algoma, Inc. (``Algoma''), Stelco Inc. 
(``Stelco''), and from the petitioners.

[[Page 27259]]

Interested Party Comments

Algoma
    Comment 1: Algoma alleges that the Department made a ministerial 
error in its adjustment of certain U.S. commission amounts. 
Specifically, Algoma contends that the Department should not have 
applied a ``facts available'' methodology for certain U.S. commissions 
calculated on a semi-annual basis for several reasons. First, Algoma 
argues that this methodology was accepted in prior segments of this 
proceeding. Second, Algoma argues that it received no opportunity from 
the Department to clarify the record or change its existing reporting 
methodology.
    Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Algoma that the Department 
made a ministerial error in its calculation of certain U.S. commission 
amounts. The purpose of this amended final is solely to correct 
ministerial errors, and not to re-consider other decisions. A 
ministerial error is defined in 19 C.F.R. section 353.28(d) as ``an 
error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical 
error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and 
any other type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers 
ministerial.'' (Designated in the Department's new regulations as 19 
C.F.R. 351.224(f).) As the Department noted in Comment 4 of the Final 
Results notice, while ``it was appropriate for Algoma to report 
commissions on a customer-specific basis over a period of 
time....(however), it is also clear that commissions were paid by 
Algoma based on monthly shipments, and not semi-annually. Therefore, 
Algoma should have reported its U.S. commissions on a monthly basis 
instead of a semi-annual basis.'' See Final Results at 12728. Algoma 
does not dispute the mathematical application of the Department's 
decision but instead has expressed its disagreement with the 
Department's decision in this instance. Therefore, we reject Algoma's 
allegation because it does not address an alleged error which is 
ministerial in nature.
Stelco
    Comment 2: In a letter to the Department dated March 27, 1998, 
Stelco alleges that the Department failed to apply the Baycoat, Z-Line, 
and iron ore supplier adjustment to home market VCOMs (variable cost of 
manufacture) in its model-match computer program for corrosion-
resistant steel. Stelco argues that based on the Department's statement 
in the footnote of the final analysis memorandum (See Stelco Final 
Results Analysis Memorandum for Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at 
page 3), the Department clearly intended to apply these supplier 
adjustments to TCOM and VCOM.
    Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department 
erroneously compared adjusted U.S. VCOMS to unadjusted home market 
VCOMS. To ensure accurate product comparisons, we have recalculated 
VCOMH in the model match program for corrosion-resistant steel so that 
adjusted figures are used on both sides of the comparison. See Analysis 
of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-Resistant Products at page 
1.
    Comment 3: Stelco argues that in its final margin calculation 
program for corrosion-resistant products, the Department incorrectly 
calculated GNACV and INTEXCV using the variable TOTCOM rather than the 
revised variable TCOM in its computer programs for corrosion-resistant 
steel.
    Petitioners allege that the Department inadvertently used the 
variable TOTCOM in its model match program for plate rather than the 
correct term TCOM.
    Department's Position: We agree with Stelco and petitioners. We 
have corrected the final margin program for corrosion-resistant steel 
to calculate GNACV and INTEXCV using the revised variable TCOM. See Id. 
at page 2. Additionally, we have corrected the model match program for 
plate to use the variable TCOM. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial 
Errors for Plate at page 2.
    Comment 4: Stelco alleges that, for corrosion-resistant steel, the 
Department applied cost adjustments intended for only those orders 
processed by Baycoat to orders which had not been serviced by Baycoat. 
Stelco argues that the computer programming language used by the 
Department to apply these Baycoat adjustments to unpainted, code 4 
control numbers resulted in non-Baycoat serviced merchandise being 
incorrectly adjusted for Baycoat services.
    Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department 
erroneously applied the Baycoat adjustment to sales of class 4 
merchandise that were not serviced by Baycoat. The Department has 
amended the programming language in its model match and margin 
calculation programs for corrosion-resistant steel to remedy this 
error. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products at page 2.
    Comment 5: Stelco alleges that for corrosion-resistant steel the 
Department inappropriately recalculated the credit expense for all U.S. 
sales using a U.S. short-term borrowing rate though the Canadian dollar 
was the currency of certain U.S. sales. Similarly, Stelco alleges that 
the Department overlooked the fact that certain home market sales were 
incurred in U.S. dollars. Stelco argues that the Department should 
recalculate the credit expense for those home market sales for which 
the currency of the transaction was U.S. dollars using the U.S. short-
term borrowing rate.
    Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department's 
policy bulletin 98.2 states that the short term interest rate should be 
tied to the currency in which the sales are denominated. We have 
inserted language into the final programs for corrosion-resistant steel 
which ties the short-term interest rate to the currency in which the 
sale is denominated. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for 
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at pages 3 and 4.
    Comment 6: Stelco argues that the Department's use of the date of 
the final results as the pay date for those U.S. sales that had not yet 
been paid by the time of Stelco's submission was a ministerial error. 
Stelco maintains that it is generally the Department's policy to 
substitute the date of the last submission or the date on which the 
respondent had an opportunity to provide updated information as the pay 
date.
    Petitioners argue that the Department's use of the date of the 
final results as the surrogate pay date does not constitute a 
ministerial error. Citing to the Department's final analysis 
memorandum, petitioners note that the Department stated that it ``used 
the date of the final determination of March 9, 1998 as the pay date'' 
for those sales for which Stelco had not yet been paid. See Stelco 
Final Results Analysis Memorandum for Corrosion-Resistant Steel 
Products at page 16. Petitioners argue that the Department must reject 
Stelco's allegation of ministerial error as the Department clearly 
intended to use the date of the final results in its credit 
calculation.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. The error Stelco 
alleges does not meet the Department's criteria of a ministerial error 
within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. section 353.28(d) as cited in the 
recommendation to Comment 1

[[Page 27260]]

above. Stelco does not dispute the mathematical application of the 
Department's decision but instead has expressed its disagreement with 
the Department's decision in this instance. The Department explicitly 
intended to use the date of the final results in its credit 
calculation. Therefore, we reject Stelco's allegation of ministerial 
error.
    Comment 7: Petitioners allege that the Department inadvertently 
used an incorrect dataset for the concordance data in the margin 
calculation program for plate. The model match program creates a 
concordance dataset named CONCORD; however, the margin calculation 
program uses the term CONCORDP. Petitioners argue that the Department 
should use the dataset name CONCORD in its margin calculation program.
    Stelco did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Because this 
error is typographical in nature, it falls within the Department's 
definition of ministerial error. We have corrected the margin 
calculation program for plate to use the proper concordance dataset. 
See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 2.
    Comment 8: Petitioners allege that the Department failed to exclude 
general sales tax (``GST'') and provincial sales tax (``PST'') from 
home market credit expenses in its final programs for both corrosion-
resistant steel and plate. They note that the Department stated in its 
Final Results notice that it ``corrected Stelco's home market credit 
expenses to exclude both GST and PST'' (see Final Results at 12742).
    Stelco did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. We have amended 
the final programs for both corrosion-resistant steel and plate to 
exclude GST and PST from the calculation of home market credit 
expenses. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products at pages 3 and 4. See also Analysis of Alleged 
Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 3.

Amended Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin (percent)        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosion--Resistant Steel:                                             
  Dofasco.............................  0.72.                           
  CCC.................................  0.54.                           
  Stelco..............................  1.55.                           
Cut-to-Length Plate:                                                    
  Algoma..............................  0.44 (de minimis).              
  MRM.................................  0.00.                           
  Stelco..............................  0.35 (de minimis).              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 353.28 of the Department's regulations, parties 
to the proceeding will have five days after the date of publication of 
this notice to notify the Department of any new ministerial or clerical 
errors, as well as five days thereafter to rebut any comments by 
parties.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between sales to the United States and normal value may 
vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective, 
upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review, for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates for those firms as 
stated above, except if the rate is less than .5 percent and therefore 
de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or 
the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate made 
effective by the final results of the 1993-1994 administrative review 
of these orders (see Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Canada; Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 13815 (March 28, 
1996)). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This amendment of final results of administrative review and notice 
are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: May 11, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-13138 Filed 5-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P