[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45279-45283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-831 and A-580-834]


Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the Republic of Korea; 
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea

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

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final antidumping duty determinations of 
sales at less than fair value.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is amending its final 
determinations in the antidumping duty investigations on stainless 
steel plate in coils and stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from 
the Republic of Korea in order to implement the report of the WTO 
dispute settlement panel addressing these matters. Consistent with 
section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which governs the 
Department's actions following WTO panel reports, the Department has 
revised the calculation of dumping margins in the above cases. We are 
now amending the final determinations consistent with the revised 
calculation of dumping margins.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy or Rick Johnson, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0165 or (202) 482-3818, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351, 62 FR 27296 
(May 19, 1997). Finally, citation to ``section 129'' refers to section 
129 of the URAA, codified at 19 U.S.C. 3538.

Background

    On March 31, and June 8, 1999, the Department of Commerce issued 
final determinations of sales at less than fair value in the 
antidumping investigations on stainless steel plate in coils from Korea 
(Plate) and stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Korea 
(Sheet), respectively.\1\ Following affirmative injury determinations 
issued by the United States International Trade Commission, the 
Department issued antidumping duty orders on these products on May 21, 
and July 27, 1999, respectively.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 
Fed. Reg. 15444 (Mar. 31, 1999) (Plate); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30664 
(June 8, 1999) (Sheet).
    \2\ Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South 
Africa, and Taiwan, 64 Fed. Reg. 27756 (May 21, 1999); and Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
From the United Kingdom, Taiwan and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 
27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 14, 1999, the Government of the Republic of Korea (GOK) 
requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the 
auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to examine various 
aspects of the Department of Commerce's final affirmative 
determinations of dumping in this cases. At the meetings of the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on November 19, 1999, the DSB determined 
to establish such a panel, and the panel was composed on March 24, 
2000.
    On December 22, 2000, after full briefing and hearings, the panel 
issued its report,\3\ which was adopted by the DSB on February 1, 2001. 
On March 1, 2001, the United States announced its intention to 
implement the recommendations and rulings in these cases. On April 18, 
2001, pursuant to section 129(b)(2) of the URAA, the United States 
Trade Representative requested that the Department of Commerce 
(Department) issue a determination that would render the Department's 
determination of dumping in the both the Sheet and Plate investigations 
not inconsistent with the findings of the panel. On May 15, 2001, the 
Department requested comments from interested parties. On May 24 and 
31, 2001, the GOK and POSCO, respectively, submitted comments for the 
Department to consider for purposes of implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ United States--Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel 
Plate In Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From Korea, WT/
DS179/R, adopted on 1 February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 2001, the Department issued its Draft Implementation of 
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding: Antidumping Duties on Stainless 
Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Korea. The Department invited comment by interested parties in 
accordance with section 129(d) of the URAA. We received case briefs 
from POSCO and Petitioners on July 12, 2001. On July 17, 2001, POSCO 
submitted its rebuttal comments and on July 24, 2001, Petitioners 
submitted their rebuttal comments. At the request of respondent, a 
hearing was held on July 25, 2001.
    On August 15, 2001, the Department transmitted its revised 
determinations in these cases to the United States Trade Representative 
(USTR), pursuant to section 129(b)(2) of the URAA. On August 17, 2001, 
the USTR informed the Department that it had conducted consultations 
pursuant to section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, and that the revised 
determinations bring the United States into conformity with the panel's 
findings in the dispute. Accordingly, the USTR requested, pursuant to 
section 129(b)(4) of the URAA, that the Department implement the 
revised determinations for these investigations. Therefore, we are 
hereby publishing notice of the implementation of our determination and 
are amending the final determinations in the antidumping duty 
investigations on Plate and Sheet from the Republic of Korea.

WTO Panel Findings and Conclusions

    In its report, the dispute settlement panel found, inter alia, that 
certain aspects of the methodology used to determine dumping in the 
Plate and Sheet investigations were inconsistent with the Antidumping 
Agreement. Specifically, the panel made the following findings:
    1. With respect to the issue of whether the Antidumping Agreement 
permits a currency conversion for certain sales in

[[Page 45280]]

the home market (local sales), the panel found that under the facts of 
the Sheet investigation the United States acted inconsistently with 
Article 2.4.1 of the Antidumping Agreement by performing an unnecessary 
currency conversion.
    The panel found that the evidence in the Sheet investigation 
established that the Korean won amount ultimately paid by the customer 
was determined by converting the U.S. dollar amount appearing on the 
invoice into won at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of 
payment. The panel determined, therefore, that the dollar amount 
appearing on the sales invoice was controlling, while the won amount 
appearing on tax and certain shipment invoices and noted in POSCO's 
accounts played no role in determining the amount the purchaser 
ultimately would pay. Accordingly, the panel concluded, based upon the 
evidence in the Sheet investigation, that the Department did not have a 
basis to determine that the sales at issue were made in won.
    2. With respect to the issue of whether the Antidumping Agreement 
permits adjustment to export price and constructed export price for a 
bad debt expense resulting from a customer's failure to pay for subject 
merchandise, the panel found that under the facts of the Sheet and 
Plate investigations the United States acted inconsistently with its 
obligations under Article 2.4 of the Antidumping Agreement.
    Specifically, the panel found that the extraordinary bad debt 
expenses in these cases could not reasonably have been anticipated, and 
thus taken into account by the exporter when determining the price to 
be charged for the product in different markets or to different 
customers. Accordingly, the panel concluded that the phrase 
``differences in conditions and terms of sale'' of Article 2.4 cannot 
permissibly be interpreted to encompass the unprecedented failure of a 
customer to pay for certain sales. Similarly, for sales through the 
importer, the panel determined that the costs ``incurred between 
importation and resale'' cannot include costs that were unforeseeable 
at the time the price was set. Therefore, the panel found that the 
manner in which the Department measured the bad debt adjustment in 
these cases was inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Antidumping 
Agreement.
    3. With respect to multiple averaging periods, the panel found that 
by using multiple averaging periods under the facts of the Sheet and 
Plate investigations the United States acted inconsistently with its 
obligation under Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement to compare 
a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of all 
comparable export transactions.
    In making its determination, the panel stated that Article 2.4.2 
does not prohibit the use of multiple averaging periods. The panel 
indicated there may be factual circumstances where the use of multiple 
averaging periods could be appropriate in order to ensure that price 
comparability is not affected by differences in the timing of sales 
within the averaging periods in the home and export markets.
    However, in the Plate and Sheet investigations, the panel found 
that the Department's determination to use two averaging periods rested 
solely upon the conclusion that the normal value in the latter phase of 
the investigations, expressed in dollars, differed significantly from 
the normal value in the earlier phase of the investigations. The panel 
found that the Department's reliance upon significantly different 
pricing alone was not a permissible determination of non-comparability. 
The panel therefore concluded that the use of multiple averaging 
periods in these investigations was inconsistent with the requirements 
of Article 2.4.2.

Draft Implementation

    Prior to issuance of the Draft Implementation, the GOK and POSCO 
submitted comments to the Department on the steps necessary to 
implement the panel's recommendation. The Department issued its Draft 
Implementation to parties for comment on July 5, 2001. In its Draft 
Implementation, the Department explained that it implemented the 
panel's recommendation as follows:
    1. With respect to the currency conversion issue, in the Sheet 
investigation, the Department has recalculated the dumping margin, 
using the dollar denominated price of local sales. Because the sales at 
issue were determined to be dollar denominated transactions, currency 
conversions from won into dollars are unnecessary and have not been 
made for the recalculation of the dumping margin in the Sheet 
investigation.
    2. With respect to unpaid U.S. sales, in the Sheet and Plate 
investigations, the Department has recalculated the dumping margins by 
not taking into account the failure of the U.S. customer to make 
payments for the sales at issue. To do so, the Department has removed 
the adjustment for bad debt expense from its dumping margin 
calculation. Instead, the Department has calculated credit expenses 
pertaining to the sales at issue, and adjusted the margin calculation 
accordingly.
    To determine the credit expenses, the Department measures the time 
period in which credit is extended to the customer by calculating the 
time between shipment of the merchandise to the customer and payment by 
the customer for such merchandise. For the sales at issue, the payment 
dates are missing. To address the missing payment dates in the credit 
expense calculation, the Department has used the average payment 
experience for all U.S. sales as the facts available date for payment 
of the sales at issue.
    3. With respect to the issue of multiple averaging periods, the 
Department has recalculated the dumping margins in the Sheet and Plate 
investigations without dividing the period of each investigation into 
two periods. In calculating the dumping margin for each investigation, 
the Department has compared a weighted average normal value with a 
weighted average of all comparable export transactions, as recommended 
by the panel.

Comments From Interested Parties on Draft Implementation

Comment 1: Ministerial Errors

    Respondent POSCO argues that the draft implementation of the Sheet 
investigation contains a ministerial error that must be corrected by 
the Department in its final results. Claiming that correction of this 
error would result in a de minimis margin for POSCO, POSCO argues that 
the Department should immediately rescind the Sheet antidumping order 
on POSCO.
    POSCO explains that the alleged error concerns the date of sale 
used in the Department's computer program for U.S. CEP sales out of 
inventory. POSCO notes that it made a small number of sales, in U.S. 
channel two, out of POSAM's U.S. inventory during the period of 
investigation (POI), which it reported to the Department as CEP sales. 
POSCO classified the other U.S. channel two sales, which were shipped 
directly from POSCO's plant to the customer, as export price (EP) 
sales. For the CEP sales out of inventory, POSCO reported U.S. shipment 
date, which was the same as POSAM's invoice date, as the date of sale. 
POSCO states that in the final determination of the Sheet 
investigation, the Department classified all of POSCO's sales through 
U.S. channel two as CEP sales. Further, POSCO explains that in its 
computer program in the final determination and draft WTO 
implementation for Sheet the Department used language which

[[Page 45281]]

assigned, as the U.S. sale date for all U.S. channel two sales, the 
earlier of the shipment date from Korea or POSAM's invoice date. Noting 
that the date of shipment from Korea is always before POSAM's invoice 
date, POSCO claims that for the CEP sales out of U.S. inventory, the 
programming language is incorrect. Citing the Sheet Report on the 
Verification of U.S. Sales by POSAM (April 2, 1999), POSCO maintains 
that the Department verified that these sales were negotiated in the 
United States and that the final terms of sale were set in the United 
States by POSAM after the merchandise had arrived in inventory. 
Consequently, POSCO argues that for the CEP sales out of inventory, the 
appropriate date of sale is POSAM's invoice date-the sale date reported 
by POSCO.
    POSCO maintains that the Department's error was unintentional and 
that this error, at the time of the original less-than-fair-value 
determination, was insignificant to the margin analysis. POSCO 
reiterates that because correction of this error would result in the 
rescission of the Sheet dumping order on POSCO, the Department must 
immediately correct the error. Moreover, POSCO argues that correction 
of this error in the final implementation decision is no different than 
a correction after court remand, which, POSCO claims, the Department 
routinely makes. In support of their argument, POSCO cites AK Steel 
Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 97-05-00865, where the 
Department agreed with respondent's request to remand the case to allow 
the Department to correct an inadvertent ministerial error in its 
margin program and the court remanded the case back to the Department. 
POSCO holds that it is well established that amendment after remand is 
appropriate when the original determination contains an error of 
inadvertence or mistakes, citing Badger-Powhatan, A Div. Of Figgie 
Int'l v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 (CIT 1986); Bohler-
Uddeholm Corp. v. United States, 946 F. Supp. 1003, 1007 (CIT 1996). 
Moreover, citing NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204, 1208 
(Fed. Cir. 1995) citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 
1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir 1990), POSCO states that the courts have 
repeatedly held that, ``[it] is the duty of ITA to determine dumping 
margins as ``accurately as possible.'''' Finally, POSCO argues that 
failure to correct the alleged error would ``nullify and impair the 
very benefits that the WTO Panel had intended to protect when it 
rendered its decision in this case'' (citing United States--Antidumping 
Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from Korea, WT/DS179/R, at 48.
    Petitioners argue that the Department should not correct any 
ministerial errors at this time. They assert that the Department may 
not make any changes to the final margin program in the Sheet 
investigation to correct for POSCO's alleged ministerial error because 
the alleged error is outside the ``terms of reference,'' or scope of 
review, of the WTO Panel. Specifically, Petitioners argue that none of 
claims asserted by the GOK in its complaint to the WTO Panel involved 
the proper date of sales for POSCO's CEP sales out of inventory. Citing 
the WTO Panel Report at 7, Petitioners maintain that the alleged 
error--whether correct or not--is therefore outside the WTO Panel's 
terms of reference.
    Additionally, Petitioners maintain that the Department should 
dismiss POSCO's citation to CIT and Federal Circuit precedent 
suggesting that the Department may make corrections to ministerial 
errors after a court remand as inappropriate forum shopping. They state 
that POSCO and the Korean Government invoked the jurisdiction of the 
WTO, not U.S. Courts, as the forum for adjudicating the issues raised 
in its complaint. Thus, they allege that POSCO cannot rely on the U.S. 
Courts to support its claim for relief where that claim for relief is 
outside the jurisdiction of the WTO Panel. Moreover, Petitioners 
suggest that there is an equal amount of authority at the CIT stating 
that the Department may not correct late-submitted ministerial errors. 
In support of their argument, Petitioners cite to Koyo Seiko v. United 
States, 746 F. Supp. 1108, 1110 (CIT 1990) and Hyster Co. v. United 
States, 858 F. Supp. 202 (CIT 1994). Petitioners maintain that this 
case is analogous to Torrington Co. v. United States, 1998 CIT Lexis 
15, Slip Op. 98-24 at 3, where the court rejected a party's request to 
correct an alleged ministerial error that was first raised in comments 
on the Department's draft remand results. Petitioners note that POSCO 
is raising the alleged ministerial error over two years after the 
Department's final determinations in these cases and continue that the 
Court's interest in finality is of critical importance in these cases. 
Petitioners also claim that under CIT precedent (citing Zenith Elecs. 
Corp. v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 296, 298 (CIT 1988)), the 
Department may not make corrections for ministerial errors without the 
Court's permission. Petitioners argue that at a minimum, this case 
could be viewed as requiring parallel treatment at the WTO. Petitioners 
hold that because POSCO did not notify the Department of its alleged 
ministerial error in the five-day allotted period, or within the terms 
of reference of the WTO panel, POSCO is without remedy and may not now 
seek to have the Department amend its final determination for Sheet for 
the alleged error.
    Petitioners also allege a ministerial error in the programs for 
Plate and Sheet. Specifically, Petitioners maintain that although it is 
the Department's standard practice to separately calculate average net 
prices for CEP and EP sales, in both final determinations the 
Department calculated a single net price for both CEP and EP sales.
    Department's Position: We disagree with POSCO that the alleged 
ministerial errors are properly the subject of this implementation. 
This implementation/determination is being conducted under section 
129(b)(2) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which authorizes the 
Department to ``issue a determination in connection with the particular 
proceeding that would render the administering authority's action 
described in paragraph (1) not inconsistent with the findings of the 
panel or the Appellate Body.'' In this regard, we note that the GOK did 
not allege the errors in question as part of its panel request, and the 
panel therefore had no basis to make a ruling with respect to them. Nor 
were the errors alleged by POSCO and Petitioners made in implementing 
the panel's findings. Thus, the Department believes that this 
determination should be restricted to those areas of the final 
determination which were found by the panel to be inconsistent with the 
Antidumping Agreement.
    Moreover, these ministerial error allegations by POSCO and 
Petitioners were made at an extremely late point in this process. The 
Department notes that its final margin calculation, which was issued to 
the parties over two years ago, contained the calculation alleged by 
POSCO to be a ministerial error concerning the proper date of sale for 
POSCO's U.S. CEP sales out of inventory, as well as the calculation 
alleged by Petitioners to be a ministerial error concerning calculation 
of a single net price for CEP and EP sales. In accordance with the 
Department's regulations POSCO and Petitioners had until five days 
after the release of disclosure documents for the Sheet final 
determination to file a ministerial error allegation on these issues 
with the Department (19 CFR 351.224(c)(2)). These parties did not do 
so. We are concerned that consideration of these

[[Page 45282]]

allegations at this point in the process would effectively be allowing 
time for such allegations far exceeding the time granted to other 
parties in these and other proceedings. That there happens to be a 
redetermination pursuant to section 129(b)(2) is mere happenstance. In 
the vast majority of investigations and reviews, there would be no 
opportunity for parties to raise an issue of ministerial error two 
years after the fact. We note that in AK Steel, which POSCO cites in 
support of its case, while the Department did not contest the 
allegation of error, correction of that error was ultimately undertaken 
only pursuant to an order from the Court. Moreover, in other cases the 
court has declined to accept ministerial error allegations made for the 
first time after extensive litigation. See Hyster Co. v. U.S., 858 
F.Supp. 202 (CIT 1994). Here, POSCO and Petitioners, having allowed the 
regulatory remedy to expire, are asking the Department to address 
allegations of ministerial error sua sponte several years after the 
investigation was completed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Even if we did correct ministerial errors such as these, it 
would be pursuant to a different statutory authority. Therefore, 
this is not different from entertaining such a claim sua sponte two 
years after the fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also concerned that allowing parties to raise new issues at 
this point in the process potentially would be unfair, as parties' 
comments and views on issues, including the Petitioners' views on 
appealing panel decisions, may have been affected by the allegations, 
had they been made known earlier. As noted above, section 129(b)(2) 
determinations have a limited purpose; the fact that the Department 
happens to be making a determination under that section on issues 
unrelated to the allegations of error does not provide an excuse for a 
wholesale review of all issues in the underlying case. We note, 
however, that correction of these ministerial errors would result in a 
margin of 2.09 percent, making these allegations largely 
inconsequential. We note, further, that in the context of the first 
review, which is currently being conducted, both parties will have an 
opportunity to fully air all allegations of ministerial error so that 
any such errors are not reflected in the amount of duties ultimately 
assessed against POSCO's entries.
    Consequently, we have not made corrections to our calculations for 
either POSCO's or Petitioners' alleged ministerial errors for purposes 
of this determination.

Comment 2. Treatment of Bad Debt

    In their case brief, Petitioners argue that the Department failed 
to take into account non-payment by a certain U.S. customer. 
Petitioners maintain that the Department's methodology was wrong and 
sets a ``terrible'' precedent. Citing the Department's Antidumping 
Manual, Petitioners claim that proof of payment of a transaction is a 
critical component to the Department's determination of the legitimacy 
of a particular transaction. Citing Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Administrative Reviews of Antifriction Bearings (other than tapered 
roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom--May 1, 1998 through 
April 30, 1999 (Comment 26); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan, 61 FR 38139, 
38141 (July 23, 1996); and Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, 58 
FR 43327 (August 16, 1993), Petitioners argue that in many other cases, 
the Department has considered the differences between nominal invoice 
prices and actual payment amounts to represent de facto discounts to 
the nominal prices. Maintaining that in this case all parties have 
recognized that non-payment resulted in a cost, Petitioners declare 
that the Department must account for the alleged ``involuntary 
discount'' given by POSCO to the ABC Company for the unpaid sales. To 
this end, Petitioners suggest that the Department consider the unpaid 
sales prices as a discount allocated to, and deducted from, the prices 
for all paid sales made to customer ABC Company.
    Petitioners argue that if the Department does not make an 
adjustment for the unpaid sales in the investigations, then the 
Department must recognize the bad debt as an SG&A expense in the on-
going first administrative reviews of the Plate and Sheet orders.
    POSCO rebuts that the WTO Panel instructed that the unpaid sales 
cannot be treated as direct selling expenses. POSCO claims that under 
the Department's regulations, a discount is a direct selling expense. 
Thus, POSCO argues that under Petitioners' proposed methodology for 
dealing with the unpaid sales, the unpaid sales would continue to be 
treated as a direct selling expense. POSCO continues that any 
methodology which continues to treat the unpaid sales as a direct 
selling expense would constitute an abrogation of the United States' 
commitments under the WTO. Citing the Panel Report at 30, POSCO submits 
that the essence of the Panel Report was that a difference in the 
conditions and terms of sale ``could not have been anticipated and thus 
taken into account by the exporter (POSCO) when determining the price 
to be charged for the product in different markets or to different 
customers.'' POSCO argues that in this case, unlike the other two cases 
cited by Petitioners, POSCO did not have knowledge of the financial 
situation of the customer (citing Panel Report at 30) and therefore had 
a reasonable expectation of payment from the ABC Company. Moreover, 
POSCO claims that because the unpaid sales had specified terms of 
payment, this is further evidence that POSCO expected to be paid. POSCO 
concludes that the Department's draft implementation did not ignore the 
unpaid sales, but rather, consistent with its obligations under the 
WTO, ``acknowledged that, in an investigation, the Department cannot 
adjust U.S. price for the unanticipated bankruptcy of a U.S. 
customer.'' Thus, POSCO requests that the Department reject 
Petitioners' suggested treatment of the unpaid sales as a discount. 
Moreover, POSCO claims that the Department has no basis for making an 
adjustment for the bad debt in the ongoing administrative reviews of 
Plate and Sheet since, according to POSCO, the Department verified in 
both cases that POSAM wrote the sales off at the end of 1997. POSCO 
also notes that the decision of what methodology to apply for the Plate 
and Sheet reviews falls outside the scope of the implementation 
decision.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Petitioners' proposed 
methodology to treat the bad debt as a de facto or ``involuntary'' 
discount. The panel found that the extraordinary bad debt expenses in 
these cases could not reasonably have been anticipated. Thus, under the 
panel's view of the facts of this case, no adjustment for the expense 
incurred by POSAM as a result of nonpayment, either as a discount or as 
a bad debt expense, would be permissible. Accordingly, we are not 
making an adjustment to account for the bad debt incurred by POSCO's 
affiliate, POSAM, for the sales at issue. Normally we account for a 
respondent's bad debt based on the historical experience of a company, 
similar to our treatment of warranty expenses. However, in this case we 
found that POSAM did not have a bad debt account and did not find 
evidence that POSAM's customers had ever before defaulted on payment.

[[Page 45283]]

Therefore, in accordance with the WTO panel report, the Department has 
not adjusted for the unpaid sales. Moreover, the issue of how to 
account for bad debt incurred by POSCO during the administrative review 
period is outside the scope of the implementation decision and not 
properly before the Department.

Comment 3: Calculation of Credit Period

    Petitioners argue that if the Department continues to treat the 
unpaid sales as paid sales, then the Department should impute a longer 
credit period. Petitioners note that the Department's methodology in 
the draft implementation, which was to impute the average credit period 
for all paid sales to the sales at issue, results in a shorter credit 
period for the unpaid sales than many of POSCO's sales where the 
customer actually paid. They maintain that the true credit period for 
the unpaid sales is infinite, and that, as such, the hypothetical 
payment date cannot be earlier than a date on which the sales remain 
actually unpaid.
    POSCO maintains that the application of an average credit period as 
the facts available date of payment for the unpaid sales is appropriate 
and consistent with the panel's findings. POSCO claims that the 
Department does not have the authority to extend the credit period for 
these sales beyond the record in the case, as proposed by Petitioners. 
Moreover, POSCO argues that application of Petitioners' proposed 
methodology, which would extend the credit period beyond the terms and 
conditions of the sale, would result in the very distortion that the 
Panel found to be inconsistent with the WTO. Thus, POSCO concludes that 
the Department must continue to use average credit period.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Petitioners that the true 
credit period for these sales is infinite. The Department found in both 
the Plate and Sheet investigations that POSAM wrote off the unpaid 
sales at the end of 1997. Based on this action, POSCO recognized that 
payment would not be received for this sale. However, consistent with 
WTO Panel report, we are not taking into account the failure of the 
U.S. customer to make payments for the sales at issue. Therefore, since 
POSAM wrote-off the sales within the period of investigation, as non-
adverse facts available, we applied a credit period based on the 
average credit period extended by POSCO to customers for which POSCO 
expected payment. Use of an average credit period, which is consistent 
with POSCO's average terms of sale during the POI, most accurately 
reflects the true price of the merchandise at issue at the time of 
sale.

Implementation of the Dispute Settlement Panel Report

    To implement the Panel's recommendations, the Department has 
recalculated the dumping margins in the Sheet and Plate investigations 
as follows:
    1. With respect to the currency conversion issue, in the Sheet 
investigation, the Department has recalculated the dumping margin, 
using the dollar denominated price of local sales. Because the sales at 
issue were determined to be dollar denominated transactions, currency 
conversions from won into dollars are unnecessary and have not been 
made for the recalculation of the dumping margin in the Sheet 
investigation.
    2. With respect to unpaid U.S. sales, in the Sheet and Plate 
investigations, the Department has recalculated the dumping margins by 
not taking into account the failure of the U.S. customer to make 
payments for the sales at issue. To do so, the Department has removed 
the adjustment for bad debt expense from its dumping margin 
calculation. Instead, the Department has calculated credit expenses 
pertaining to the sales at issue, and adjusted the margin calculation 
accordingly.
    To determine the credit expenses, the Department measures the time 
period in which credit is extended to the customer by calculating the 
time between shipment of the merchandise to the customer and payment by 
the customer for such merchandise. For the sales at issue, the payment 
dates are missing. Moreover, the Department found that POSAM wrote-off 
the sales within the period of investigations for Plate and Sheet. 
Therefore, to address the missing payment dates in the credit expense 
calculation, the Department has used the average payment experience for 
all U.S. sales as the facts available date for payment of the sales at 
issue.
    3. With respect to the issue of multiple averaging periods, the 
Department has recalculated the dumping margins in the Sheet and Plate 
investigations without dividing the period of each investigation into 
two periods. In calculating the dumping margin for each investigation, 
the Department has compared a weighted average normal value with a 
weighted average of all comparable export transactions, as recommended 
by the panel.

Amended Final Results

    As a result of the changes to the calculations, we determine that, 
for POSCO, a 2.49 percent dumping margin exists in the Sheet 
investigation, and a 6.08 percent dumping margin exists in the Plate 
investigation. The dumping margin for Inchon in the Sheet investigation 
remains zero. The ``All Others'' rate is 2.49 percent in the Sheet 
investigation and 6.08 percent in the Plate investigation.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    On or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, U.S. customs officers must require, at the same time as 
importers would normally deposit estimated duties, the cash deposits 
listed below for the subject merchandise. The ``All Others'' rate 
applies to all exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed 
below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in 
effect until further notice. The revised final weighted-average margins 
for Plate in Coils are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/ manufacturer                       margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd...............................         6.08
All others.................................................         6.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised final weighted-average margins for Sheet and Strip in 
Coils are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/ Manufacturer                       margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd...............................         2.49
Inchon Iron & Steel Co., Ltd...............................         0.00
Taihan Electric Wire Co., Ltd..............................        58.79
All others.................................................         2.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the weighted average margin percentage for Inchon continues 
to be zero, Inchon continues to be excluded from the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from the Republic of 
Korea.
    These amended final determinations are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and section 
129(c)(2)(A) of the URAA.

    Dated: August 22, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-21710 Filed 8-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P