[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18287-18290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8699]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-822, A-122-823]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination 
Not To Revoke in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of amended final 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 and 
determination not to revoke in part.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending our final results of the 1997-98 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Certain 
Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Products and Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From Canada and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 
published on February 24, 2000 (65 FR 9243), to reflect the correction 
of ministerial errors made in the model match and margin calculation in 
the final results for corrosion resistant carbon steel flat products. 
We are publishing this amendment to the final results in accordance 
with 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum (Stelco, Inc. (Stelco)) and 
Michael Strollo (Dofasco,Inc. and Sorevco, Inc., collectively Dofasco), 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0197 and (202) 482-5255, 
respectively.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the

[[Page 18288]]

Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 19, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (64 FR 45228) the preliminary results 
of its 1997-98 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. We published the final 
results of review on February 24, 2000 (65 FR 9243).
    On February 28, 2000 and on March 6, 2000, we received timely 
allegations from petitioners (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) that the 
Department made ministerial errors in the final results of reviews 
regarding Stelco and Dofasco, respectively. On March 6, 2000 we also 
received a timely allegation from Dofasco that the Department made 
clerical errors in the final results. On March 8, 2000 we received 
rebuttal comments from Dofasco.

Scope of Review

    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 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, and 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, 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, 0.3 to 0.8 (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.

Amended Final Results

Dofasco

    On March 6, 2000, petitioners and Dofasco alleged that the 
Department made ministerial errors in calculating the final antidumping 
margin with respect to Dofasco, one of the respondents in the review of 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada.
    Comment 1: Exclusion of sales under the arm's length test.
    Petitioners argue that the Department did not exclude sales that 
failed the arm's length test from our model match program. Dofasco 
agrees with petitioners.
    Department's Position: We agree with both petitioners and Dofasco 
that sales that failed the arm's length test were incorrectly included 
in our model match program and should have been excluded. Therefore, we 
have made the appropriate changes to the model match program to exclude 
these sales.
    Comment 2: Credit expenses.
    Petitioners allege that the Department erroneously calculated 
Dofasco's credit expenses. Dofasco agrees with petitioners in this 
regard. For a further

[[Page 18289]]

discussion of this issue, please refer to the Memorandum to the File 
from Mike Strollo through Maureen Flannery: Analysis of Dofasco, Inc. 
and Sorevco, Inc. (Dofasco) for the amended final results of the fifth 
administrative review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products 
from Canada, dated March 30, 2000.
    Department's Position: We agree with both petitioners and Dofasco 
that we erroneously calculated credit expense and have made the 
relevant corrections to the programming language in the margin 
calculation program.
    Comment 3: The Department miscalculated actual freight expenses 
when conducting the arm's length test.
    Dofasco alleges that the Department tested for actual freight 
(ACTFRTH) to identify Dofasco's prepaid and charge transactions where 
ACTFRTH was not reported. However, Dofasco argued that ACTFRTH is never 
missing, but rather is reported as zero for such transactions. Thus, as 
a result, Dofasco alleges that movement expense (MOVEH) was not 
calculated correctly for these transactions. Petitioners did not 
comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Dofasco and have made the 
appropriate corrections to the programming language in the arm's length 
program.
    Comment 4: The Department's arm's length test.
    Dofasco argues that the Department improperly conducted the arm's 
length test by comparing the prices of the affiliated transactions to 
the prices of the unaffiliated transactions to the same customer 
instead of to the weighted-average net price for each product sold to 
all unaffiliated customers. Dofasco contends that this was only 
possible since all of Dofasco's customers have since become 
unaffiliated during the extended review period. Petitioners did not 
comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Dofasco and have made the 
appropriate corrections to the programming language in the arm's length 
program.
    Comment 5: The Department is not using the same home market sales 
dataset as submitted by Dofasco on February 3, 1999.
    Dofasco argues that, although the Department is now using a file 
with the correct file name, and with the correct number of records, the 
original data submitted by Dofasco and Sorevco was processed prior to 
its use in these programs without any explanation by the Department. 
Dofasco concludes that, as a result, the model match program was not 
run properly. As evidence of Dofasco's claim, it points to the 
following: (1) The log of the model match program was sorted by SALEDTH 
instead of first by CONNUMH then by SALEDTH as Dofasco claims its data 
was sorted; (2) the number of home market models used to create the 
product concordance is 12,024 when Dofasco runs the data it submitted 
(i.e., the number of CONNUMH-MONTHH combinations in the home market 
sales data after the cost test has been performed as well as removing 
other unwanted sales) instead of 12,135 home market models that 
appeared in the log of the model match program; (3) there were 
differences in the number of pointers created by the model match 
program using Dofasco's February 3, 1999 data; and (4) the product 
concordance from the output of the model match program demonstrates 
that the data used by the Department for the final results was 
different than that submitted by Dofasco in its February 3, 1999 
supplemental response. Dofasco contends that, as further evidence that 
the Department has sorted the data it submitted on February 3, 1999 
prior to its use in these programs, the margin calculation program 
generates 14,205 home market normal values whereas Dofasco claims its 
submission only generates 14,105 home market normal values. Petitioners 
did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Dofasco. For the Final 
Results, the Department used the datasets Dofasco submitted in its 
February 3, 1999 submission. The fact that the data was sorted 
differently by the Department prior to its use in the program does not 
have an impact on the manner in which the model match program runs. In 
addition, Dofasco has admitted that the data it submitted on February 
3, 1999 is, in fact, the same home market data file which was used by 
the Department for the Final Results of review. Finally, we can not and 
do not know the exact contents of the model match program that Dofasco 
is running. This may account for the differences between the number of 
home market models, pointers, product concordance, and home market 
normal values in their program and ours. Therefore, as a result, we 
have not made any changes to the program or the data used by the 
Department to run the model match program.
    Comment 6: The Department incorrectly calculated weighted-average 
production costs and performed the cost test by PRODUCTH.
    Dofasco argues that the Department correctly recombined Dofasco's 
and Sorevco's production costs by PRODUCTH; however, the Department 
omitted certain steps in its recalculation of the weighted-average 
production costs. Dofasco contends that the Department failed to 
eliminate duplicate records from Dofasco's and Sorevco's production 
costs, and that the Department should calculate a weighted average by 
production quantity. In addition, the Department erroneously conducted 
the cost test by PRODUCTH rather than CONNUMH. In each instance, 
Dofasco provided programming language to solve the identified problems. 
Petitioners did not comment on the issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Dofasco, in part. We agree 
that production costs were not weight-averaged, and we agree that we 
performed the cost test by PRODUCTH rather than CONNUMH; however, we 
disagree that the programming language that Dofasco submitted to 
rectify the alleged problems is appropriate. The language that Dofasco 
proposes fails to solve the problems identified. Dofasco states that we 
correctly recombined Dofasco's and Sorevco's costs by PRODUCT. Then, 
Dofasco claims that we should delete CONNUM from the model matching 
program at lines 191, 308 and 322. Following these and other changes, 
Dofasco claims that we should perform the cost test by CONNUMH rather 
than PRODUCTH. However, Dofasco has already claimed that we should 
eliminate references to CONNUM in earlier lines of code. These changes 
make it impossible to run the cost test by CONNUMH, as is the 
Department's standard practice. Therefore, in order to comply with the 
Department's standard practice of running the cost test by CONNUMH, we 
have determined that additional lines of code are needed in the model 
match program. See Memorandum to The File from Mike Strollo through 
Maureen Flannery: Analysis of Dofasco, Inc. and Sorevco, Inc. (Dofasco) 
for the amended final results of the fifth administrative review of 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada, dated March 
24, 2000. Therefore, for these final results of review, we have 
recalculated the weighted-average production costs for Dofasco and 
Sorevco and subsequently performed the cost test by CONNUM.
    Comment 7: The Department failed to convert the recalculated 
CREDITU to U.S. dollars when the transaction was reported in Canadian 
dollars.
    Dofasco argues that the Department failed to convert the 
recalculated CREDITU to U.S. dollars when the transaction was reported 
in Canadian dollars. Dofasco proposed programming language to rectify 
this problem.

[[Page 18290]]

Petitioners did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Dofasco and have made the 
appropriate corrections to the programming language in the margin 
calculation program.
    Comment 8: A more fundamental error exists in the Department's 
recalculation of credit expenses.
    Dofasco alleges that the Department made a more fundamental error 
in the calculation of its U.S. credit expenses. Dofasco contends that 
the Department must correct the methodology it used to recalculate 
these expenses.
    Petitioners, however, argue that the comment submitted by Dofasco 
is unrelated to any ministerial error comments contained in 
petitioners' March 6, 2000 submission, and as such, does not constitute 
a reply pursuant to section 351.224(c)(3) of the Department's 
regulations. Instead, petitioners contend that this is simply an 
untimely submission of a new ministerial error comment pursuant to 
section 351.224(c)(1) of the Department's regulations and should not be 
considered by the Department.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that Dofasco's 
claim is not a rebuttal comment, but instead, an untimely submission of 
a new ministerial error comment. Therefore, in accordance with section 
351.224(d) of the Department's regulations, we have not considered this 
allegation for these amended final results.
    As a result of the corrections made to the arm's length, model 
match, and margin calculation programs, the margin for corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada for Dofasco has 
changed from 0.16 percent to 0.20 percent.

Stelco

    On February 28, 2000, petitioners alleged that the Department made 
ministerial errors in calculating the final antidumping duty margin 
with respect to Stelco, one of the respondents in the review of 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada. Petitioners 
alleged that the Department made certain errors in its computer 
programming language for the model match and margin calculation 
programs, when implementing its adjustment to G&A for Baycoat G&A 
expenses in the cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV) 
calculations. Petitioners argue that the Department should have renamed 
the G&A variable when making the Baycoat adjustment, to avoid 
distortion of the value of Stelco's G&A.
    We agree with petitioners that we incorrectly calculated the 
revised G&A expenses for Stelco by not renaming the G&A variable in our 
COP and CV calculations after adjusting for Baycoat's G&A expenses. We 
have made the pertinent corrections in the programming language of our 
model match and margin calculation programs, and renamed the respective 
variables to RGNA and RGNACV.
    As a result of these corrections, the margin for corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada for Stelco has changed 
from 0.68 percent to 4.24 percent.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Upon review of the submitted allegations, the Department has 
determined that the following margins exist for the period August 1, 
1997, through July 31, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosion Resistant Steel:
  CCC......................................................         1.01
  Dofasco..................................................         0.20
  National.................................................         5.65
  Stelco...................................................         4.24
Cut-to-Length Plate:
  MRM......................................................         0.00
  Stelco...................................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment 
purposes, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total 
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the 
total quantity of sales examined. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these amended final results 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)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each reviewed 
company will be the rates stated above (except that no deposit 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 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 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; and (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 of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Anti-
Dumping Orders: Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 60 FR 49582 
(September 26, 1995)). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative reviews.
    These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR 351.213 
and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: March 30, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8699 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P