[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15542-15545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7955]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-822]


Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Mexico

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

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of stainless steel sheet and strip from Mexico.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2002.
SUMMARY: On February 12, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register its notice of final 
results of the antidumping duty administrative review of stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico for the period January 4, 
1999 through June 30, 2000. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 6490 (February 12, 2002). We are amending our final 
determination to correct ministerial errors alleged by respondent and 
petitioners.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone : (202) 
482-2657 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act) are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered 
are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel 
is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon 
and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. 
The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under 
review is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note"' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties the Department has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are 
described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves for compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer

[[Page 15543]]

disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade 
stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a 
thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface 
glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied 
in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or 
less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of 
measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm 
maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth 
elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Arnokrome III''' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Gilphy 36"' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\4\ This steel is similar to ASTM grade 440F, but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \5\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5" and ``GIN6" are the proprietary grades 
of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Final Results

Ministerial Errors Allegation by Respondent

    On February 11, 2002, respondent Mexinox, S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox) 
timely filed, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), an allegation that the 
Department made two ministerial errors in its final results. First, 
Mexinox alleges that in performing the major inputs analysis the 
Department erroneously selected transfer price as the highest of 
transfer price, cost of production, and market price for purchases of 
grade 430 material from KTN for the months of March and April 2000, 
when it should have selected market price for those two months. Second, 
Mexinox alleges the Department erred by omitting the indicator which 
segregates prime and non-prime merchandise (represented by the variable 
PRIMEH/PRIMEU) from its model match program when creating the final 
concordance file. Petitioners submitted no rebuttal comments to 
Mexinox's ministerial errors allegation.

Department's Position:

    We agree with Mexinox in both instances and, therefore, have 
amended our final results for these errors. For a detailed discussion 
of our implementation of these corrections, see the Department's 
Amended Final Results Analysis Memorandum, dated March XX, 2002.

Ministerial Errors Allegation by Petitioners

    On February 12, 2002, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco Inc., J&L 
Specialty Steel, Inc., Washington Steel Division of Bethelehem Steel 
Corporation, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Butler Armco 
Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. 
(collectively, petitioners) timely filed a ministerial errors 
allegation. First, petitioners allege, the Department incorrectly 
included quantity adjustments (AQTYH/AQTYU) in testing for negative 
data since the

[[Page 15544]]

quantity field (QTYH/QTYU) already reflects these adjustments. Second, 
petitioners contend the Department ``double converted'' home market 
sales denominated in U.S. dollars. Although the Department agreed these 
were U.S. dollar sales, petitioners state, the Department utilized 
Mexinox's reported peso price and converted this price to U.S. dollars. 
Instead, petitioners claim, the Department should weight average the 
U.S. dollar prices reported in the home market sales listing and then 
combine them with converted peso prices at the ``FUPDOL'' stage of the 
margin calculation program. Petitioners suggest the Department could 
make this change by setting to zero the peso price on sales denominated 
in U.S. dollars, weight average U.S. dollar prices and net peso prices, 
and then sum these two variables at the ``FUPDOL'' stage of the margin 
calculation program. Third, petitioners assert the Department 
overstated deductions to normal value (NV) by allowing the sum of the 
commission offset and CEP offset to exceed total home market indirect 
selling expenses (ISEs).
    On February 19, 2002, Mexinox timely submitted comments rebutting 
petitioners' ministerial error allegations. Mexinox argues petitioners' 
comments relate to computer programming language that existed at the 
time of the preliminary results; therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(c)(1), petitioners should have addressed these matters in their 
case brief. Even if the Department considers these untimely 
allegations, Mexinox asserts, they should be dismissed because they are 
not ministerial in nature. Mexinox cites section 19 CFR 351.224(f), 
which defines ``ministerial error'' as ``an error in addition, 
subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting 
from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other 
similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers 
ministerial.''
    Specifically, with respect to adding adjusted quantity (AQTYH/U) to 
quantity (QTYH/U) in testing for negative data, Mexinox states that 
while this argument may be ministerial in nature, it is untimely 
because the relevant programming language existed at the time of the 
preliminary results. Therefore, Mexinox contends, petitioners should 
have raised this issue in their case brief.
    Referring to the ``double conversion'' of home market sales 
invoiced in U.S. dollars, Mexinox claims petitioners have simply 
offered a different methodology to reach the same result (i.e., 
converting home market prices to U.S. dollars). Mexinox argues that 
alternative methodologies for obtaining the same arithmetic result are 
methological in nature and therefore should be rejected. Although the 
Department's regulations preclude it from considering this alternative 
methdology, Mexinox contends, petitioners' alternative is unnecessary 
and would be burdensome to implement from a programming standpoint, and 
could inadvertently lead to errors. Mexinox also asserts petitioners 
have not demonstrated their alternative methodology would lead to 
greater accuracy.
    Lastly, regarding the argument that the sum of the commission and 
CEP offsets cannot exceed total home market ISEs, Mexinox maintains 
this argument is methodological in nature. Mexinox argues that 
petitioners do not point to any methodological errors or any errors 
meeting the definition in 19 CFR 351.224(f). Mexinox contends that 
petitioners simply assert these adjustments are limited to the total of 
home market ISEs, but do not cite to any legal authority or Department 
precedent in making this assertion. Further, Mexinox avers, since this 
methodological issue existed in the preliminary results, petitioners 
could have addressed it in their case brief but chose not to do so. 
Mexinox argues that petitioners cannot raise a methological argument at 
this time under the guise of a ministerial error.

Department's Position:

    We disagree with Mexinox that petitioners have raised these points 
in an untimely manner. Section 351.224(c)(1) of the Department's 
regulations states ``[c]omments concerning ministerial errors made in 
the preliminary results of a review should be included in a party's 
case brief.'' While this provision expresses our preference that 
ministerial errors made in the preliminary results should be included 
in a party's case brief, it does not state that they must be included 
at that time in order for them to be considered. After reviewing 
petitioners' ministerial errors allegation, we determine that 
correcting ministerial errors made in the final results would yield a 
more accurate calculation of the dumping margin. Therefore, we have not 
rejected these comments on the grounds that they were not filed in a 
timely manner.
    Based on the first and third points raised by petitioners, we have 
amended our final results. Petitioners are correct in stating we should 
not add quantity adjustments to quantity in testing for negative data 
because the quantity fields already account for quantity adjustments. 
See Mexinox's November 20, 2000 questionnaire response at B-18, C-20, 
KMC-17, and CBC-21. The addition of quantity adjustments to quantity 
constituted an unintentional error in arithmetic on our part, not a 
methodological error. Petitioners are also correct in asserting that 
the sum of the commission offset and CEP offset cannot be greater than 
total home market ISEs. Contrary to Mexinox's assertion, our 
inadvertent failure to cap the sum of the commission offset and CEP 
offset at the amount of total home market ISEs does not constitute a 
methodological error but rather a ministerial error which runs contrary 
to our well-established practice. Our regulations permit the Department 
to deduct ISEs from NV in two instances. The first instance (``the 
commission offset,'' which is governed by 19 CFR 351.410(e) of our 
regulations) stipulates that if a commission is paid in one of the 
markets under consideration, and no commission is paid in the other 
market, the Department will make an offset to the commission limited to 
the ISEs incurred in ``the one market or the commission allowed in the 
other market, whichever is less.'' The ``CEP offset'' is the second 
provision under which the Department is permitted to make a deduction 
from NV for ISEs. 19 CFR 351.412 limits the CEP offset ``to the amount 
of ISEs incurred in the United States.'' Because both the commission 
offset and CEP offset are limited by the total amount of home market 
ISEs, when there is both a commission offset and a CEP offset, the 
total amount of the two offsets is limited to the total amount of ISEs 
incurred in the home market. Since there is both a commission offset 
and CEP offset in the instant review, we have adjusted our calculations 
accordingly.
    However, we disagree with petitioners' argument that for home 
market sales invoiced in U.S. dollars, we should use Mexinox's reported 
U.S. dollar prices to calculate NV. As noted by Mexinox, the proposal 
offered by petitioners simply constitutes a different methodology to 
reach the same result, i.e., the conversion of peso prices to U.S. 
dollars. Further, petitioners have not provided any evidence 
establishing that their alternative methodology would lead to greater 
accuracy in the margin calculation. Therefore, we have not made any 
changes to the manner in which home market sales invoiced in U.S. 
dollars are converted from Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars.
    For a detailed discussion of our implementation of these 
corrections, see the Department's Amended Final

[[Page 15545]]

Results Analysis Memorandum, dated March 15, 2002.

Amended Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final 
results of the 1999-2000 antidumping duty administrative review of 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico, as noted above. 
The revised weighted-average percentage margin for Mexinox is 2.28 
percent.
    This administrative review and notice is issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: March 15, 2002
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-7955 Filed 4-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S