[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