[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37320-37328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18343]


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

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: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent To Revoke 
in-Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion-resistant 
carbon steel flat products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate 
from Canada. These reviews cover six manufacturers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise to the United States (three manufacturers/exporters 
of corrosion resistant steel and four manufacturers/exporters of cut-
to-length steel plate), and the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 
1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (``NV'') by various companies subject to these reviews. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these 
administrative reviews, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Baranowski (Dofasco Inc. and 
Sorevco Inc. (collectively, ``Dofasco'')), Eric Scheier (Continuous 
Colour Coat (``CCC'')), Lesley Stagliano (Algoma Steel, Inc. 
(``Algoma'')), Gideon Katz (Gerdau MRM Steel (``MRM'') and A.J. Forsyth 
and Co., Ltd. (``Forsyth'')), N. Gerard Zapiain (Stelco, Inc. 
(``Stelco'')), or Maureen Flannery, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are to the provisions effective January 1, 
1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 351 (62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997).

Background

    On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 44162) the antidumping duty orders on certain 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products and certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada. On August 12, 1997, Forsyth 
requested a review of its exports of cut-to-length steel plate. On 
August 13, 1997, CCC requested a review of its exports of corrosion-
resistant steel. On August 28, 1997, Algoma requested a review of its 
exports of cut-to-length steel plate and that the Department revoke the 
order on cut-to-length steel plate with regard to Algoma. On August 29, 
1997, the following companies also requested reviews for their exports 
of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products: Dofasco (corrosion-
resistant steel), Stelco (corrosion-resistant steel and cut-to-length 
steel plate), and MRM (cut-to-length steel plate). On August 29, 1997, 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group (a Unit of USX 
Corporation), Inland Steel Industries Inc., AK Steel Corporation, LTV 
Steel Co., Inc., and National Steel Corporation, petitioners, requested 
reviews of CCC, Dofasco, and Stelco on corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat products. On September 8, 1997, Stelco submitted an addendum to 
its August 29, 1997 submission, requesting that the Department revoke 
the orders on corrosion-resistant steel and carbon steel plate with 
regard to Stelco, pursuant to Section 351.222(b) of the Department's 
regulations. On September 25, 1997, in accordance with Section 751 of 
the Act, we published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews 
of these orders for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997 (62 
FR 50292).
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit of 365 days. On March 19, 1998, the Department 
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary 
results in the review to July 3, 1998. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products and Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate: Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 13990.
    The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with 
section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Reviews

    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-,

[[Page 37321]]

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 7210.30.0030, 
7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 
7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 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, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
and 7217.90.5090. 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. 
The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. 
The written description remains dispositive of the scope of this 
review.
    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 7208.40.3030, 
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 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. The HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive of the scope of this review.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Algoma (cost and sales), Dofasco (sales), and Stelco 
(sales, cost and further manufacturing) using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. 
Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the 
Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the home market during 
the period of review (POR), to be foreign like products 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 most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the 
Department's September 19, 1997 antidumping questionnaire.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP to 
the NV, as described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) 
of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and 
compared these to individual U.S. transaction prices.

Interested Party Comments

    On June 22, 1998, the petitioner submitted comments regarding 
Stelco and CCC. On June 23, 1998, Forsyth submitted comments. Because 
of the lateness of these submissions, we are not able to consider them 
for these preliminary results, but will consider them for the final 
results.

Intent To Revoke

    On August 28, 1997, Algoma submitted a request, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.222(b), that the Department revoke the order covering cut-
to-length carbon steel plate from Canada with respect to its sales of 
this merchandise. On August 29, 1997, Stelco submitted a request that 
the Department revoke the orders covering cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate and corrosion-resistant steel from Canada with respect to its 
sales of this merchandise.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(iii), these requests were 
accompanied by certifications from Algoma and Stelco that they had not 
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV for a three-year period, 
including this review period, and would not do so in the future. Algoma 
and Stelco also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the relevant 
antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the order, if the 
Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that, subsequent to 
revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    The Department conducted verifications of Algoma's and of Stelco's 
responses for this period of review. In the two prior reviews of this 
order, we determined that Algoma and Stelco sold cut-to-length carbon 
steel plate from Canada at not less than NV or at de

[[Page 37322]]

minimis margins. We preliminarily determine that both Algoma and Stelco 
sold cut-to-length carbon steel plate at not less than NV during this 
review period. Based on Algoma's and on Stelco's three consecutive 
years of zero or de minimis margins and the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we preliminarily determine that it is not likely that either 
Algoma or Stelco will in the future sell cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate at less than NV. Therefore, if these preliminary findings are 
affirmed in our final results, we intend to revoke the order on cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada with respect to Algoma and to 
Stelco.
    In the last two administrative reviews, we determined that Stelco 
sold corrosion-resistant steel at less than fair value. See Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 12725 (March 16, 1998) and Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18448 (April 15, 1997). Although the 
final results of the second and third reviews are subject to 
litigation, that litigation is not yet complete. Additionally, as 
discussed below, we have preliminarily determined that Stelco sold 
corrosion-resistant steel at less-than-fair-value (LTFV) during the 
period covered by this review. Consequently, we preliminarily determine 
that because Stelco does not have three consecutive years of zero or de 
minimis margins on corrosion-resistant steel, Stelco is not eligible 
for revocation of the order on corrosion-resistant steel under 19 CFR 
351.222(b).

United States Price

    For calculation of the price to the United States, we used EP when 
the subject merchandise was sold directly or indirectly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted, based on 
facts on the record. We used CEP for certain sales by Stelco. See the 
subsection of ``United States Price'' titled ``Stelco.''

Algoma

    The Department calculated EP for Algoma based on packed, prepaid or 
delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made adjustments 
to the starting price, net of billing adjustments, for movement 
expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. 
Customs duties), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
    We used Algoma's date of invoice as the date of sale for both U.S. 
sales and home market sales, where applicable, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(i), and the Department's standard practice. See, e.g., 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 4723, 4725 (January 31, 
1997). For further discussion of this issue, see Memorandum to the 
File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for 
Algoma, July 2, 1998.

CCC

    The Department calculated EP for CCC based on packed, prepaid or 
delivered prices to customers in the United States.
    We made deductions to the starting price, net of discounts and 
price adjustments, for movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, 
brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties), in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2). Although the record does not contain pre-sale 
agreements for certain payments which CCC reported as ``credit notes,'' 
based on CCC's information we have determined to treat these payments 
as price adjustments which should be excluded from the starting price. 
See Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of Review for CCC, July 2, 1998.

Dofasco

    For purposes of these reviews, we treated Dofasco, Inc. and 
Sorevco, Inc. as one respondent, as we have done in prior segments of 
the proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Canada: Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value, 58 FR 37099 (1993), and Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Canada, 63 FR 12725 (March 16, 1998). The Department 
calculated EP for Dofasco based on packed prices to customers in the 
United States.
    We made deductions to the starting price, net of discounts and 
rebates, for movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, U.S. Customs 
duty and brokerage, and post-sale warehousing) in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2).
    As discussed in prior reviews, certain Dofasco sales have undergone 
minor further processing in the United States as a condition of sale to 
the customer. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18461, 
(April 15, 1997). In order to determine the value of subject 
merchandise at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the 
United States, the Department has deducted the price charged to Dofasco 
for this minor further processing from gross unit price to determine 
U.S. price.
    It is the Department's current practice normally to use the invoice 
date as the date of sale; we may, however, use a date other than the 
invoice date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects 
the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material 
terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i) (62 FR at 27411).
    The questionnaire we sent to the respondents on September 19, 1998 
instructed them to report the date of invoice as the date of sale; it 
also stated, however, for EP sales, that ``(t)he date of sale cannot 
occur after the date of shipment.'' In this review, Dofasco's date of 
shipment in many instances preceded the date of invoice, and therefore 
we cannot use the date of invoice as the new regulations prescribe. 
Accordingly, as allowed by the exception set forth in section 
351.401(i) of the regulations, we used the dates of sale described 
below. These sale dates reflect the dates on which the exporter or 
producer established the material terms of sale.
    We used the date of order acknowledgment as date of sale, as 
reported by Dofasco, Inc., for all Dofasco, Inc. sales in both the U.S. 
market and the home market, except for sales made pursuant to long-term 
contracts. For Dofasco, Inc.'s sales made pursuant to long-term 
contracts, we used date of the contract as date of sale.
    We used the date of order confirmation as the date of sale, as 
reported by Sorevco, Inc., for all Sorevco, Inc. sales in the U.S. and 
the home market, except that when Sorevco shipped more merchandise than 
the customer originally ordered, and such overages were in excess of 
accepted industry tolerances. Lacking any evidence of the precise date 
after the date of order confirmation on which the quantity was changed, 
we used date of shipment as date of sale for the excess merchandise.

MRM

    The Department calculated EP for MRM based on packed, prepaid or 
delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions 
to the starting price for movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement,

[[Page 37323]]

brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties) pursuant to section 
772(c)(2) of the Act.
    We used MRM's date of invoice as the date of sale for its U.S. 
sales in accordance with the Department's standard practice.

Stelco

    Corrosion-resistant steel: We calculated EP or CEP, as appropriate, 
based on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 
exportation to, the United States. We made deductions to the starting 
price for movement expenses, including foreign and U.S. freight, 
brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2) of the Act. In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and 
(2) of the Act, for CEP sales, we also deducted credit expenses, 
technical service expenses, indirect selling expenses, inventory 
carrying costs, U.S. inland freight incurred by Stelco USA (``SUSA''), 
and further manufacturing costs incurred by SUSA. Finally, we made an 
adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to these expenses, when 
incurred in connection with economic activity in the United States, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    We used Stelco's date of invoice as the date of sale for both EP 
and CEP corrosion-resistant sales in accordance with the Department's 
standard practice.
    Plate: We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. There were no 
CEP sales of plate. We made deductions for movement expenses, including 
foreign and U.S. movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs 
duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. We used Stelco's 
date of invoice as the date of sale for EP plate sales in accordance 
with the Department's standard practice.

Normal Value

    The Department determines the viability of the home market as the 
comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of home market 
and U.S. sales. We found that each company's quantity of sales in its 
home market exceeded five percent of its sales to the United States for 
the relevant class or kind of merchandise. Moreover, there is no 
evidence on the record supporting a particular market situation in the 
exporting country that would not permit a proper comparison of home 
market and U.S. prices. We, therefore, have determined that each 
company's home market sales are viable for purposes of comparison with 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(C) 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 for consumption in the home market, 
in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, 
at the same level of trade as the EP sale.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for NV when there were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of 
identical or similar merchandise in the comparison market. We 
calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included 
the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses 
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.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unaffiliated 
customers.
    For both classes or kinds of merchandise under review and for all 
respondents with the exception of Forsyth, the Department disregarded 
sales below the cost of production (``COP'') in the last completed 
review as of the date of the issuance of the antidumping questionnaire 
(see Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18448 (April 15, 1997)). 
We therefore had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 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. Pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales by all 
respondents, except Forsyth, 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 
(``COP''). 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 
packed and ready for shipment. In our COP analysis, we used home market 
sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses.
    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 and at prices that did not permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time. Because each individual 
price was compared against the POR-long average COP, 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, 
discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less 
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given model during the POR were at prices less 
than the weighted-average COPs for the POR, 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. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost 
sales with respect to all companies and classes or kinds of 
merchandise.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, where 
possible, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as 
the U.S. price. See the Level of Trade Section below.
    The Department determined in the final results of the last 
administrative review (Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 12725, 
March 9, 1998) that it would be inappropriate to resort directly to 
constructed value (CV), in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis 
for NV if the Department finds foreign market

[[Page 37324]]

sales of merchandise identical or most similar to that sold in the 
United States to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' 
Therefore, we will match a given U.S. sale to foreign market sales of 
the next most similar model when all sales of the most comparable model 
are below cost. The Department will use CV as the basis for NV only 
when there are no above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for 
comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, when making comparisons in 
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products 
sold in the home market as described in the ``Scope of Review'' section 
of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market 
made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product 
made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics 
listed in Sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire. This 
methodology is pursuant to the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir. 
1998), and has been implemented to the extent that the data on the 
record permitted.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with section 773(a)(6) and 
(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where 
applicable for home market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 
commissions in EP pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.410(b). For 
comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market 
direct selling expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.

Algoma

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers (Algoma made no home market sales to affiliated parties), in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. Home market prices were based on the 
packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the home market.
    We calculated the starting price net of discounts, rebates, and 
post-sale adjustments, where applicable. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, for packing and movement expenses in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 
of the Act and for differences in COS in accordance with 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparison to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses (credit and warranty expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit and warranty expenses). When comparisons were made to 
EP sales on which commissions were paid, but no commissions were paid 
on the foreign market sales, we made adjustments for home market 
indirect selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 
19 CFR section 351.410(e).

MRM

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers (MRM made no home market sales to affiliated parties), in 
accordance with 19 FR 351.403. Home market prices were based on the 
packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the home market.
    We used a starting price net of rebates, where applicable. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. For comparison to EP, we 
made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses 
(credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit 
expense). When comparisons were made to EP sales on which commissions 
were paid, but no commissions were paid on the foreign market sales, we 
made adjustments for home market indirect selling expenses to offset 
these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.410(e).

CCC

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated 
parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. Home market starting prices 
were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the home market, net of discounts and price 
adjustments, where applicable. Although the record does not contain 
pre-sale agreements for certain payments which CCC reported as ``credit 
notes,'' based on CCC's information we have determined to treat these 
payments as price adjustments which should be excluded from the 
starting price. We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and 
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of 
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for COS differences in 
accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 
comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market 
direct selling expenses (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit). When comparisons were made where commissions were 
paid on EP sales, but no commissions were paid on the foreign market 
sales, we made adjustments for home market indirect selling expenses to 
offset U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.410(e).

Dofasco

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated 
parties (when made at prices determined to be arm's-length) or 
unaffiliated parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. Home market 
starting prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered 
prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market, net 
of discounts and rebates, where applicable. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, for packing and movement expenses in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 
of the Act and for COS differences in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparison to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses (credit, 
royalties and warranty expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit, royalties and warranty expenses). When comparisons 
were made where commissions were paid on EP sales, but no commissions 
were made on foreign market sales, we made adjustments for home market 
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.410(e).
    We denied Dofasco's requested start-up adjustment to its costs, as 
we determined that Dofasco did not meet the statutory criteria for 
granting an adjustment. Under section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, 
Commerce may make an adjustment for start-up

[[Page 37325]]

costs only if the following two conditions are satisfied: (1) A company 
is using new production facilities or producing a new product that 
requires substantial additional investment, and (2) production levels 
are limited by technical factors associated with the initial phase of 
commercial production. The Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
to the URAA states that ``any determination of the appropriate startup 
period involves a fact-intensive inquiry.'' This includes a 
consideration of ``factors unrelated to startup operations that may 
have affected the volume of production processed, such as demand, 
seasonality, or business cycles.'' The SAA further states that the 
``start-up [period] will be considered to end at the time the level of 
commercial production characteristic of the merchandise, producer, or 
industry concerned is achieved. The attainment of peak production 
levels will not be the standard for identifying the end of the start-up 
period, because the start-up period may end well before a company 
achieves optimum capacity utilization.'' SAA at 836. Moreover, ``[t]o 
determine when a company reaches commercial production levels, Commerce 
will consider first the actual production experience of the merchandise 
in question. Production levels will be based on units processed.'' SAA 
at 836 (166).
    In the instant case, we agree with Dofasco that the construction of 
the new Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) facility constitutes a new 
production facility.
    In order to determine the duration of the initial phase of 
commercial production, we examined Dofasco's reported production starts 
at the EAF. Our determination of an appropriate startup period was 
based, in large part, on a review of scrap starts at the new facility 
during the POR, which represents the best measure of the facility's 
ability to produce at commercial production levels. We concluded that 
the number of scrap starts during the first two months (September and 
October 1996) did not meet commercial production levels characteristic 
of the producer, but that commercial production levels were reached by 
November 1996.
    However, we have determined that the reported technical factors 
which Dofasco claims limited production during this two-month period 
are insufficient to constitute what the Department believes to be 
technical factors. The kind of chronic production problems experienced 
by Dofasco do not constitute ``technical factors'' which are unique to 
a startup operation. As such, we have not granted Dofasco a startup 
adjustment for the POR. For further details, see Memorandum to the 
File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for 
Dofasco, July 2, 1998.

Stelco

    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated 
(when made at prices determined to be arms-length) or unaffiliated 
parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. Home market starting prices 
were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to affiliated 
or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market net of discounts and 
rebates. We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and 
movement expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of 
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for COS differences in 
accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
    Corrosion resistant steel: We adjusted home market prices for 
interest revenue on certain sales. For comparison to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses (credit, 
warranties, advertising and technical services) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit, advertising, warranties and technical 
services). For comparison to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting 
home market direct selling expenses pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
    Plate: For comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting 
home market direct selling expenses (credit, warranties, advertising, 
commissions, and technical services) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit, warranties, advertising and technical services). We 
offset home market commissions by the amount of indirect selling 
expenses incurred on the U.S. sale, up to the amount of the home market 
commission.

Level of Trade (``LOT'')

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses 
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In the present review, only Dofasco, Forsyth, and CCC claimed that 
more than one LOT existed; none of the respondents requested a LOT 
adjustment. To evaluate LOTs, we examined information regarding the 
distribution systems in both the U.S. and Canadian markets, including 
the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses for 
each respondent. Forsyth's claim of LOT differences is discussed below 
in the Facts Available section.

Algoma

    In both the home market and the United States, Algoma reported one 
LOT and one distribution system with two classes of customers: end-
users and steel service centers. We analyzed the selling functions and 
activities performed for both classes of customers in both markets. We 
preliminarily determine that Algoma's selling functions and activities 
are substantially similar for both classes of customers for sales of 
subject merchandise and, therefore, that there is one level of trade in 
both markets. For a further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis 
with respect to Algoma, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum 
for the Preliminary Results of Review for Algoma, July 2, 1998.

[[Page 37326]]

CCC

    CCC reported three different LOTs in the home market based on class 
of customer: OEMs, steel service centers, and scrap merchants. However, 
we examined the reported selling functions and found that CCC provides 
the same selling functions to its home market customers regardless of 
channel of distribution. We preliminarily determine that the selling 
functions between the reported LOTs are sufficiently similar to 
consider them as one LOT in the comparison market.
    CCC stated that it sells to two LOTs in the United States: OEMs and 
steel service centers. Again, we examined the selling functions at both 
claimed levels, and found they were the same. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that the selling functions between the reported 
LOTs are sufficiently similar to consider them as one LOT in the United 
States market. Finally, we compared the selling functions performed at 
the home market LOT and the LOT in the United States and found them 
substantially similar. For a further discussion of the Department's LOT 
analysis with respect to CCC, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for CCC, July 2, 1998.

Dofasco

    Dofasco reported three LOTs in the home market. Dofasco defined its 
LOT categories by customer category: service center, automotive, and 
construction and converters/manufacturers (``construction''). We 
examined the selling functions performed at each claimed level and 
found that there was a significant difference in selling functions 
offered to these three categories. Of the seventeen reported selling 
functions, Dofasco performed only three of the same or similar selling 
functions at both the automotive and service center sales levels. 
Dofasco reported fourteen selling functions which were different 
between these two levels. Moreover, Dofasco has established a separate 
sales division for its automotive sales. Additionally, sales to 
automotive customers are sales to end users, while sales to service 
centers are sales to resellers. In sum, these sales were made at 
different stages of marketing. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude 
that the automotive and service center classes of customer constitute 
separate levels of trade.
    Although both automotive and construction customers are OEMs, we 
note that both quantitatively and qualitatively, the selling functions 
offered to automotive customers involve significantly greater resources 
and thus represent a distinct stage of marketing. Specifically, of the 
seventeen reported selling functions, Dofasco performed only seven of 
the same or similar selling functions to both automotive and 
construction customers. Dofasco's functions for these two channels 
differed with respect to ten other activities. Therefore, given these 
differences, we preliminarily conclude that automotive and construction 
constitute separate levels of trade.
    There were numerous differences in selling functions between 
construction and service center sales channels. Of the seventeen 
reported selling functions, Dofasco performed only eight of the same or 
similar selling functions at both levels. We found that these 
differences suggested distinct stages of marketing. Therefore, we 
preliminarily conclude that construction and service centers constitute 
different LOTs.
    Overall, we determine that the selling functions for the 
automotive, service center, and construction customer categories are 
substantially dissimilar to one another and that these sales are made 
at different stages of marketing. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that the automotive, service center, and construction customer 
categories should be treated as three LOTs in the comparison market.
    Respondents reported the same three LOTs in the U.S. market: 
automotive, service center, and construction. We preliminarily 
determine that the results of our analysis of U.S. LOTs are identical 
to those of the comparison market. In addition, there were only 
insignificant differences in selling functions at each LOT between the 
comparison market and the U.S. market. Therefore, we found that the 
three U.S. LOTs corresponded to the three comparison market LOTs.
    The Department did not find that there existed a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the three levels of trade. 
Therefore, we did not make LOT adjustments when comparing sales at 
different LOTs. For a further discussion of the Department's LOT 
analysis with respect to Dofasco, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for Dofasco, July 2, 
1998.

MRM

    In both the home market and the United States, MRM reported one LOT 
and one distribution system with two classes of customers in the home 
market, distributors and OEMs, and one class of customer, OEMs, in the 
U.S. market. We analyzed the selling functions and activities performed 
for each class of customer in each market. We found that MRM's selling 
functions and activities were substantially similar for both classes of 
customers for sales of subject merchandise and, therefore, constitute 
one level of trade in the home market. Finally, we compared the selling 
functions performed at the home market LOT and the LOT in the United 
States and found them substantially similar. Thus, no adjustment was 
appropriate.

Stelco

    Stelco identified one level of trade and two channels of 
distribution (to end-users or to resellers) in the home market for each 
class or kind of merchandise. We examined the selling functions 
performed in each channel and found that Stelco provided many of the 
same or similar selling functions in each, including inventory 
maintenance, after sales service, technical advice, and freight and 
delivery arrangements. We found few differences between selling 
functions for transactions made through the two channels of trade. 
Overall, we determine that the selling functions between the two sales 
channels are sufficiently similar to consider them one LOT in the home 
market for sales of both corrosion-resistant products and plate 
products.
    In the United States, Stelco Inc. sold both products through the 
two channels of distribution listed above. For EP sales, we determine 
that the results of our analysis of the U.S. LOT is identical to that 
of the home market: the selling functions performed for sales to the 
United States are sufficiently similar to consider them one LOT for 
both corrosion-resistant products and plate products. Additionally, we 
consider this LOT to be the same as that identified in the home market. 
Therefore, no adjustment is appropriate.
    For CEP sales of corrosion-resistant steel made by SUSA, we 
compared the selling activities associated with the sale to the 
affiliated reseller to those associated with the home market sales and 
found them to be dissimilar. For example, the level of trade of the CEP 
sales involved no after sales services, or technical advice. Therefore, 
we considered the home market sales to be at a different level of trade 
and at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP sales. 
Because the sole home market level of trade was different from the 
level of trade of the CEP, we could not match to sales at the same 
level of trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-
trade adjustment based on Stelco's home market sales of merchandise 
under review.

[[Page 37327]]

Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate 
basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. Accordingly, for 
Stelco, we determined NV at the sole home market level of trade and 
made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act. For a further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis with 
respect to Stelco, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for 
the Preliminary Results of Review for Stelco, July 2, 1998.

Facts Available

    Forsyth has stated that it sells subject merchandise in the home 
market at three distinct LOTs and at only one LOT in the U.S. market. 
Forsyth did not report a significant portion of its home market sales 
because it claims that these home market sales are made at a different 
LOT than the U.S. sales made during the POR, that there are sufficient 
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise at the same LOT, and 
that, therefore, the Department will not be using these sales in its 
calculation of NV. The Department, however, clearly warned Forsyth that 
if it did not report all of its home market sales made during the 
period of review, we may be required to base our findings on the facts 
available.
    Forsyth has not provided adequate information to justify its LOT 
claim. More specifically, Forsyth has not shown there to be a 
significant difference in selling functions between its coil division, 
which sells in both the home market and in the U.S. market, and its 
distribution and distribution & processing divisions, which sell only 
in the home market. In fact, there was substantial overlap among the 
selling functions performed by these three divisions. Moreover, many of 
the alleged ``selling functions'' which Forsyth identified and claimed 
differed among the three divisions were not selling functions at all, 
but rather manufacturing processes. Section 773(a)(7)(A) clearly 
establishes that relevant differences between levels of trade must be 
supported by differences in selling functions. See also, SAA at 829-830 
and 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.412. The statute accounts for other differences 
between sales through other adjustments; thus, for example, differing 
manufacturing processes may be accounted for under the adjustment for 
physical differences in the merchandise being compared under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii). It would contravene the purposes inherent in the 
adjustment provisions of section 773 if the Department were to subsume 
the differences for which such specific adjustments are made within a 
broader definition of level of trade differences. Finally, the SAA 
specifically warns the Department against finding differences in the 
level of trade that are more appropriately attributable to differences 
in the nature of the products. SAA at 830.
    Consequently, we conclude that, because the record does not reveal 
significant differences in the selling functions performed by Forsyth's 
three home market divisions, all of Forsyth's HM sales were made at a 
single level of trade. Therefore, we require detailed information on 
all of Forsyth's home market sales in order to accurately calculate NV. 
Since Forsyth did not report all of its home market sales made during 
the POR, we preliminarily determine that, in accordance with section 
776(a) of the Act, the use of facts available is appropriate for 
Forsyth.
    Where a respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use 
facts available that are adverse to the interests of that respondent, 
which may include information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. Forsyth did not respond to our repeated requests 
for information about all of its home market sales; rather it presented 
arguments as to why it should not have to provide that information. 
Therefore, we conclude that Forsyth has failed to cooperate to the best 
of its ability.
    As adverse facts available, we are using the highest dumping margin 
calculated in any segment of this proceeding, 68.70 percent. This rate 
was calculated for Stelco, Inc. in the LTFV determination of certain 
cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada (58 FR 37121, July 9, 
1993).

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the period August 1, 1996 through 
July 31, 1997 to be as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Margin  
             Manufacturer/Exporter                                  Time period                       (percent) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algoma (plate)................................  08/01/96-07/31/97..................................       1 0.28
Stelco (plate)................................  08/01/96-07/31/97..................................         0.00
Stelco (corrosion-resistant)..................  08/01/96-07/31/97..................................         2.69
MRM (plate)...................................  08/01/96-07/31/97..................................         0.00
CCC (corrosion-resistant).....................  08/01/96-07/31/97..................................         2.06
Dofasco (corrosion-resistant).................  08/01/96-07/31/97..................................         0.54
Forsyth (plate)...............................  08/01/96-07/31/97..................................        68.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1  De minimis.                                                                                                  

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication or the 
first business day thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may 
be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in those briefs, may be filed 
not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
The Department will publish the final results of this administrative 
review, including its analysis of issues raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Because the inability to link sales 
with specific entries prevents calculation of duties on an entry-by-
entry basis, we will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rate for each class or kind of merchandise based on the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the 
sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer for that class or

[[Page 37328]]

kind of merchandise made during the POR.
    If the revocation is made final for Algoma and Stelco, it will 
apply to all unliquidated entries of this merchandise produced by 
Algoma and Stelco, exported to the United States and entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after August 31, 1997, 
which is the effective date of the revocation from the order for Algoma 
and Stelco.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
each reviewed company will be that established in the final results of 
review (except that a deposit of zero will be required for firms with 
zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) 
for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV 
investigation or previous review, 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, a previous 
review, or the original 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; (4) the cash deposit 
rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the 
``all others'' rates established in the LTFV investigations, which were 
18.71 percent for corrosion-resistant steel products and 61.88 percent 
for plate (see Amended Final Determination, 60 FR 49582 (September 26, 
1995)). These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative reviews.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    These administrative reviews and notices are published in 
accordance with 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: July 2, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18343 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P