[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45228-45236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21568]


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

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, Intent To Revoke in 
Part, Intent Not to Revoke in Part, and Rescission of Review in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review, intent to revoke in part, intent not to revoke 
in part, and rescission of review in part.

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

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 four manufacturers/exporters of 
corrosion resistant steel and two manufacturers/exporters of cut-to-
length steel plate (one respondent manufactured both products), and the 
period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (``NV'') by various companies subject to these reviews. 
See ``Preliminary Results of Reviews'' section below for the company-
specific rates. 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: August 19, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gideon Katz at (202) 482-4255 (Dofasco 
Inc. and Sorevco Inc. (collectively, ``Dofasco'')), Sarah Ellerman at 
(202) 482-4106 (Continuous Colour Coat (``CCC'')), Mark Hoadley at 
(202) 482-0666 (Gerdau MRM Steel (``MRM''), National Steel Co. 
(``National''), and Algoma Steel Co. (``Algoma'')), Elfi Blum at (202) 
482-0197 (Stelco, Inc.(``Stelco'')), or Maureen Flannery at (202) 482-
3020, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20230.

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 (April 1998).

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 21, 1998, MRM 
requested a review of its exports of cut-to-length steel plate and 
requested that the Department revoke the order on cut-to-length steel 
plate as it pertains to MRM. On August 31, 1998, Stelco 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 as it pertains 
to Stelco. On August 31, 1998, National, Dofasco, Stelco, and CCC 
requested a review of their exports of corrosion-resistant steel, and 
Algoma requested a review of its exports of cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate.
    On August 31, 1998, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group 
(a unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Gulf States 
Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, Geneva Steel, and 
Lukens Steel Company, petitioners, requested reviews of Algoma and 
Stelco exports of cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
    On August 31, 1998, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, 
Inland Steel Industries, Inc., AK Steel Corporation, LTV Steel Co., 
Inc., and National Steel Corporation, petitioners, requested reviews of 
CCC, Dofasco, and Stelco exports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat products.
    On September 29, 1998, 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, 1997 through July 31, 1998 (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 February 26, 1999, the Department 
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary 
results in the review to July 30, 1999. 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, 64 FR 9475.
    On July 30, 1999, the Department published a second notice of 
extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in the review 
from July 30, 1999 to August 6, 1999. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
From Canada: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 64 FR 42338.
    On August 6, 1999 the Department extended the time limits for the 
Preliminary Results in the review to August 16, 1999. See Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Extension of Time Limits for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 64 FR 43984.
    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 carbon steel flat products, and (2) certain cut-to-length 
carbon steel 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

[[Page 45229]]

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 in this review 
are corrosion-resistant 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 from this review 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 from this review 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 from this review 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 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 in this review 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 from this review is grade X-
70 plate. Also excluded is cut-to-length carbon steel plate meeting the 
following criteria: (1) 100% dry steel plates, virgin steel, no scrap 
content (free of Cobalt-60 and other radioactive nuclides); (2) .290 
inches maximum thickness, plus 0.0, minus .030 inches; (3) 48.00 inch 
wide, plus .05, minus 0.0 inches; (4) 10 foot lengths, plus 0.5, minus 
0.0 inches; (5) flatness, plus/minus 0.5 inch over 10 feet; (6) AISI 
1006; (7) tension leveled; (8) pickled and oiled; and (9) carbon 
content, 0.03 to 0.08 (maximum).
    With respect to both classes or kinds, the HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive of the scope of these reviews.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by MRM (cost and sales), Dofasco (cost and sales), and Stelco 
(sales for plate, cost for both corrosion-resistant and plate) using 
standard verification procedures, including on-site inspections of the 
manufacturers' facilities and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in public 
versions of the verification reports on file with the Central Records 
Unit, in room B-099 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondents that are covered by the 
description in the Scope of Reviews 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, 1998 antidumping 
questionnaires.

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 the CEP 
to 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.

Rescission of Review for Algoma

    In Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination to Revoke in 
Part, 64 FR 2173 (January 13, 1999) (``Canadian Steel 4th''), the 
Department revoked the order on cut-to-length steel plate as it 
pertains to Algoma. Before the Department's determination had been 
finalized, however, we had already initiated our review, at the request 
of both Algoma and petitioners, of Algoma's exports of cut-to-length 
plate to the United States for the period August 1, 1997 through July 
31, 1998. We now rescind this review insofar as it pertains to Algoma.

Intent To Revoke (MRM) and Intent Not to Revoke (Stelco)

    On August 31, 1998, and August 21, 1998, respectively, Stelco and 
MRM submitted requests, 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 their sales of this merchandise.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(iii), these requests were 
accompanied by certifications from Stelco and MRM that they had not 
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV for a three-year period, 
including this

[[Page 45230]]

review period, and would not do so in the future. The Department 
conducted verifications of Stelco's and of MRM's responses for this 
period of review.
    Prior to considering whether it is appropriate to revoke an order 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), the Department ``must be satisfied 
that, during each of the three (or five) years, there were exports to 
the United States in commercial quantities of the subject merchandise 
to which a revocation or termination will apply.'' 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1) 
(emphasis added). In other words, the Department must be satisfied that 
the company participated meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of 
the three years at issue, and that past margins are reflective of a 
company's normal commercial activity. See Canadian Steel 4th; see also 
Pure Magnesium from Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part, 
63 FR 26147 (May 12, 1998).
    Based on the current record, we preliminarily find that Stelco did 
not sell merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities 
during the current administrative review (one of the three consecutive 
review periods cited by Stelco to support its request for revocation). 
Stelco made only a few sales totaling 47 tons 1 of subject 
merchandise in the United States during the POR. By contrast, during 
the period covered by the antidumping investigation, which was only six 
months long, Stelco made several thousand sales totaling approximately 
30,000 tons.2 In other words, Stelco's sales for the entire 
year of the current POR amount to only 0.173 percent of its sales 
volume during the six months covered by the investigation. Similarly, 
during the previous POR Stelco sold approximately 2,000 tons of subject 
merchandise in the United States. While this amount is small in 
comparison to the amount sold prior to issuance of the order, it is 
over 40 times greater than the amount sold during the period covered by 
the current administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stelco's response (public version) to Section A of the 
Department's questionnaire in the current administrative review of 
cut-to-length carbon steel products from Canada (Oct. 26, 1998) at 
Exhibit A-1.
    \2\ Stelco's response (public version) to Section A of the 
Department's questionnaire in the antidumping duty investigations of 
certain flat carbon steel (cut-to-length plate) products from Canada 
(Sep. 11, 1992) at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of our preliminary finding that, in the instant period of 
review, Stelco did not sell subject merchandise in the United States in 
commercial quantities, we preliminarily determine that Stelco does not 
qualify for revocation from the order on steel plate under sections 
351.222 (b) and (d)(1).
    We preliminarily determine that MRM's aggregate sales were made in 
commercial quantities over the course of its three consecutive review 
periods of zero margins. See Memorandum to the File: Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for MRM (August 12, 
1999). Thus, we preliminarily determine that MRM qualifies for a review 
of whether the order on steel plate should be revoked as to sales of 
its products.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), in determining whether to revoke 
an antidumping order in part, (1) we must conclude that the company has 
sold subject merchandise at not less than normal value to the United 
States for three consecutive review periods, (2) we must conclude that 
it is not likely that the companies eligible for revocation will in the 
future sell the subject merchandise at less than NV, and (3) the 
company must agree to the immediate reinstatement of the order if the 
Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, 
has sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    MRM has satisfied the three prongs of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In the 
two prior reviews of this order, we determined that MRM sold cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada at not less than NV. As discussed 
in detail below, we preliminarily determine that MRM sold cut-to-length 
carbon steel plate at not less than NV during this review period.
    Moreover, the Department's policy in the past has been that, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, three consecutive review periods 
with no dumping margins is evidence that it is not likely that a 
company eligible for revocation will in the future sell the subject 
merchandise at less than NV. See Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors of One Megabyte or Above From the Republic of Korea, 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not To Revoke Order In Part, 62 FR 39809, 39810 (July 24, 
1997). There is no evidence on the record, other than MRM's history of 
zero margins over the past three review periods, indicating MRM's 
likelihood to sell at less than NV in the future.
    Finally, MRM agreed to the order's immediate reinstatement as it 
pertains to its sales, as long as any firm is subject to the order, if 
the Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that, subsequent to 
revocation, it has sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. Since 
we preliminarily conclude that all criteria for revocation have been 
satisfied, we intend to revoke the order as to MRM.

Duty Absorption

    On October 28, 1998, the petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR 
for corrosion-resistant steel for Dofasco, CCC, and Stelco, and for 
cut-to-length plate for MRM and Stelco. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act 
provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an 
administrative review initiated two or four years after publication of 
the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign 
producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United 
States through an affiliated importer. In this case, Dofasco, CCC, MRM, 
and Stelco sold to the United States through an affiliated importer.
    Section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that 
for transition orders (i.e., orders in effect on January 1, 1995), the 
Department will conduct duty absorption reviews, if requested, for 
administrative reviews initiated in 1996 or 1998. Because the order 
underlying this review was issued prior to January 1, 1995, and this 
review was initiated in 1998, we will make a duty absorption 
determination in this segment of the proceeding.
    We have preliminarily determined that there is no dumping margin on 
any of MRM's and Stelco's U.S. sales of cut-to-length plate during the 
POR. Therefore, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have not 
been absorbed by MRM and Stelco on their U.S. sales of cut-to-length 
plate.
    We have preliminarily determined that there is a de minimis margin 
on Dofasco's U.S. sales of corrosion-resistant steel during the POR. 
Therefore, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have not been 
absorbed by Dofasco on its U.S. sales of corrosion-resistant steel. 
Also for corrosion-resistant steel, there is no evidence on the record 
that unaffiliated purchasers of subject merchandise sold by CCC and 
Stelco will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on 
entries during the review period. Accordingly, based on the record, we 
cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
will pay the ultimately assessed duty. Therefore, we preliminarily find 
that for CCC's and Stelco's sales of corrosion-resistant steel, 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by the producer or exporter 
during the POR. We will request that all the above companies place on 
the record evidence that unaffiliated

[[Page 45231]]

purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on 
entries during the review period for the respective class or kind of 
merchandise.

United States Price

    For United States price, 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 CEP was not otherwise 
warranted by facts on the record.

CCC

    The Department calculated EP for CCC based on packed, prepaid or 
delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions 
from the starting price, net of discounts and price adjustments, for 
movement expenses (foreign and U.S. freight, brokerage and handling, 
and U.S. Customs duties), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the 
Act.
    We have determined to treat certain payments, which CCC reported as 
``credit notes,'' 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 (August 12, 1999).
    It is the Department's standard practice 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). Our questionnaire instructed CCC to report 
the date of invoice as the date of sale; it also stated, however, that 
for EP sales ``(t)he date of sale cannot occur after the date of 
shipment.'' Therefore, we used date of invoice as date of sale, but, in 
some instances, when shipment date preceded invoice date, we used the 
date of shipment.

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 Canadian Steel 4th.
    The Department calculated EP for Dofasco based on packed, prepaid 
or delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the starting price, net of discounts and rebates, for 
movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, and post-sale 
warehousing) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. 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). Our 
questionnaire instructed Dofasco 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 
regulations prescribe. Accordingly, as provided for in 19 CFR 
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 for all 
Dofasco sales in both the U.S. market and the home market, except for 
sales made pursuant to long-term contracts. For Dofasco's sales made 
pursuant to long-term contracts, we used date of the contract as date 
of sale. In the rare instance of a rush order, we used the date of 
shipment as date of sale if a coil was shipped before it was 
acknowledged. We also used shipment date for sales of secondary 
products for which there is no order acknowledgment. If there was a 
change in price, we used the date of Dofasco's order reacknowledgement 
as date of sale.
    We used the date of order confirmation as the date of sale, as 
reported by Sorevco Inc. (``Sorevco'') for its sales in the home 
market, except when Sorevco shipped more merchandise than the customer 
originally ordered, and such overages were in excess of accepted 
industry tolerances. For those sales we used date of shipment as date 
of sale.

MRM

    The Department calculated EP for MRM based on packed, prepaid or 
delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses (foreign and U.S. 
movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties) and U.S. 
selling commissions pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
    In accordance with standard Department practice, we used date of 
invoice as date of sale for MRM's U.S. and home market sales. See 19 
CFR 351.401(i).

National

    The Department calculated CEP (there were no EP sales) for National 
based on packed, prepaid or delivered prices to customers in the United 
States.3 We made deductions from the starting price, net of 
discounts and billing adjustments, for movement expenses (foreign and 
U.S. freight, warehousing, insurance, brokerage and handling, and U.S. 
Customs duties), pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National, a U.S.-based corporation, ships steel flat 
products to the United States through its partially owned Canadian 
subsidiary, DNN Galvanizing Corp (``DNN''). DNN, under a tolling 
agreement, galvanizes National's steel flat products, which leads to 
their categorization as subject merchandise. National, however, 
provided U.S. selling functions for these products, and thus, we 
considered them to be CEP sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National sold goods in the United States with and without U.S. 
further manufacturing. Where appropriate, the Department reduced CEP by 
National's costs of further manufacturing its goods in the United 
States, in accordance with section 772(d)(2).
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we further reduced 
CEP by direct selling expenses (credit, warranty, and technical service 
expenses), indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs. 
Finally, we made an adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to 
selling expenses incurred in the United States, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    In this review period, National's date of shipment always either 
was the same as or preceded the date of invoice, and, therefore, we 
have chosen to use date of shipment as date of sale.

Stelco

    Corrosion-resistant steel: We calculated EP based on the packed, 
prepaid or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses, including foreign and U.S. freight,

[[Page 45232]]

brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties, and for discounts and 
rebates, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
    Plate: We calculated EP based on the packed, prepaid or delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions 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 standard Department practice, we used date of 
invoice as date of sale for both corrosion-resistant steel and cut-to-
length plate for Stelco's U.S. and home market sales. Only in the event 
where shipment date was before invoice date did we use the date of 
shipment.

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. 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. Moreover, 
there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market 
situation in the exporting companies' country that would not permit a 
proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices. 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 and, to the extent practicable, at the same 
level of trade as the EP or CEP sale.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, except for 
National, 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, selling, 
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), 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 respondents 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 
the prices at which the respondents sold identical merchandise to 
unaffiliated customers.
    For both classes or kinds of merchandise under review and for all 
respondents (except National), the Department disregarded sales below 
cost of production (``COP'') in the last completed review. See Canadian 
Steel 4th. We therefore have 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 COP. Pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales in the 
home market by all respondents, except National.
    We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market 
with model-specific cost of production figures for the POR. In 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based 
on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in 
producing the foreign like product plus SG&A expenses and all costs and 
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in packed 
condition and ready for shipment. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we 
used home market sales and COP information provided by each respondent 
in its questionnaire responses. We made adjustments where warranted 
based on our findings at verification.
    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of 
foreign like 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. Model-specific COPs were 
compared to 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 were at prices less than COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act. Based on this test, we 
disregarded below-cost sales for both classes or kinds of merchandise 
under review and for all respondents for which we conducted a cost 
investigation.
    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 a previous 
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 
(Mar. 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 sales of merchandise 
identical or most similar to that sold in the United States to be below 
cost or otherwise outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Therefore, 
we match a given U.S. sale to foreign market sales of the next most 
similar model when all sales of the most comparable model fail the cost 
test. 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 Reviews'' 
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 Appendix V of our antidumping questionnaire.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) and 
(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made 
COS

[[Page 45233]]

adjustments to NV 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 paid on EP sales pursuant to 19 CFR 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.

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. 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.
    We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and movement 
expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (a)(6)(B) of the 
Act. We also made adjustments for differences in the costs of 
manufacture for subject merchandise and matching foreign like products, 
attributable to their differing physical characteristics, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for comparison to EP, 
we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit). 
When comparisons were made to EP sales on which commissions were paid, 
but where no commissions were paid on the matching foreign market 
sales, we made adjustments for the respondent's home market indirect 
selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 
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 unaffiliated 
parties. We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and 
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in the 
costs of manufacture for subject merchandise and matching foreign like 
products, attributable to their differing physical characteristics, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for comparison to EP, 
we made COS adjustments to NV 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 to EP sales on which commissions were paid, 
but where no commissions were paid on the matching foreign market 
sales, we made adjustments for the respondent's home market indirect 
selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.410(e).
    During verification we discovered that Dofasco did not incorporate 
all sales order numbers in determining the cost for a few of its 
CONNUMs. We tested three sales order numbers and compared the costs 
associated with these to the reported costs for the respective product. 
We found that the cost calculated for two of the missing sales order 
numbers exceeded the reported costs for their respective products and 
that the cost calculated for the other sales order number was less than 
the cost of its respective product. For those CONNUMs whose sales order 
numbers we tested, we adjusted their cost in accordance with the test 
results. For the remaining CONNUMs, we determine that the use of facts 
available is appropriate, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, 
because, as discovered at verification, Dofasco failed to include all 
sales order numbers in its cost calculation. Where necessary 
information is missing from the record, the Department may apply facts 
available under section 776 of the Act. Further, where that information 
is missing because 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. Dofasco did not act to the best of its ability in 
the reporting of its costs. Even though its sales order number 
documentation was readily available and company officials had knowledge 
of these sales order numbers, Dofasco failed to ensure that all sales 
order numbers were included in its cost calculations. This indicates 
that Dofasco did not act to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's request for information. We are therefore using an adverse 
inference as facts available for this aspect of Dofasco's cost 
calculation. For those CONNUMs whose sales order numbers we did not 
test, as facts available we increased their cost by adding the highest 
differential for the CONNUMs tested. We have also made other 
adjustments to Dofasco's reported costs. We increased the variable cost 
of manufacture by disallowing Dofasco's claimed adjustment for 
byproduct profits and certain sundry expenses. Finally, we have 
excluded capital gains and foreign exchange gains as offsets to 
Dofasco's interest expense. We used adjusted COP and CV values to 
appropriately reflect Dofasco's expenses associated with painting 
services provided by an affiliate. For a full discussion, see 
Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results 
of Review for Dofasco, August 12, 1999.

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). Home 
market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices 
to purchasers in the home market.
    We made adjustments to the starting price, net of rebates, for 
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for comparison to EP, we made COS 
adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct selling expenses 
(credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit 
expense). Because comparisons were made to EP sales on which 
commissions were paid, but no commissions were paid on home market 
sales, we made adjustments for the respondent's home market indirect 
selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.410(e).
    As a result of our verification of MRM's response, we reclassified 
as freight expenses data originally reported as billing adjustments. 
Also as a result of our verification, we made an upwards adjustment to 
MRM's cost of manufacture before performing our sales-below-cost test. 
For a full discussion, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum 
for the Preliminary Results of Review for MRM, August 12, 1999.

National

    We based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
(National made no home market sales to affiliated parties). Home market 
prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
purchasers in the home market.
    We made adjustments to the starting price, net of billing 
adjustments and discounts, for movement expenses in

[[Page 45234]]

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In accordance 
with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), for comparison 
to CEP, we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting home market direct 
selling expenses (credit, warranty, and technical service expenses). We 
also made adjustments for differences in the costs of manufacturing 
subject merchandise and matching foreign like products, attributable to 
their differing physical characteristics, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, we deducted home market indirect 
selling expenses to the extent of U.S. indirect selling expenses 
because all sales in the home market were made at a different level of 
trade than sales in the U.S. market. See the National subsection of the 
``Level of Trade'' section below.

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 
parties (when made at prices determined to be at arms-length, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403) or unaffiliated parties. 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 (a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in 
the costs of manufacture for subject merchandise and matching foreign 
like products, attributable to their differing physical 
characteristics, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In 
accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, for 
comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting home 
market direct selling expenses (credit, advertising, warranties and 
technical services) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, 
advertising, warranties and technical services). There were no 
commissions paid during the POR on either home market sales or U.S. 
sales.
    We made adjustments to COP and CV on corrosion-resistant steel to 
appropriately reflect Stelco's expenses associated with painting 
services provided by an affiliate.

Level of Trade

    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 LOT as U.S. sales. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-
price sale in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed 
value, the level of the sales from which we derive SG&A 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 claimed that more than one LOT 
existed. As discussed below, 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.

CCC

    In both the home market and the United States, CCC reported one 
LOT. CCC reported three customer categories in the home market and two 
in the U.S. market, but CCC claimed that the selling functions it 
performed were the same in each market and did not vary according to 
customer. CCC also reported two channels of distribution, but the 
Department found no difference in the functions performed through these 
channels of distribution. CCC did not claim a LOT adjustment.
    We analyzed the selling functions performed for various customer 
categories and channels of distribution in each market. We found that 
CCC performed substantially similar selling functions regardless of the 
type of home market customer and, therefore, that one level of trade 
existed in the home market. We reached the same conclusion regarding 
the U.S. market.
    Finally, we compared the selling functions performed at the home 
market LOT with those performed at the U.S. LOT and found them 
substantially similar. Thus, no LOT adjustment was appropriate. 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, August 12, 1999.

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 several reported selling 
functions, Dofasco performed only two 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. Additionally, sales to automotive customers 
are sales to end users, while sales to service centers are sales to 
resellers. Thus, sales to service centers and automotive customers were 
made at different stages of marketing. Based upon this fact and the 
different levels of selling functions described above, we preliminarily 
conclude that sales to the automotive customers and service centers are 
made at different 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 selling 
activities and thus represent a distinct stage of marketing. 
Specifically, of the 16 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 customer 
categories differed with respect to nine 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 sales 
to construction and service center customers. Dofasco performed six 
reported selling functions for sales to service centers and only four 
selling

[[Page 45235]]

functions for sales to construction customers. Of these selling 
functions, only one was performed for both service centers and 
construction customers. Additionally, sales to service center customers 
are sales to resellers, while sales to construction customers are sales 
to end users. Thus, sales to service centers and construction customers 
were made at different stages of marketing. Based upon this fact and 
the different levels of selling functions described above, we 
preliminarily conclude that sales to service centers and construction 
customers are made at different levels of trade.
    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. 
Dofasco 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, August 12, 1999.

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 customers in each market. We found that MRM performed substantially 
similar selling functions and activities for both classes of home 
market customers and, therefore, that one level of trade existed in the 
home market. Finally, we compared the selling functions performed at 
the home market LOT with those performed at the U.S. LOT and found them 
substantially similar. Thus, no LOT adjustment was appropriate.

National

    National claimed only one LOT, but reported several different 
distribution channels in both its home market and the United States 
based on classes of customers (OEMs and steel service centers) and the 
existence of warehousing or further manufacturing between National and 
its customers.
    We examined the reported selling functions and found that National 
provides substantially the same selling functions to its home market 
customers regardless of distribution channel. We reached the same 
conclusion regarding the U.S. market.
    National does not provide technical services to its service center 
customers. We did not, however, consider the provision of technical 
services to constitute a substantial difference between distribution 
channels. National warehouses some of its products before shipping to 
customers. Any one sale, however, can contain both warehoused and non-
warehoused products and the Department was unable to determine which 
sales involved more warehoused goods than others.
    We compared the channels of distribution and selling functions in 
the U.S. and home markets. The channels of distribution are similar for 
both markets with National providing substantially similar selling 
functions to both its U.S. and home market customers. However, at the 
level of constructed export sale to the United States, i.e., after 
eliminating from consideration the selling functions associated with 
deductions made under section 772 of the Act, we found that National's 
sales to customers in the United States were made at a different level 
of trade than its sales to home market customers.
    Because there are no sales in the home market made at the same 
level of trade as sales in the United States, we were not able to 
determine whether the difference in level of trade affects price 
comparability. Therefore, we made a constructed export price offset. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(f)(2), we deducted indirect selling 
expenses from NV to the extent of U.S. indirect selling expenses. For a 
further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis with respect to 
National, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of Review for National, August 12, 1999.

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, warranty, 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. We found that the selling 
functions performed for sales to the United States are sufficiently 
similar between the two channels 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.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the period August 1, 1997 through 
July 31, 1998 to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCC........................................................         1.08
Dofasco....................................................         0.11
National...................................................         5.65
Stelco.....................................................         4.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRM........................................................         0.00
Stelco.....................................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to the parties to the proceeding 
calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of 
review within ten days after the date of public announcement, or, if 
there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results of review.
    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

[[Page 45236]]

the first business day thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties 
may be submitted not later than 30 days after publication. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later 
than five days after the date of filing of case briefs. 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment 
rates for each class or kind of merchandise based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales 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 kind of merchandise made during the POR.
    If the revocation is made final for MRM, it will apply to all 
unliquidated entries of this merchandise produced by MRM, exported to 
the United States and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption, on or after August 1, 1998, which will be the effective 
date of the revocation from the order for MRM.
    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 no deposit will be required for firms with de 
minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) for 
exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the less than fair 
value (LTFV) investigation or a 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 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'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation, which was 18.71 percent for corrosion-resistant steel 
products and 61.88 percent for plate (see Amended Final Determinations 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Orders: Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada, 60 FR 49582 (Sep. 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 sections 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) 
and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: August 10, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-21568 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P