[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43149-43152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20450]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-412-810]


Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On April 6, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products 
from the United Kingdom (64 FR 16699). This review covers British Steel 
Engineering Steels Limited, a manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the United States, and the period March 1, 1997, through 
February 28, 1998. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received and the correction of certain data, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the 
``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, Room B099, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-4007, or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 6, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 1997-
1998 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United 
Kingdom (64 FR 16699) (Preliminary Results). On June 15, 1999, British 
Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES) submitted its case brief. On 
June 23, 1999, Ispat Inland Inc. and USS/KOBE Steel Co. (the 
petitioners), submitted their rebuttal brief. The Department held a 
hearing on June 25, 1999. The Department has now completed its 
administrative review in accordance

[[Page 43150]]

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 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

    The products covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of 
nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by 
weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 
in coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded 
from the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72, 
note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason 
of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or 0.1 percent or 
more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-
finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered 
in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00.00 and 
7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also 
enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings: 
7213.31.30.00; 7213.31.60.00; 7213.39.00.30; 7213.39.00.60; 
7213.39.00.90; 7213.91.30.00; 7213.91.45.00; 7213.91.60.00; 7213.99.00; 
7214.40.00.10, 7214.40.00.30, 7214.40.00.50; 7214.50.00.10; 
7214.50.00.30, 7214.50.00.50; 7214.60.00.10; 7214.60.00.30; 
7214.60.00.50; 7214.91.00; 7214.99.00; 7228.30.80.00; and 
7228.30.80.50. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Duty Absorption

    On April 28, 1998, the petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by BSES during 
the period of review (POR), pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Act. 
Section 751(a)(4) of the Act 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. In this case, BSES sold to the United States through an 
importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of 
the Act.
    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 on January 1, 1995, the Department will 
make a duty absorption determination upon request in administrative 
reviews initiated in 1996 or 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 certain hot-rolled lead and 
bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom has been in 
effect since 1993, 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.
    On January 29, 1999, the Department requested proof that 
unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to 
be assessed on entries during the review period. BSES did not respond 
to the Department's request for information. Accordingly, based on the 
record, we cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States will pay the ultimately assessed duty. Therefore, we find 
that antidumping duties have been absorbed by the producer or exporter 
during the POR.
    We have determined that there is a dumping margin on 63.37 percent 
of BSES's U.S. sales during the POR. Under these circumstances, 
therefore, we find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by BSES 
on 63.37 percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Model Matching Methodology

    BSES argues that the Department should use dimension ranges rather 
than exact sizes to match products in this review. According to BSES, 
matching by size range has the advantage of including more home market 
sales in normal value (NV), which lessens the possibility that NV will 
be based on small quantities of non-representative sales. BSES further 
states that there is an objective and relevant system of dimension 
ranges inherent in its published price list. Moreover, because the 
Department has decided to employ dimension ranges in the matching 
methodology in future reviews, BSES asserts that such ranges should 
also be used in the present review. BSES adds that the petitioners 
supported matching dimension ranges in past reviews.
    BSES also suggests that in order to decrease distortion and improve 
its matching methodology, the Department should place the product 
characteristic that identifies whether the product is in coils or 
straight (cut) ahead of the product characteristic that identifies the 
cross-sectional shape of the steel (shape). BSES argues that, because 
shape is preferred under the Department's current methodology, the 
Department might match, for example, a hexagonal bar in coil to a 
hexagonal straight bar, even though coiled bar has different costs, and 
thus prices, than straight bar of the same diameter and shape. 
Accordingly, BSES contends that it is important to match coiled bar to 
coiled bar, and straight bar to straight bar.
    The petitioners argue that the Department should not change its 
model matching methodology at this late point in the current 
administrative review. The petitioners assert that the Department 
apparently has not yet decided whether to use actual sizes or size 
ranges in the 1998-1999 review, nor has it had the opportunity to test 
the suggested size ranges during a review, such as at a verification. 
Accordingly, the petitioners urge the Department to reject BSES's 
request and to continue to use actual size rather than size ranges for 
model matching purposes in this review.
    Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the Department should 
reject BSES's proposed ranking of cut over shape in the model matching 
methodology. The petitioners claim that shape is a much more 
significant matching characteristic than cut, because any shape other 
than round requires a significant slowdown of the mill, which greatly 
increases production costs. The petitioners contend that this cost 
increase is a much more significant cost difference than that involved 
in the production of coiled versus straight bar. Finally, the 
petitioners argue that the Department apparently has rejected any 
revised ranking of cut and shape for purposes of the 1998-1999 review. 
Therefore, according to the petitioners,

[[Page 43151]]

the Department should maintain its ranking of shape before cut in the 
model matching hierarchy.
    DOC Position: In the preliminary results of this review, we matched 
products by exact size rather than by dimension range, and prioritized 
cut before shape in the model match hierarchy, as we have done 
throughout the history of this case. The issue of revising the model 
matching methodology was first raised during the briefing stage of this 
administrative review, and was precipitated by our solicitation of 
comments on model matching for the purposes of the 1998-1999 review, 
and our issuance of a questionnaire for that review period. (See 
Letters from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias dated April 14, 1999 and June 10, 
1999, placed on the record of the 1998-1999 administrative review.) 
Although we have requested dimension range information for purposes of 
the 1998-1999 review, we have not yet received and analyzed such 
information. Furthermore, there is insufficient information on the 
record of the 1997-1998 review with respect to cut and shape to compel 
us to change the established matching hierarchy at this late stage of 
the review. Therefore, we have not revised the model matching 
methodology in these final results.

Comment 2: Arm's -Length Test

    BSES argues that the Department's arm's-length test program ignores 
the levels of trade that the Department identified in the preliminary 
results, comparing prices between affiliated and unaffiliated customers 
regardless of level of trade. In so doing, BSES claims that the program 
erroneously causes some customers to fail the arm's-length test. BSES 
states that the Department has accounted for the effect of level of 
trade on price, and has performed the arm's-length test by level of 
trade in other recent cases, such as Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta 
From Turkey, 63 FR 68429, 68432, December 11, 1998 (Pasta from Turkey). 
BSES adds that, by comparing sales prices to unaffiliated customers 
with sales prices to affiliated customers at the same level of trade, 
the arm's-length test is not distorted by comparing prices at different 
levels of trade. Accordingly, BSES asserts, the Department should 
follow its standard practice in the final results, and account for 
level of trade in performing the arm's-length test. BSES submits 
computer programming language to accomplish this change.
    BSES also argues that the preliminary margin program contains a 
clerical error that caused the inadvertent exclusion of customers from 
the arm's-length test before the price comparisons were complete. 
Specifically, when the program failed to find an unaffiliated product 
match for an affiliated customer, it disqualified that affiliated 
customer from the test before testing whether the other products sold 
to that affiliated customer are also sold to unaffiliated customers. 
BSES contends that if the test is performed correctly, additional 
affiliated customers pass the arm's-length test. Accordingly, BSES 
argues, the Department should correct this clerical error for purposes 
of the final results. BSES submits computer programming language that 
would correct this error.
    The petitioners argue that BSES's suggested computer programming 
language incorporating level of trade into the arm's-length test 
appears to be incomplete, because it does not allow for price 
comparisons at different levels of trade if no product match can be 
found at the same level of trade. Accordingly, the petitioners contend 
that the Department should not implement BSES'' suggested programming 
language.
    With regard to the clerical error that BSES alleges erroneously 
excludes customers from the data base before completion of the arm's-
length test on all sales to those customers, the petitioners do not 
object to the correction of this error.
    DOC Position: We agree with BSES that the preliminary arm's-length 
test should have accounted for level of trade in making affiliated to 
unaffiliated price comparisons, in accordance with the Department's 
practice. See Pasta from Turkey at 63 FR at 68432. We also agree with 
BSES'' suggested programming language in this regard, and have changed 
the arm's-length test program accordingly in the final results.
    We disagree with the petitioners that BSES's suggested programming 
language is incomplete because it does not allow for price comparisons 
at different levels of trade if no product match can be found at the 
same level of trade. The purpose of the methodology employed in the 
Department's arm's-length test is to compare sales prices to 
unaffiliated customers to sales prices to affiliated customers at the 
same level of trade. See Pasta from Turkey. As BSES points out in its 
case brief, in this way the arm's-length test measures the true 
relationship between these prices and is not distorted by price 
differences attributable to differentiation in levels of trade. 
Therefore, we have used only those sales of identical products at the 
same level of trade in making the arm's-length price comparisons.
    Finally, we agree with BSES that a clerical error in the arm's-
length test prevented the program from performing a complete comparison 
of affiliated to unaffiliated customer prices. We concur with BSES'' 
suggested programming language in this regard, and have made the 
necessary corrections to the computer program for the final results.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists for the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
          Manufacturer/exporter                 Period        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSES....................................     3/1/97-2/28/98         6.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have 
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all examined sales and dividing this 
amount by the total quantity sold. This rate will be assessed uniformly 
on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements shall be effective for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise from the United Kingdom that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the publication date of the final results of this administrative 
review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for BSES will be the rate established above in the ``Final 
Results of Review'' section; (2) for previously 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 
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) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters of this merchandise will continue to be 
25.82 percent, the all others rate established in the final 
determination of the less-than-fair-value investigation (58 FR 15324, 
March 22, 1993). The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility

[[Page 43152]]

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.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221.

    Dated: July 30, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20450 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P