[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29262-29263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13847]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]


Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or David J. 
Goldberger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone, (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4136, 
respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references 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 the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of porcelain-on-steel 
cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained 
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of 
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware 
currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not 
subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Amendment to Final Results

    In accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, on May 18, 1999, the 
Department published the final results of the 1996-1997 eleventh 
administrative review on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, in 
which we determined that sales of porcelain-on-steel cookware from 
Mexico were made at less than normal value (64 FR 26934). On May 17, 
1999, we received allegations, timely filed pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.224(c)(2), from the petitioner Columbian Home Products, LLC that 
the Department made two ministerial errors in its final results. We did 
not receive ministerial error allegations from Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. 
(Cinsa) or Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA). 
However, on May 20, 1999, Cinsa and ENASA alleged that the petitioner's 
ministerial error allegations exceeded the limited scope of the 
corrections authorized by the Department's regulations. Respondents 
also claim that the Department is barred from making the suggested 
corrections on the grounds that an appeal for review by a NAFTA panel 
has now been docketed with respect to this case. We disagree with 
respondents. The definition of a ministerial error provides not only 
for correction of errors in arithmetic but also for ``any other similar 
type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers 
ministerial.'' 19 CFR 351.224(f). Furthermore, the Department does not 
lose jurisdiction for the purpose of correcting clerical errors with 
the filing of a Request for Panel Review.
    After analyzing petitioner's submission, we have determined, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that two ministerial errors were made 
in our final margin calculations for Cinsa and ENASA. Specifically, we 
failed to state our final determination of duty absorption, including 
the percentage of U.S. sales on which duty absorption occurred. Because 
the Department did not intend to avoid finalizing its statutorily-
required determination with respect to duty absorption, failure to 
state our final determination in the Federal Register constitutes a

[[Page 29263]]

ministerial error within the meaning of the Department's regulations. 
We also inadvertently failed to deduct inventory carrying costs 
incurred in the United States from the total selling expenses used in 
the CEP profit calculation. For a detailed discussion of the 
ministerial error allegations and the Department's analysis, see the 
Memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team, dated May 21, 1999.

Duty Absorption

    On February 18, 1998, petitioner requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by Cinsa and 
ENASA during the period of review (POR), pursuant to section 751(a)(4) 
of the Act. Section 751(a)(4) provides that the Department, if 
requested, will determine during an administrative review initiated two 
years or four years after publication of the order whether antidumping 
duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter subject to 
the order if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer or 
exporter. Section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations 
provides that, for transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) 
of the Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, the 
Department will make a duty absorption determination upon request in 
administrative reviews initiated in 1996 and 1998. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27394 (May 19, 
1997). This approach ensures that interested parties will have the 
opportunity to request a duty absorption determination prior to sunset 
reviews for entries for which the second and fourth years following an 
order have already passed. Because the order on porcelain-on-steel 
cookware from Mexico has been in effect since 1986, this is a 
transition order within the meaning of section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. 
Thus, as there has been a request for an absorption determination in 
this review (initiated in 1998), we are making a duty-absorption 
determination.
    The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption with 
respect to subject merchandise that is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. In this case, both Cinsa and ENASA made 
all of their sales of subject merchandise to the United States through 
an importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) 
of the Act. With respect to Cinsa, we have determined that there is a 
dumping margin on 68.03 percent of its U.S. sales during the POR. For 
ENASA, we have determined that there is a dumping margin on 98.52 
percent of its U.S. sales during the POR. In addition, for Cinsa's and 
ENASA's sales of subject merchandise, we cannot conclude from the 
record that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay 
the ultimately assessed duty. Under these circumstances, therefore, we 
find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Cinsa on 68.03 
percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise and by ENASA on 98.52 
percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise.

CEP Profit Calculation

    We also failed to deduct inventory carrying costs incurred in the 
United States from the total selling expenses used in the calculation 
of CEP profit. The Department's policy is to exclude all imputed 
expenses (i.e., credit expenses and inventory carrying costs) from the 
calculation of total actual profit for CEP sales of subject merchandise 
and sales of the foreign like product. See Policy Bulletin 97.1: 
Calculation of Profit for Constructed Export Price Transactions.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.224(e), we are amending the final results of the 1996-1997 
antidumping duty administrative review on porcelain-on-steel cookware 
from Mexico.
    The revised weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Original     Revised
                                                   final        final
            Manufacturer/ exporter                 margin       margin
                                                 percentage   percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa.........................................        25.34        25.42
ENASA.........................................        65.23        65.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This amended 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)), 
section 777(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)), and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: May 25, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-13847 Filed 5-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P