[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 175 (Friday, September 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54481-54488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

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


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Recission of 
Reviews in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative reviews and recission of reviews 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 (CORE) and certain cut-to-length carbon 
steel plate (CTL plate) from Canada. These reviews cover two 
manufacturers/exporters of CORE and three manufacturers/exporters of 
CTL plate, for the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.
    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

[[Page 54482]]

antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price 
(EP) and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Strollo at (202) 482-5255 
(Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco Inc. (collectively, Dofasco)), Jacqueline 
Arrowsmith at (202) 482-4052 (Continuous Colour Coat, Ltd. (CCC)), Mark 
Hoadley at (202) 482-0666 (Gerdau MRM Steel (MRM) and National Steel 
Co. (National)), Elfi Blum-Page at (202) 482-0197 (Stelco Inc. (Stelco) 
and Clayson Steel Co. (Clayson)), or Maureen Flannery at (202) 482-
3020, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
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. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 
(April 1999).

Background

    On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 44162) the antidumping duty orders on CORE and CTL 
plate from Canada. On August 23, 1999, Metaux Russel Inc. (Russel) 
requested a review of its exports of CTL plate. On August 30, 1999, 
Clayson requested a review of its exports of CTL plate. On August 31, 
1999, National requested a review of its exports of CORE. On August 31, 
1999, Dofasco requested a review of its exports of CORE.
    On August 31, 1999, 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 Stelco's, 
CCC's, Dofasco's, and Sorevco's exports of CORE.
    On August 31, 1999, petitioners also requested a review of Stelco's 
exports of CTL plate.
    On October 1, 1999, in accordance with section 751 of the Act, we 
published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of Stelco, 
CCC, Dofasco, Sorevco, and National, for CORE, and Stelco, Clayson, and 
Russel for CTL plate covering the period August 1, 1998 through July 
31, 1999 (64 FR 53318). In addition, on November 4, 1999, we published 
a notice of initiation of administrative review of MRM for CTL plate 
covering the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999 (64 FR 60161).
    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 April 27, 2000, the Department 
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary 
results in these reviews to July 21, 2000. 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, 65 FR 24678.
    On June 28, 2000, the Department published a second notice of 
extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in these 
reviews from July 21, 2000 to August 30, 2000. 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, 65 FR 39867.
    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) CORE, and (2) CTL 
plate.
    The first class or kind, CORE, 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, CTL 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

[[Page 54483]]

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 sales and 
cost information provided by MRM, CCC, and Clayson using standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspections of the 
manufacturers' facilities and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Where appropriate, the Department made adjustments 
to the data provided in its model match and margin calculation programs 
for these preliminary results based on information obtained during 
verification. 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 November 2, 1999 antidumping 
questionnaires.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than NV, 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.

Recission of Review for National and Stelco

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 213, National withdrew its request for review 
for its exports of CORE, and requested that the Department rescind the 
review in part. Respondents CCC, Dofasco, and Sorevco objected to 
National's request for the rescission of its review since the request 
was not made in a timely fashion, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) of 
the Department's regulations. We determined that, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Secretary may 
extend the time limit to request a recission of review if the Secretary 
decides it is reasonable to do so. We found that it was reasonable to 
extend the time limit in this case as National's withdrawal of its 
request for review was submitted before the majority of National's 
questionnaire response was filed. Therefore, we rescinded the review 
with respect to National. See Memorandum for Edward Yang from Mike 
Strollo through Maureen Flannery: Request for Rescission of Review: 
National Steel Corporation (National), dated March 2, 2000.
    In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), petitioners withdrew 
their request for review with respect to Stelco's exports of both CORE 
and CTL plate on October 14, 1999. Section 351.213(d)(1) allows the 
Department to rescind a review if the party that requested the review 
withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the 
initiation notice. The Department published the initiation notice on 
October 1, 1999 (64 FR 60161). Petitioners were the only party to 
request a review of Stelco's sales. We hereby rescind the review of 
Stelco with respect to its sales of CORE and CTL plate.

Determination Not To Revoke in Part the Order on CTL Plate

    On August 31, 1999, MRM submitted a request, in accordance with 
section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations, that the Department 
revoke the order covering CTL plate from Canada with respect to its 
sales of this merchandise.
    In accordance with section 351.222(b)(2)(iii) of the regulations, 
this request was accompanied by a certification from MRM that it had 
not sold the subject merchandise at less than NV for a period of three 
consecutive reviews, which included this review period, and would not 
do so in the future. The Department conducted verification of MRM's 
responses for this period of review.
    We have preliminarily decided not to revoke the antidumping order 
with respect to MRM. On May 28, 1998, the Department initiated an anti-
circumvention investigation of MRM based upon information that MRM was 
circumventing the antidumping duty order on CTL plate by adding small 
amounts of boron to plate products covered by the order and importing 
such merchandise as alloy steel products. Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From Canada; Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry on 
Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 29179 (May 28, 1998). We find that the 
issue of whether a company is engaged in circumventing an antidumping 
duty order is relevant to whether that company has satisfied the 
criteria for revocation under section 351.222 of the Department's 
regulations. In light of the information before the Department 
concerning MRM's alleged circumvention of the order, we find that MRM 
has not satisfied the requirements for revocation given that the issue 
of MRM's alleged circumvention of the order remains unresolved. 
Although the Court of International Trade issued an injunction with 
respect to the Department's anti-circumvention proceeding in Co-Steel 
Lasco and Gerdau MRM Steel v. United States, Ct. No. 98-08-02684, on 
August 11, 2000 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarily 
reversed that injunction. Co-Steel Lasco, et al. v. United States, App. 
No. 99-1339 (Aug. 11, 2000).

Determination on the Basis of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that: ``If an interested 
party or any other person--(A) withholds information that

[[Page 54484]]

has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority 
shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    On November 2, 1999, we issued a questionnaire to Russel. Russel 
did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Accordingly, the use 
of facts available is required, under section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Because Russel has provided no information whatsoever, sections 782(d) 
and (e) are inapplicable.
    Furthermore, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may draw an inference that is adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available. Section 776(b)(1) of the Act states that adverse inferences 
may be based on secondary information, including information drawn from 
the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative 
review, or other information placed on the record. Because Russel did 
not respond to our requests for information, we find that it has failed 
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with 
the Department's request for information, and we have drawn an adverse 
inference in selecting from the facts otherwise available, in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information using 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (SAA) provides 
that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA, at 
870.
    In this case, the adverse facts available rate we are using is the 
highest dumping margin calculated in any segment of this proceeding, 
68.70 percent. This margin was calculated for Stelco in the 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 
(Sept. 26, 1995), and has been the ``all others rate'' throughout the 
proceeding for CTL plate. Had Russel not requested a review of its 
exports, we would have instructed Customs to automatically liquidate 
Russel's entries at this all others rate. We can reasonably conclude 
that if Russel's margin would have been lower than the all others rate, 
it would have participated in this review. Accordingly, because Russel 
did not submit a response, we conclude that its calculated rate would 
have been equal to, if not greater than, the all others rate. 
Therefore, we conclude that this rate is probative of Russel's 
experience. Finally, there is no evidence on the record of 
circumstances indicating that the margin we are using as facts 
available in this review is not appropriate. In fact, because Russel 
did not respond to our questionnaire, we have no means of comparing the 
circumstances of its sales, if it had any, to those of Stelco in the 
investigation. Therefore, we have corroborated the selected rate ``to 
the extent practicable'' and the requirements of section 776(c) of the 
Act are satisfied.

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. For certain sales, we used CEP 
because the sale was made in the United States.

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, and U.S. Customs duties), 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
    In accordance with the presumption of our regulations, we used date 
of invoice as date of sale for CCC's U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).

Clayson

    The Department calculated EP for Clayson based on packed, 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), pursuant to section 
772(c)(2) of the Act. As a result of our verification of Clayson's 
response, we made adjustments to the amounts reported for brokerage and 
handling, and for freight. See Memorandum to the File from Elfi Blum-
Page, Sales and Cost Verification of Clayson Steel Co. (August 30, 
2000).
    In accordance with the presumption of our regulations, we used date 
of invoice as date of sale for Clayson's U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 
351.401(i).

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 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 Not to Revoke in Part, 65 FR 9243 (February 24, 2000) 
(Canadian Steel 5th). See Dofasco Analysis Memo for a complete analysis 
of the facts regarding the combination of these two respondents for 
this review.
    Dofasco makes certain sales in the United States through its U.S. 
affiliate Dofasco U.S.A. (DUS). The sales involving DUS are either made 
through long-term contracts or are spot sales. Evidence on the record 
indicates that, for spot sales, while DUS is involved, the sales are 
made by Dofasco. We are treating these sales as EP sales. Based on 
evidence on the record, we conclude that the long-term contract sales 
are made by DUS and should be classified as CEP sales. See the 
proprietary Memorandum to the File from Mike Strollo through Maureen 
Flannery: Analysis for Dofasco, Inc. and Sorevco, Inc. (Dofasco) for 
the Preliminary Results of the Sixth Administrative Review of 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada, August 30, 
2000 (Dofasco Analysis Memo).
    The Department calculated EP and CEP 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. In 
addition, for CEP sales, we deducted indirect selling expenses incurred 
in the United States and Canada associated with economic activities in 
the United States from the starting price. As in prior reviews, certain 
Dofasco sales have undergone

[[Page 54485]]

minor further processing in the United States as a condition of sale to 
the customer. 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 for 
both EP and CEP sales. See Canadian Steel 5th.
    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 prefer. 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 the U.S. 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 the date of order acknowledgment. We also 
used shipment date for sales of secondary products for which there is 
no order acknowledgment. When there was a change in price, we used the 
date of Dofasco's order reacknowledgment 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.

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) pursuant to 
section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
    In accordance with the presumption of our regulations, we used date 
of invoice as date of sale for MRM's U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).

Normal Value

    The Department determines the viability of the home market and the 
comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of home market 
and U.S. sales. We determined that ``the aggregate quantity * * * of 
the foreign like product sold by an exporter or producer in a country 
is 5 percent or more of the aggregate quantity * * * of its sales of 
the subject merchandise to the United States.'' 19 CFR 351.404. We, 
therefore, have determined for each company that the home market is a 
viable market, pursuant to section 351.404. 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 have 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.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value (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 arms-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 Clayson, the Department disregarded sales below 
cost of production (COP) in the last completed review. See Canadian 
Steel 5th. 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. Therefore, we 
initiated COP investigations of sales in the home market for CCC, 
Dofasco, and MRM. For Clayson, petitioners filed an allegation of sales 
below cost on June 25, 2000, and we determined that there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Clayson was selling CTL 
plate in Canada at prices below COP, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, we initiated an investigation 
to determine whether Clayson's sales of CTL plate were made at prices 
below the COP during POR. See Memorandum to Edward Yang from Elfi Blum-
Page through Maureen Flannery: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Canada: Initiation of Sales-Below-Cost Inquiry, dated June 2, 
2000.
    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.
    We compared the weighted-average COPs to home market sales of the 
foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in 
order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below 
the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, 
we compared the COP to home market prices, less any movement charges, 
discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
    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. Because we compared prices to 
POR-average costs, we also determined that the below-cost prices did 
not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 
Based on this test, we

[[Page 54486]]

disregarded below-cost sales for both classes or kinds of merchandise 
under review and for all respondents.
    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.
    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We 
calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market customers. 
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 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).

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 CCC's home market indirect selling 
expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.410(e).
    In accordance with the presumption of our regulations, we used 
invoice date as sale date for all of CCC's home market sales. See 19 
CFR 351.401(i).

Clayson

    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 (Clayson made no home market sales to affiliated parties.) 
Home market prices were based on the packed, delivered prices to 
purchasers in the home market.
    We made adjustments to the starting price, net of discounts, 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, commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit expense, commissions).
    In accordance with the presumption of our regulations, we used date 
of invoice as date of sale for Clayson's home market sales. See 19 CFR 
351.401(i).
    As a result of our verification of Clayson's response, we 
recalculated freight expenses for home market and U.S. movement 
expenses. Also as a result of our verification, we made adjustments to 
Clayson's COP regarding scrap, G&A, and interest before performing our 
sales-below-cost test. For a full discussion, see Memorandum to the 
File: Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Review for Clayson, 
August 30, 2000.

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 Dofasco's home market indirect selling 
expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.410(e). In addition, we recalculated Dofasco's variable cost of 
manufacture by deducting Dofasco's claimed adjustment for byproduct 
profits on sales of industrial coke.
    For comparison to CEP, we made COS adjustments to NV by deducting 
home market direct selling expenses (credit, royalties, and warranty 
expenses). When comparisons were made to CEP sales on which commissions 
were paid, but where no commissions were paid on the matching foreign 
market sales, we made adjustments for Dofasco's home market indirect 
selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.410(e).
    Based upon our preliminary analysis of Dofasco's sales process, we 
have determined that Dofasco's sales fall within four sales types. 
Depending on the type of sale, we used order acknowledgment date, 
contract date, or shipment date as the date of sale; refer to the 
``United States Price'' section above. For a full discussion, see 
Memorandum to the File from Mike Strollo through Maureen Flannery: 
Analysis for Dofasco, Inc. and Sorevco, Inc. (Dofasco) for the 
Preliminary Results of the Sixth Administrative Review of Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada, August 30, 2000 
(Dofasco Analysis Memo).

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). We added to NV U.S. selling commissions. 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 
MRM's home market indirect selling expenses to offset these U.S. 
commissions pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    In accordance with the presumption of our regulations, we used date 
of

[[Page 54487]]

invoice as date of sale for MRM's home market sales. See 19 CFR 
351.401(i).

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 CV, 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 sales were made at 
more than one LOT. As discussed below, to evaluate Dofasco's LOT 
claims, 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 two 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 in the home 
market and two in the United States. 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 30, 2000.

Clayson

    In both the home market and the United States, Clayson reported one 
LOT and one distribution system with one class of customer in the home 
market, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and one class of 
customer, OEMs, in the U.S. market. 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.

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. We examined narrative descriptions of the 
various functions performed and the extent to which each function is 
performed in order to gauge the significance of each function.
    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, 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. For 
example, of the 16 reported selling functions, Dofasco performed only 
seven of the same or similar selling functions for both automotive and 
construction customers. Dofasco's functions for these two customer 
categories differed with respect to nine other activities. Therefore, 
given these types of 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 functions for sales to construction customers. Of these selling 
functions, only one was performed for both service centers and 
construction customers. More importantly, 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, 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 from 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 U.S. 
LOTs are identical to those of the comparison market.
    For those Dofasco sales classified as CEP, which were some of the 
automotive customers, we reexamined the three U.S. LOTs after excluding 
those selling functions performed in the United States. We found that 
for these automotive customers, two selling functions were performed in 
the United States. Thus, after excluding selling functions performed in 
the United States, CEP sales to automotive customers were identical to 
EP sales to

[[Page 54488]]

automotive customers and to home market sales to automotive customers 
except for these two functions. We find that these two functions do not 
account, quantitatively or qualitatively, for a significant portion of 
the sales functions provided to these customers. Therefore, we find 
that these CEP sales do not constitute a separate LOT from EP sales to 
automotive customers or home market sales to automotive customers.
    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 Dofasco Analysis Memo.

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.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the period August 1, 1998 through 
July 31, 1999 to be as follows:

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCC........................................................         2.94
Dofasco....................................................         0.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRM........................................................         0.00
Clayson....................................................        10.81
Russel.....................................................        68.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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.
    Furthermore, upon publication of the final results of review, 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 these 
reviews, but covered in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigations 
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'' 
rates established in the LTFV investigations, which were 18.71 percent 
for corrosion-resistant steel products and 68.70 percent for CTL 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 30, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-23127 Filed 9-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P