[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64853-64856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28669]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-791-809]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from South Africa:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
from South Africa (68 FR 40903). The review covers shipments of this
merchandise to the United States for the period May 3, 2001 through
August 31, 2002, by Iscor Ltd. (Iscor), Saldanha Steel Ltd. (Saldanha)
and Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corp. Ltd. (Highveld).
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We received a case brief from the United States
Steel Corporation (USS), and Nucor Corporation (Nucor) filed a letter
in support of the case brief of USS. Iscor and Saldanha (Iscor/
Saldanha),\1\ and Highveld filed rebuttal comments. Based on our
analysis of comments, we have made no changes to the preliminary
results. For the final dumping margins see the ``Final Results of
Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the final determination of the antidumping investigation,
the Department determined that Iscor and Saldanha were affiliated,
and should be treated as a single entity for purposes of the
investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from South Africa, 66 FR 48242 (Sept. 19,
2001) (LTFV investigation). This was based on information on the
public record of the contemporaneous countervailing duty
investigation of hot-rolled products from South Africa that (1)
Iscor is a 50 percent shareholder in Saldanha, and is in a position
to exercise control of Saldanha's assets, and (2) both companies
produce the subject merchandise. In this review, the Department
requested that, if the circumstances had not changed, the two
parties file a combined response. Although Iscor/Saldanha did not
file any response, the December 30, 2002 letter declining to respond
to the questionnaire was filed jointly.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 2003.
[[Page 64854]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Elfi Blum, Office of
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement VII, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-1386 or (202) 482-0197, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 9, 2003, the Department published the preliminary results
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from South Africa. See Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from South Africa: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 40903 (July 9,
2003) (Preliminary Results). In the Preliminary Results, we based the
dumping margins for Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld on total adverse facts
available (AFA). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment
on our preliminary results. We received a case brief from the United
States Steel Corporation (USS) on August 8, 2003. Nucor Corporation
(Nucor) also filed a letter in support of the case brief of USS on
August 8, 2003. Iscor, Saldanha (Iscor/Saldanha) and Highveld filed
rebuttal comments on August 15, 2003. On August 8, 2003, USS requested
a hearing in this case. A hearing was held on September 17, 2003. The
Department has now completed this review in accordance with section 751
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of
0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, and
whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other
non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively
superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths,
of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least
10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width
exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not
less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a
thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this
review. Specifically included within the scope of this review are
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as
interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels,
and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized
as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as
titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both,
added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are
recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as
chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such
as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of this review,
regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by
weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon
content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description
provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or
specifically excluded from the scope of this review:
[sbull] Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
[sbull] Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
[sbull] Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
[sbull] Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
[sbull] Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
[sbull] ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
[sbull] USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
[sbull] All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
[sbull] Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of
the HTS.
The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon
steel flat products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed
fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers:
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) purposes, the written description of the merchandise
under review is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum from Joseph A Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from South Africa: May 3, 2001
through August 31, 2002, dated November 6, 2003 (Decision
[[Page 64855]]
Memo), which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this
notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all
issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit,
room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memo are identical in content.
Application of Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we applied facts available to Iscor/
Saldanha and Highveld pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act
because Iscor/Saldanha's and Highveld's stated decision not to
participate in the review constitutes a refusal to provide the
information necessary to conduct the Department's antidumping analysis,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Moreover, respondents'
non-participation significantly impedes the review process. See section
776(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
Furthermore, we used an adverse inference and applied AFA pursuant
to section 776(b) of the Act because we determined that Iscor/Saldanha
and Highveld had failed to cooperate to the best of their ability by
refusing to respond to the Department's questionnaire, making it
impossible for the Department to perform any company-specific analysis
or calculate dumping margins, if any, for the period of review (POR).
After analyzing the comments received, we continue to find that the use
of AFA is warranted for exports of subject merchandise to the United
States by Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld in these final results. For a
complete discussion, see the Decision Memo. As AFA, the Department is
assigning the rate of 9.28 percent. This rate was derived from the
petition, and was the only rate in the notice of initiation of
investigation. See 67 FR 65336. It is also the rate applied in the
final determination of the investigation of sales at less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) because we found in the investigation that the parties did
not cooperate to the best of their ability and we applied AFA (see
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from South Africa, 66 FR 37002
(July 16, 2001)). It is the rate currently in effect for all exporters.
As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable,
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the
Department's disposal. The SAA clarifies that the petition is
``secondary information,'' and states that ``corroborate'' means to
determine that the information used has probative value. See Statement
of Administrative Action, URAA, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol 1, 103d Cong. (1994)
(SAA) at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information to be used. We have previously examined the 9.28
percent rate and found it to be reliable. See Memorandum from Doug
Campau to Barbara Tillman, Preliminary Determination of Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From South Africa: Corroboration of
Secondary Information, dated April 23, 2001, and placed on the record
of this review on June 30, 2003.
As part of the corroboration process, we have re-examined the
information used as facts available in the investigation. For purposes
of this administrative review, we have reviewed the petition and the
administrative record, and found no reason to believe that the
reliability of this information should be called into question.
Further, the Department considers information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is
not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will
disregard the selected margin and determine an appropriate margin. See
e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (Flowers from
Mexico). We found the AFA rate from the LTFV investigation in this case
to be relevant and reliable, and therefore corroborated for purposes of
this administrative review. Accordingly, we determine that the
information from the petition remains the most appropriate basis for
AFA.
When circumstances warrant, the Department may diverge from its
standard practice of selecting as the AFA rate the highest rate in any
segment of the proceeding and calculate the AFA rate pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act. For example, in Flowers from Mexico, the
Department did not use the highest margin in that case as best
information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the
margin was based on another company's aberrational business expense
that resulted in an unusually high margin. See Flowers from Mexico at
6814. In other cases, the Department did not apply a margin, because
that figure was subsequently discredited, or the facts did not support
such a usage. See also Allegheny Ludlum Corp., et al. v. United States,
Slip Op 03-89 (July 24, 2003 at 22-26, currently on appeal, and D & L
Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the
Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated).
None of these unusual circumstances are present here. Moreover, the
rate selected is the rate currently applicable to all exporters.
Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any segment of
this administrative proceeding (i.e., the rate of 9.28 percent from the
determination of sales at LTFV) is in accord with the requirement of
section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be corroborated
(i.e., that it have probative value).
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine the antidumping margins for
Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld, based on total AFA, to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter Time Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iscor/Saldanha................... 05/03/01-08/31/02 9.28
Highveld........................ 05/03/01-08/31/02 9.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64856]]
Duty Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of
publication of the final results of review. Furthermore, the following
deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from South Africa
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate indicated above; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior 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 subject merchandise; and (4) for all
other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit
rate shall be the all other rate established in the LTFV investigation,
which is 9.28 percent. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain
in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section 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 doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO as explained in the administrative order itself. Timely written
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 sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 6, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Issues
Comment 1: There Has Been Continued Injurious Dumping & Lack of
Cooperation by Respondents.
Comment 2: The Statute and the Department's Practice Require It
to Recalculate the Margin: The Margins Should Reflect Current
Industry/Market Conditions and Trading Practices.
Comment 3: The Department Should Recalculate the Margin to
Update It to the POR.
Comment 4: The Cases Cited in the Preliminary Results Provide No
Basis for the Department's Determination.
[FR Doc. 03-28669 Filed 11-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P