[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9542-9544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3750]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-822]


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

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

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards, Brian Davis, or 
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-8029, (202) 482-7924, and (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Amendment to the Final Results

    In accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended, (the Act), on January 5, 2011, the Department 
issued its final results in the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 
in coils) from Mexico, covering the period July 1, 2008, to June 30, 
2009. The final results were subsequently released to all parties in 
the proceeding, and published in the Federal Register on January 13, 
2011. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 2332 (January 
13, 2011) (S4 from Mexico 2008-2009 Final Results). On January 14, 
2011, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), we received a timely-filed 
allegation from the respondent in this administrative review, 
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox SA) and Mexinox USA, Inc. 
(Mexinox USA) (collectively referred to as Mexinox), that the 
Department made ministerial errors with respect to several aspects of 
Mexinox's margin calculation. See Letter from Mexinox to the Department 
of Commerce, titled ``Ministerial Error Comments,'' dated January 14, 
2011 (Mexinox Ministerial Letter). On January 20, 2011, we received 
comments from Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, and 
North American Stainless (collectively referred to as petitioners) 
regarding the ministerial errors alleged by Mexinox. See Letter from 
petitioners to the Department of Commerce, regarding ``Response to 
Mexinox's Ministerial Error Allegations,'' dated January 20, 2011 
(Petitioners' Response Letter). For a discussion of the Department's 
analysis of the allegations in the Mexinox Ministerial Letter and 
rebuttal comments in the Petitioners' Response Letter, see Memorandum 
from Patrick Edwards and Brian Davis, Case Analysts, through Angelica 
Mendoza, Program Manager, to Richard Weible, Office Director, entitled, 
``Ministerial Errors Allegation in the Final Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Mexico: ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.,'' dated February 14, 
2011 (Ministerial Error Allegation Memo).
    A ministerial error, as defined at section 751(h) of the Act, 
includes ``errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic 
function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, 
duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error 
which {the Department{time}  considers ministerial.'' See also 19 CFR 
351.224(f). In its Ministerial Letter, Mexinox alleges that the 
Department made five ministerial errors in calculating Mexinox's 
antidumping duty margin. First, Mexinox alleges that the Department 
made a ministerial error by incorrectly placing a parenthesis in its 
calculation of cost of goods sold to

[[Page 9543]]

derive constructed export price profit, effectively failing to extend 
the per-unit cost of production and per-unit packing expenses by the 
quantity sold. See Mexinox Ministerial Letter at 2. Second, Mexinox 
alleges that the Department incorrectly derived quarterly cost data by 
assigning a production quantity to those products which were sold, but 
not produced in certain quarters, thus overstating Mexinox's production 
quantities and miscalculating the indexed quarterly costs. Id. at 3. 
Third, Mexinox alleges several errors with regard to the Department's 
calculation of its U.S. indirect selling expenses. Specifically, 
Mexinox contends that the Department a) failed to include ``other 
income/expenses'' specific to Mexinox USA, b) double-counted certain 
service fee expenses incurred by Mexinox's affiliates in the United 
States, and c) applied the wrong raw material service fee in its 
calculation of Mexinox's total indirect selling expenses. Id. at 6. 
Fourth, Mexinox contends that the Department incorrectly accounted for 
employee profit sharing in its calculation of Mexinox's general and 
administrative (G&A) ratio. Id. at 9. Fifth, and finally, Mexinox 
alleges that the Department's margin calculation programs caused 
certain variables to be overwritten when comparison market sales were 
merged with Mexinox's reported costs. Id. at 10.
    In their rebuttal letter, petitioners commented on only two of 
Mexinox's alleged errors. First, petitioners argue that Mexinox's 
allegation with regard to the inclusion of ``other income/expenses'' 
specific to Mexinox USA is methodological in nature and, therefore, 
does not constitute a ministerial error. See Petitioners' Response 
Letter at 2-3. Petitioners further argue that the Department did use 
the correct raw material services fee in its calculation of Mexinox's 
U.S. indirect selling expenses and, therefore, Mexinox's alleged error 
is incorrect. Id. at 4. Second, petitioners allege that, should the 
Department agree with Mexinox's allegation that the Department 
inadvertently overstated production quantities and consequently 
calculated incorrect quarterly cost indices, Mexinox's suggested 
programming changes would cause several errors in the Department's 
margin calculation programs and would continue to calculate incorrect 
quarterly cost indices. Id. at 6.
    After analyzing Mexinox's ministerial error comments and 
petitioners' rebuttal comments, we have determined, in accordance with 
section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made 
ministerial errors with respect to our calculation for cost of goods 
sold and our quarterly costs indices, as well as certain aspects of 
Mexinox's indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States, and 
Mexinox's G&A ratio calculation.\1\ See Mexinox's Ministerial Letter; 
see also Memorandum to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico--Amended 
Final Results Analysis Memorandum for ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de 
C.V.,'' dated February 14, 2011 (2008-2009 S4 from Mexico Amended Final 
Results Analysis Memorandum), for a further discussion. Therefore, the 
Department has corrected both the Comparison Market Program and the 
U.S. Margin Program and, where appropriate, the relevant Macros Program 
to reflect the correction of these errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With regard to Mexinox's error allegation involving U.S. 
indirect selling expenses, we note that Mexinox raised four separate 
issues concerning our calculation. Three of these we are correcting 
as ministerial errors. However, the fourth issue, pertaining to 
offsetting Mexinox's indirect selling expenses for service revenue 
received from its U.S. affiliates, is methodological in nature and 
the Department's intent to deny Mexinox's requested offset is 
reflected in the final results. Therefore, we are not adjusting for 
this allegation (i.e., we are continuing to deny Mexinox's requested 
offset).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending 
the final results in this antidumping duty administrative review of S4 
in coils from Mexico. After correcting for the noted ministerial errors 
with respect to cost of goods sold, quarterly costs, U.S. indirect 
selling expenses, and G&A expenses, the amended final weighted-average 
dumping margin has changed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Final results       Amended final
      Manufacturer/exporter        weighted- average   weighted- average
                                   margin percentage   margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V               21.14               12.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.212(b). Where entered values are missing for some sales and 
reported for others, the Department calculates a per-unit assessment 
rate on an importer-specific basis. The Department calculated an 
importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rate by aggregating the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales 
and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. Where 
the duty assessment rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to 
assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer in 
accordance with the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    After issuance of the amended final results of this review, for any 
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the amended final 
results that are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), we 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the per-unit 
dollar amount against each unit of merchandise on each of that 
importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these 
amended final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by Mexinox for which Mexinox did not know the merchandise 
was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct 
CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 30.69 percent all others 
rate if there is no company-specific rate for an intermediary involved 
in the transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements continue to be effective on any 
entries made on or after February 14, 2011, the date of publication of 
these amended final results, for all shipments of subject merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn

[[Page 9544]]

from warehouse, for consumption as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act: (1) For Mexinox, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the company-specific rate shown above; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash 
deposit rate for all other Mexican exporters will be 30.69 percent, the 
all others rate from the less-than-fair-value investigation; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all non-Mexican exporters will be the rate 
applicable to the Mexican exporter that supplied that exporter. These 
cash deposit requirements continue to remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. 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 violation that is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing these amended final results of review 
and notice in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: February 14, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-3750 Filed 2-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P