[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14883-14887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-815 & A-580-816]


Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews: Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea

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

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final results of antidumping duty 
administrative reviews and intent not to revoke antidumping duty order 
in part.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is amending its 
final results of reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain 
cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from 
Korea, published January 16, 2001, to reflect the correction of 
ministerial errors in those final results. The period covered by these 
amended final results is August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Panfeld (the POSCO Group), 
Marlene Hewitt (Dongbu) and (Union), or James Doyle, Enforcement Group 
III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202-482-0172 (Panfeld), 202-482-
1385 (Hewitt), or 202-482-0159 (Doyle), fax 202-482-1388.

[[Page 14884]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(``Act'') are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, 
the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations at 19 C.F.R. part 351 (1999).

Scope of the Reviews

    The review of ``certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products'' 
covers cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled products, of 
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether 
or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic 
substances, 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 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 
7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530, 
7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550, 7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 
7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 
7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 
7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 
7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 
7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015, 7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 
7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 
7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this review are 
flat-rolled products of nonrectangular 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 
certain shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel 
coil that is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 
0.002 percent, is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches 
in width, and has an ultra flat, isotropic surface.
    The review of ``certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products'' covers 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 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, 7217.90.5090. Included in 
this review are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular 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.
    These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. 
Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

    On January 16, 2001, the Department published the final results of 
its administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain 
cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from 
Korea, for the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999. See Certain 
Cold-rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 
3540 (hereinafter ``Final Results''). The reviews covered shipments of 
subject merchandise by Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (``Dongbu''), Union Steel 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Union''), and Pohang Iron and Steel Co., 
Ltd. (``POSCO''). (POSCO and the companies collapsed with POSCO (Pohang 
Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS'') and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd. 
(``PSI''), are collectively referred to as ``the POSCO Group.'')
    On January 22, 2001, Union submitted clerical error allegations 
with respect to its margin calculations, and Petitioners submitted 
clerical error allegations with respect to POSCO's margin calculations. 
On January 23, 2001, POSCO submitted clerical error allegations with 
respect to its margin calculations. On January 29, 2001, Petitioners 
and POSCO submitted comments on each other's respective allegations. 
The allegations and comments were filed in a timely fashion.

Union

    Comment 1: Union alleges that the Department committed a clerical 
error, when, in implementing the fungibility principle adopted in the 
Final Results, it failed to employ a methodology which eliminates the 
double-counting of imputed credit expenses. Union proposes to the 
Department a methodology that it says is correct and consistent with 
the Department's statements in the Final Results. Union argues that the 
first step in the Department's calculation of the U.S. Indirect Selling 
Expense (``ISEs'') interest factor should be to identify the amount of 
actual interest expense allocated to Cold-Rolled (``CR'') and 
Corrosion-Resistant (``CORE'') as shown in Union's calculations. Only 
after identifying the amount of interest

[[Page 14885]]

expense allocated can the Department perform an ``apples-to-apples'' 
calculation and deduct the amount of imputed credit expenses calculated 
for CR and CORE to determine if there is any basis to ``add any 
remainder to the pool of ISEs.'' Union claims that with its proposed 
methodology, the Department would find that Union's ISE for CR and CORE 
consist solely of non-financial ISEs.
    Petitioners state this clerical error allegation argues the merit 
of an alternative methodology for calculating Union's imputed credit 
expenses, and that Union concedes that its argument is methodological, 
not ministerial. Petitioners conclude that as the alleged error is not 
ministerial, but methodological, Union's allegation with respect to the 
Department's methodology must be rejected.
    Department's position: After reviewing both parties' comments, we 
have determined that the above mentioned points raised by Union do not 
meet the definition of ministerial error under section 751(h) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). The Department's decision of whether to 
calculate imputed credit expenses for all merchandise when correcting 
for double counting is not a mistake of ``addition or subtraction or 
other arithmetic function'' or ``other similar types of unintentional 
error'' within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). Instead, this 
allegation suggests a distinct methodology for correcting this double-
counting. See Final Results, 66 FR at 3541 and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memo at Comment 1.
    Comment 2: Union argues that the Department erred in its 
calculation of Union's U.S. indirect selling expense (``ISE'') factor. 
Specifically, the Department failed to eliminate the double-counting of 
actual interest expenses and imputed credit expenses in its calculation 
by first subtracting imputed credit from net interest expenses and then 
adding imputed credit back to net interest expenses rather then adding 
the indirect selling expenses to the remaining interest expenses.
    Petitioners agreed with Union that the Department made a clerical 
error in its calculations of Union's U.S. ISEs. The Department 
erroneously both subtracted from and added U.S. imputed credit expenses 
to the financial expense component of DKA's indirect selling expenses 
and thus failed to account for any double-counting of credit. 
Petitioners stated that in order to correct this error, the Department 
should correct its definitions of ``interest factor'' and ``ISE 
Factor'' such that non-financial ISEs are included in the ISEs 
calculations. Non-financial ISEs are presently omitted from the 
Department's calculations.
    Department's Position: We reviewed the allegation and response and 
we agree with Union and Petitioners that there is an unintentional 
error in our calculation of Union's U.S. ISE Factor. Specifically, when 
the Department attempted to eliminate the double counting of imputed 
credit expenses in its calculation, it did not intend to both add and 
subtract U.S. imputed credit expense in the calculation. See Final 
Results, 66 FR at 3541 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at 
Comment 1. Accordingly, we recalculated the interest factor by 
deducting the imputed credit expense from the interest factor. We then 
recalculated the U.S. indirect selling expenses by using the corrected 
interest factor. We have corrected both our ISE calculations and the 
implementing programming language. See, the Memorandum from Marlene 
Hewitt to Edward Yang, dated February 16, 2001.
    Comment 3: Union alleges that the Department erred by applying its 
VAT correction factor to local sales when calculating home market 
credit expenses. Specifically, Union argues that the Department should 
not have applied the VAT correction factor to local sales because the 
credit expense for local sales was calculated on a shipment by shipment 
basis. Instead, Union points out that it is the Department's practice 
to only apply the VAT correction factor to home market credit expenses 
reported using the receivables turnover methodology.
    Petitioners stated that they agree with Union that the Department 
made a clerical error by applying its VAT correction factor for home 
market credit expenses to Union's local sales.
    Department's Position: We agree with Union and Petitioners that the 
Department inadvertently applied its correction factor for calculating 
home market credit expenses to local sales. We have corrected the 
program to distinguish between local sales and home market sales that 
reported credit expense using the receivables-turnover method and 
applied the home credit expense only to home market sales that were 
reported using the receivables-turnover method. See, the Memorandum 
from Marlene Hewitt to Edward Yang, dated February 16, 2001.

POSCO

    Comment 1: POSCO alleges that the Department committed a clerical 
error when, in implementing the fungibility principle adopted in the 
Final Results, (66 FR at 3541), it failed to allocate the U.S. 
affiliate's interest expenses to all activities (sales and investment) 
of the U.S. affiliate. Specifically, POSCO argues that the Department 
allocated the total interest expenses to the total sales, whereas the 
affiliate also has significant investment activities i.e. a joint 
venture. POSCO concludes that the Department should recalculate 
interest expense also considering the investment activities of 
affiliates.
    Petitioners argue that the asserted ``ministerial error'' raised by 
POSCO is not the type of unintentional error listed in section 735(e) 
of the Act or 19 CFR 351.224(f) of the regulations. POSCO does not 
point to any incorrect operations of addition, subtraction, or any 
other arithmetic function. Instead, the issue POSCO raises deals with 
what methodology best allocates POSAM's U.S. interest expenses to 
subject merchandise. According to Petitioners, the Department's 
decision, which correctly assigned the financial indirect selling 
expenses of POSAM to the sales revenues that are absorbing those costs 
is not an unintentional ministerial error, but is instead an 
intentional methodological decision which the Department took after 
weighing POSCO's extensive briefing on this topic.
    Department's Position: After reviewing POSCO's and Petitioners 
comments, we have determined that the above mentioned points raised by 
POSCO do not meet the definition of ministerial error under section 
751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). The Department's decision of 
whether to allocate interest expense to the activities of the joint 
venture is not a mistake of ``addition or subtraction or other 
arithmetic function'' or ``other similar types of unintentional error'' 
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). Instead, this allegation 
suggests a distinct methodology for including interest expenses 
incurred by U.S. affiliates in the pool of U.S. ISEs. For a full 
discussion of the Department's methodological choice see the Final 
Results 66 FR at 3541 and its accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.
    Comment 2: POSCO alleges that the Department committed a clerical 
error by failing to correct for double-counting of imputed credit 
expenses and inventory financing expenses. Specifically, when the 
Department adjusted interest expenses to avoid double-counting, it 
subtracted only those imputed credit expenses associated with subject 
merchandise and failed to subtract imputed credit expenses associated 
with non-subject

[[Page 14886]]

merchandise. In addition, POSCO argues that under the fungibility 
principle that the Department adopted for its Final Result, (66 FR at 
3541 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1), all 
debt and equity finance all assets. Thus, the interest expense is by 
definition attributable, in part, to financing U.S. inventories. 
However, the Department's calculations erroneously failed to eliminate 
this portion of expense from the total interest expense.
    Petitioners argue that the Department's decision not to deduct 
imputed credit expenses for non-subject merchandise was an intentional 
methodological decision, not a ministerial error. POSCO points to no 
arithmetic error or clerical error to support a ministerial error 
allegation. Instead, Petitioners assert that the issue POSCO raises 
deals with what methodology best accounts for imputed credit expenses 
on non-subject merchandise in U.S. interest expenses in order to avoid 
double-counting. POSCO's argument that the Department must deduct 
imputed credit expenses on non-subject merchandise from U.S. interest 
expense in order to avoid double-counting is wrong. According to 
Petitioners, the Department's margin calculations do not deduct imputed 
or actual credit expenses related to non-subject merchandise from U.S. 
price as suggested by POSCO. The Department should refuse to consider 
POSCO's second alleged ``ministerial error'' claim.
    Department's Position: After reviewing POSCO's comments, we have 
determined that the above mentioned points raised by POSCO do not meet 
the definition of ministerial error in section 751(h) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.224(f). The Department's decision that no portion of U.S. 
interest expenses should be segregated and attributed to non-subject 
merchandise sales is not a mistake of ``addition or subtraction or 
other arithmetic function'' or ``other similar types of unintentional 
error'' within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). See Final Results, 66 
FR at 3541 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 1.
    Comment 3: Petitioners allege that the Department committed a 
clerical error when it attempted to offset total interest with interest 
income in the U.S. ISE calculations. Specifically, Petitioners argue 
that the Department used the total interest income as an offset, 
whereas it should have limited the offset to short-term interest 
income, as it is the Department's longstanding policy to allow an 
offset only for interest income that is short-term in nature.
    POSCO argues that the Department correctly and appropriately relied 
on net interest expense as the starting point for calculating the 
interest expense component of POSCO's U.S. indirect selling expense. As 
indicated in the Decision Memorandum, the Department's calculation of 
U.S. indirect selling expenses includes all ``money'', i.e. interest 
expense and interest income, of the U.S. affiliate. The Department's 
calculations thus correctly execute the Department's intent to include 
total interest expense and total interest income in the calculation of 
U.S. ISEs. Petitioners allegation of a clerical error should be 
rejected by the Department.
    Department's Position: After reviewing Petitioners' and POSCO's 
comments, we have determined that the above mentioned points raised by 
Petitioners do not meet the definition of ministerial error under 
section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). Our treatment of the 
interest income, used to offset the interest expense included in 
POSCO's U.S. indirect selling expenses, is not a mistake of ``addition 
or subtraction or other arithmetic function'' or ``other similar types 
of unintentional error'' within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).
    Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the Department erred in making an 
adjustment to home market credit expenses in the corrosion-resistant 
margin calculations. Specifically, the adjusting factor was mis-typed 
at one point in the program.
    Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners that the 
Department created a ministerial error in making this adjustment to 
home market credit in the corrosion-resistant margin program. The 
adjusting factor was incorrect. The Department has corrected the 
program accordingly.
    Comment 5: Petitioners argue that the Department erred in creating 
two additional U.S. tolerance weights used in the cold-rolled margin 
program by naming them ``CRTOLERM'' rather than ``CRTOLERS.''
    Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners. The Department 
intended to name the tolerance weights ``CRTOLERS''. We have corrected 
the program accordingly.

Amended Final Results of the Reviews

                  Amended Final Results of the Reviews
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                  average
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dongbu....................................................         1.35
The POSCO Group............................................         0.73
Union......................................................         1.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dongbu....................................................         0.13
The POSCO Group............................................         2.24
Union......................................................        0.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Not affected by these Amended Final Results.

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service 
(``Customs'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated 
exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. With respect to both 
export price and constructed export price sales, we divided the total 
dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of 
those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to 
assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries 
under the relevant order during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of amended final results of administrative 
reviews for all shipments of cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the 
reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms 
whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and therefore 
de minimis, the Department shall require no deposit of estimated 
antidumping duties; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the original less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate

[[Page 14887]]

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 14.44 percent (for certain cold-rolled 
carbon steel flat products) or 17.70 percent (for certain corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products). These rates are the ``all 
others'' rates from the LTFV investigations. See Antidumping Duty 
Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 
(August 19, 1993).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary notification of the 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to 
sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Effective 
January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of 
Assistant Secretary of Import Administration.

    Dated: March 6, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-6363 Filed 3-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P