47422 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine, during an

administrative review initiated two

years or four years after publication of

the order, whether antidumping duties

have been absorbed by a foreign

producer or exporter subject to the order

if the subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an importer who

is affiliated with such foreign producer

or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added

to the Act by the URAA. The

Department’s current regulations do not

address this provision of the Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, i.e.,

orders in effect as of January 1, 1995,

§ 351.213(j)(2) of the Department’s new

antidumping regulations provides that

the Department will make a duty

absorption determination, if requested,

in any administrative review initiated in

1996 or 1998. See 19 CFR

§ 351.213(j)(2), 62 FR 27394 (May 19,

1997). While the new regulations are not

binding on the Department in the

instant reviews, which were initiated

under the interim regulations, they

nevertheless serve as a statement of

departmental policy. Because the order

on certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat

products from the Netherlands has been

in effect since 1993, it is a transition

order in accordance with section

751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. Since this review

was initiated in 1996 and a request for

a duty-absorption inquiry was made, the

Department will undertake a duty

absorption inquiry as part of this

administrative review.

The Act provides for a determination

on duty absorption if the subject

merchandise is sold in the United States

through an affiliated importer. In this

case, the reviewed firm sold through an

importer of record, Hoogovens Steel

USA, Inc., that is ‘‘affiliated’’ within the

meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

Furthermore, we have preliminarily

determined that there are dumping

margins for respondent with respect to

18.50 percent of its U.S. sales, by

quantity.

We presume that the duties will be

absorbed for those sales which were

dumped. This presumption can be

rebutted with evidence that the

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States will pay the ultimately assessed

duty. However, there is no such

evidence on the record. Under these

circumstances, we preliminarily find

that antidumping duties have been

absorbed by Hoogovens Steel BV on the

percentages of U.S. sales indicated. If

interested parties wish to submit

evidence that the unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States will pay

the ultimately assessed duty, they must

do so no later than 15 days after

publication of these preliminary results.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996:

Company Margin

(percent)

Hoogovens Steel BV .................. 1.95

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish the final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing, within 120

days after the publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by this review and for future

deposits of estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of cold-rolled carbon steel flat products

from the Netherlands entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for the reviewed firm will

be the rate established in the final

results of administrative review, except

if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and

therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, in which case

the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of this review; and (3) if

neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review or the original fair

value investigation, the cash deposit

rate will be 19.32 percent.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during these review

periods. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23849 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–815 & A–580–816]

Certain Cold-Rolled and CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Korea: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

three respondents and from the

petitioners in the original investigation,

the Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on certain

cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products from Korea.

These reviews cover three

manufacturers and exporters of the

subject merchandise. The period of

review (‘‘POR’’) is August 1, 1995,

through July 31, 1996.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative reviews, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties based on the difference between
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47423

export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the

issue; and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Baker (Dongbu), Steve Bezirganian

(POSCO), Thomas Killiam or Alain

Letort (Union), or John Kugelman,

Enforcement Group III—Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–2924

(Baker), –1395 (Bezirganian), –2704

(Killiam), –4243 (Letort), or –0649

(Kugelman).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘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 353 (April 1997). Although

the Department’s new regulations,

codified at 19 CFR part 351 (62 FR

27296—May 19, 1997), do not govern

these proceedings, citations to those

regulations are provided, where

appropriate, to explain current

departmental practice.

Background

The Department published

antidumping duty orders on certain

cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products from Korea on

August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44159). The

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty orders for the 1995/

96 review period on August 12, 1996 (61

FR 41768). On August 31, 1996,

respondents Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Dongbu’’), Union Steel Manufacturing

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Union’’), and Pohang Iron

and Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘POSCO’’),

requested that the Department conduct

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on cold-rolled

and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products from Korea. On the same day,

the petitioners in the original less-thanfair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigations (AK

Steel Corporation; Bethlehem Steel

Corporation; Inland Steel Industries,

Inc.; LTV Steel Co., Inc.; National Steel

Corporation; and U.S. Steel Group, a

unit of USX Corporation) filed a similar

request. We initiated these reviews on

September 13, 1996 (61 FR 48882—

September 17, 1996).

On October 7, 1996, the petitioners

requested, pursuant to section 751(a)(4)

of the Act, that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed by the respondents

during the POR. Section 751(a)(4)

provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine, during an

administrative review initiated two

years or four years after publication of

the order, whether antidumping duties

have been absorbed by a foreign

producer or exporter subject to the order

if the subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an importer who

is affiliated with such foreign producer

or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added

to the Act by the URAA.

The regulations governing these

reviews do not address this provision of

the Act. However, for transition orders

as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the

Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1,

1995, section 351.213(j)(2) of the

Department’s new antidumping

regulations provides that the

Department will make a duty-absorption

determination, if requested, in any

administrative review initiated in 1996

or 1998. See 19 CFR 351.213(j)(2), 62 FR

at 27394. As noted above, while the new

regulations do not govern the instant

reviews, they nevertheless serve as a

statement of departmental policy.

Because the orders on certain coldrolled and corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products from Korea have been

in effect since 1993, they are transition

orders in accordance with section

751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. Since these

reviews were initiated in 1996 and a

request for a duty-absorption inquiry

was made, the Department will

undertake a duty-absorption inquiry as

part of these administrative reviews.

The Act provides for a determination

on duty absorption if the subject

merchandise is sold in the United States

through an affiliated importer. In these

cases, all reviewed firms sold through

importers that are ‘‘affiliated’’ within

the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the

Act. Furthermore, we have preliminarily

determined that there are dumping

margins for the following firms with

respect to the percentages of their U.S.

sales, by quantity, indicated below:

Name of firm

Class or kind

of merchandise

Percentage of

U.S. affiliate’s

sales with

dumping margins

Dongbu ........ Cold-Rolled .. 0.00%.

CorrosionResistant.5.98%

POSCO ........ Cold-Rolled .. 10.07%

CorrosionResistant.10.63%.

Union ........... Cold-Rolled .. No U.S. sales

in POR.

CorrosionResistant.7.88%.

We presume that the duties will be

absorbed for those sales which were

dumped. This presumption can be

rebutted with evidence that the

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States will pay the ultimately assessed

duty. However, there is no such

evidence on the record. Under these

circumstances, we preliminarily find

that antidumping duties have been

absorbed by the above-listed firms on

the percentages of U.S. sales indicated.

If interested parties wish to submit

evidence that the unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States will pay

the ultimately assessed duty, they must

do so no later than 15 days after

publication of these preliminary results.

Under the Act, the Department may

extend the deadline for completion of

administrative reviews if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. On February 18, 1997, and

again on July 18, 1997, the Department

extended the time limits for the

preliminary results in these cases. See

Certain Cold-Rolled and CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Korea; Extension of Time Limits

for Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 40333 (July 28, 1997).

The Department is conducting these

administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Reviews

The review of ‘‘certain cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products’’ covers coldrolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flatrolled products, of rectangular shape,

neither clad, plated nor coated with

metal, whether or not painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances, in coils

(whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150
47424 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(‘‘HTS’’) under item numbers

7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030,

7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0090,

7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060,

7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530,

7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550,

7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000,

7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000,

7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000,

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,

7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000,

7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500,

7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060,

7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030,

7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500,

7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,

7215.50.0015, 7215.50.0060,

7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000,

7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000,

7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000,

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030,

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in

this review are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded from this review is

certain shadow mask steel, i.e.,

aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil

that is open-coil annealed, has a carbon

content of less than 0.002 percent, is of

0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to

30 inches in width, and has an ultra flat,

isotropic surface.

The review of ‘‘certain corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products’’

covers flat-rolled carbon steel products,

of rectangular shape, either clad, plated,

or coated with corrosion-resistant

metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-

, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based

alloys, whether or not corrugated or

painted, varnished or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances

in addition to the metallic coating, in

coils (whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060,

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,

7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000,

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090,

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000,

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000,

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030,

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in

this review are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded from this review are

flat-rolled steel products either plated or

coated with tin, lead, chromium,

chromium oxides, both tin and lead

(‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and

chromium oxides (‘‘tin-free steel’’),

whether or not painted, varnished or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances in addition to

the metallic coating. Also excluded from

this review are clad products in straight

lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in

composite thickness and of a width

which exceeds 150 millimeters and

measures at least twice the thickness.

Also excluded from this review are

certain clad stainless flat-rolled

products, which are three-layered

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75

millimeters in composite thickness that

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

product clad on both sides with

stainless steel in a 20%–60%–20%

ratio.

These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written descriptions

remain dispositive.

The POR is August 1, 1995 through

July 31, 1996. These reviews cover sales

of certain cold-rolled and corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products by

Dongbu, Union, and POSCO.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondents using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturers’

facilities, the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification

reports.

Transactions Reviewed

In accordance with section 751 of the

Act, the Department is required to

determine the EP (or CEP) and NV of

each entry of subject merchandise.

In determining NV, based on our

review of the submissions by Dongbu

and Union, the Department determined

that Dongbu and Union need not report

‘‘downstream’’ sales by affiliated

resellers in the home market because of

their small quantity. With respect to

POSCO, based on our review of the

respondent’s submissions, the

Department determined that POSCO

need not report the home market

downstream sales of the service centers

in which it owns a minority stake

because it appears that they would have

a minimal effect upon the calculation of

NV, and such reporting would

constitute an enormous burden. See

Memorandum to Richard O. Weible

from Steve Bezirganian (August 29,

1997).

For purposes of these reviews, we are

treating POSCO, Pohang Coated Steel

Co., Ltd. (‘‘POCOS’’), and Pohang Steel

Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘PSI’’) as affiliated

parties and have ‘‘collapsed’’ them as a

single producer of certain cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products (POSCO and

PSI) and certain corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products (POSCO,

POCOS, and PSI). POSCO, POCOS, and

PSI were already collapsed in previous

segments of these proceedings. See, e.g.,

Final Determinations of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Korea,

58 FR 37176 (July 9, 1993). The POSCO

group has submitted no information

which would cause us to change that

treatment.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products produced by

the respondents, covered by the

descriptions in the ‘‘Scope of the

Reviews’’ section of this notice, supra,

and sold in the home market during the

POR, to be foreign like products for the

purpose of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales of

cold-rolled carbon steel flat products.

Likewise, we considered all corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products

produced by the respondents and sold

in the home market during the POR to

be foreign like products for the purpose

of determining appropriate product

comparisons to corrosion-resistant
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47425

carbon steel flat products sold in the

United States. Where there were no

sales of identical merchandise in the

home market to compare to U.S. sales,

we compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis

of the characteristics listed in Appendix

V of the Department’s September 19,

1996 antidumping questionnaire. In

making the product comparisons, we

matched foreign like products based on

the physical characteristics reported by

the respondent and verified by the

Department. Where sales were made in

the home market on a different weight

basis from the U.S. market (theoretical

versus actual weight), we converted all

quantities to the same weight basis,

using the conversion factors supplied by

the respondents, before making our fairvalue comparisons.

Fair-Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of certain

cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products by the

respondents to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared EP (or CEP) to NV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price (or

Constructed Export Price)’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of

the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Use of Home-Market Sales

Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act

provides that the Department will use

third-country sales as the basis for

normal value if ‘‘the particular market

situation in the exporting country does

not permit a proper comparison with

the export price or the constructed

export price.’’ Section B.2.a(1) of the

Statement of Administrative Action,

which accompanied the passage of the

URAA (H.R. Doc. No. 3106, 103rd

Cong., 2nd Sess. 829–831 (1994))

(‘‘SAA’’), further states that ‘‘Commerce

may determine that home market sales

are inappropriate as a basis for

determining normal value if the

particular market situation would not

permit a proper comparison.’’ SAA at

822. The statute does not define

‘‘particular market situation,’’ but the

SAA indicates that ‘‘such a situation

might exist where a single sale in the

home market constitutes five percent of

sales to the United States or where there

is government control over pricing to

such an extent that home market prices

cannot be considered to be

competitively set.’’ Id.

On October 24 and November 22,

1996, and again on March 17, 1997, the

petitioners alleged that the Government

of Korea controls steel prices in Korea

and that the home-market prices

reported by respondents are therefore

not true market prices. Claiming that the

home market could not be used, the

petitioners requested that the

Department collect third-country sales

information for each of the Korean

respondents, and use the respondents’

sales of subject merchandise to third

countries for purposes of comparison

with prices in the U.S. market.

On April 15, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register its

notice of final results of administrative

reviews in the previous segment of these

proceedings. In that notice the

Department found that ‘‘while there

(was) some evidence of a substantial

level of Korean government

involvement in domestic steel pricing,

there was not ‘‘convincing’’ evidence

that the Korean government controlled

domestic steel prices ‘‘to such an extent

that home market prices cannot be

considered to be competitively set.’ ’’ In

other words, petitioners failed to meet

the burden of demonstrating that there

is a ‘‘reasonable basis for believing that

a ‘‘particular market situation’’ exists.’’

See ‘‘Explanation to the Final Rules,’’

section 351.404, in the new regulations

at 62 FR 27357 (May 19, 1997). We

determined, therefore, that the Korean

home market was viable and

appropriate as a basis for NV. No factual

information has been submitted in the

record of these proceedings that would

lead us to modify this decision. We

determine, therefore, that the Korean

home market still provides an

appropriate basis for calculating NV.

Date of Sale

It is the Department’s current practice

normally to use the invoice date as the

date of sale; we may, however, use a

date other than the invoice date if we

are satisfied that a different date better

reflects the date on which the exporter

or producer establishes the material

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i) (62

FR at 27411).

The questionnaire we sent to the

respondents on September 19, 1997

instructed them to report the date of

invoice as the date of sale; it also stated,

however, that ‘‘[t]he date of sale cannot

occur after the date of shipment.’’

Because in these reviews the date of

shipment in many instances preceded

the date of invoice, we cannot use the

date of invoice as the new regulations

prescribe. Accordingly, as allowed by

the exception set forth in § 351.401(i) of

the new regulations, we used the dates

of sale described below. These sale

dates reflect the dates on which the

exporter or producer established the

material terms of sale.

A. Dongbu

Rather than the date of invoice, we

used the date of shipment as the date of

sale for home-market sales by Dongbu,

and the contract date as the date of sale

for Dongbu’s U.S. sales. We based the

date of sale on those dates because the

material terms of sale could, and did,

change until those dates.

B. POSCO

Rather than the date of invoice, we

used the date of shipment as the date of

sale for all sales by the POSCO group.

We based the date of sale on this date

because the material terms of sale could,

and did, change until that date.

C. Union

Rather than the date of invoice, we

used the date of shipment as the date of

sale for home-market sales by Union,

and the contract date as the date of sale

for Union’s U.S. sales. We based the

date of sale on those dates because the

material terms of sale could, and did,

change until those dates.

Export Price (or Constructed Export

Price)

We calculated the price of United

States sales based on EP, in accordance

with section 772(a) of the Act, when the

subject merchandise was sold to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States prior to the date of importation.

In certain instances, however, we

determined that CEP, as defined in

section 772(b) of the Act, was a more

appropriate basis for comparison with

NV.

We determined that some of the sales

Dongbu reported as EP sales were

actually CEP sales because they were

sold to the first unaffiliated customer in

the U.S. after importation into U.S.

customs territory. We also determined

that some of those sales were made

outside the period of review. We will

review these sales in the review

covering the period during which those

sales were made. With regard to Union,

we used CEP as the basis for comparison

with NV in certain instances where

sales were made prior to importation

and Union’s U.S. affiliate had

substantial involvement in the U.S. sale.

In these cases, our determination was

based on the following facts: (a) Union

America (‘‘UA’’) and later Dongkuk

International (‘‘DKA’’), Union’s sales

office in the United States, was the

importer of record and took title to the

merchandise; (b) UA or DKA financed

the relevant sales transactions; (c) UA
47426 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

arranged to have the merchandise

further processed by an outside

contractor in the United States on a feefor-service basis and paid for the further

processing; and (d) UA or DKA assumed

the seller’s risk.

Although these are the only sales we

are reclassifying as CEP, for the final

review results we will consider whether

other sales claimed by respondents to be

indirect EP sales should in fact be

reclassified as CEP sales. We will

reexamine the issues surrounding the

affiliate’s selling activities and sales

operations in the United States in

determining whether a particular sale

should be considered indirect EP or

CEP.

For all three respondents, we

calculated EP based on packed prices to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price for

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling, international freight,

marine insurance, U.S. inland freight,

U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S.

Customs duties, and that portion of

markups by affiliated trading companies

categorized as movement expenses; we

also added duty drawback to the starting

price.

We calculated CEP based on packed

prices to unaffiliated customers in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

for foreign inland freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, international

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland

freight, U.S. brokerage and handling,

U.S. Customs duties, commissions,

credit expenses, warranty expenses,

indirect selling expenses, and further

processing in the United States; we also

added duty drawback to the starting

price. Finally, we made an adjustment

for profit in accordance with section

772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home-market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country was sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States, pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the home market, in the

usual commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade. We excluded

certain ‘‘overrun’’ sales in the home

market from our sales comparisons

because these sales were outside the

ordinary course of trade.

Where appropriate, we deducted

rebates, discounts, inland freight (offset,

where applicable, by freight revenue),

inland insurance, and packing. We also

deducted value-added tax (‘‘VAT’’)

since the reported gross unit price

included VAT. Based on our verification

of home-market sales responses, we

made adjustments to NV, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses (offset, where applicable, by

interest income), warranty expenses,

post-sale warehousing, and for

differences in weight basis. We also

made adjustments, where appropriate,

for home-market indirect selling

expenses to offset U.S. commissions in

EP and CEP comparisons.

In comparisons to EP and CEP sales,

we also increased NV by U.S. packing

costs in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made

adjustments to NV for differences in

cost attributable to differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Differences in Levels of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(A) of the Act and the SAA at

829–831, to the extent practicable, the

Department will calculate NV based on

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’)

as the U.S. sale (either EP or CEP).

When there are no sales in the

comparison market at the same LOT as

the U.S. sale(s), the Department may

compare sales in the U.S. and foreign

markets at a different LOT, and adjust

NV if appropriate. The NV LOT is that

of the starting price of sales in the home

market. See, e.g., Certain Circular

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from Taiwan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 31070 (June 6, 1997).

As the Department explained in Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker from

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, (‘‘Cement

from Mexico’’) (62 FR 17148, 17156—

April 9, 1997), for both EP and CEP, the

relevant transaction for the LOT

analysis is the sale from the exporter to

the importer. While the starting price for

CEP is that of a subsequent resale to an

unaffiliated buyer, the construction of

the CEP results in a price that would

have been charged if the importer had

not been affiliated. Because the

expenses deducted under section 772(d)

represent selling activities in the United

States, the deduction of these expenses

may yield a different LOT for the CEP

than for the later resale (which we use

for the starting price).

To determine whether home-market

sales were at a different LOT than U.S.

sales, we examine whether the homemarket sales were at different stages in

the marketing process than the U.S.

sales. The marketing process in both

markets begins with goods being sold by

the producer and extends to the sale to

the final user. The chain of distribution

between the producer and the final user

may have many or few links, and each

respondent’s sales occur somewhere

along this chain. In the United States,

the respondent’s sales are generally to

an importer, whether independent or

affiliated. We review and compare the

distribution systems in the home market

and the United States, including selling

functions, class of customer, and the

extent and level of selling expenses for

each claimed LOT. Customer categories

such as distributor, retailers or endusers are commonly used by

respondents to describe levels of trade,

but without substantiation, they are

insufficient to establish that a claimed

LOT is valid. An analysis of the chain

of distribution and of the selling

functions substantiates or invalidates

the claimed levels of trade. If the

claimed levels are different, the selling

functions performed in selling to each

level should also be different.

Conversely, if levels of trade are

nominally the same, the selling

functions performed should also be the

same. Different levels of trade

necessarily involve differences in

selling functions, but differences in

selling functions, even substantial ones,

are not alone sufficient to establish a

difference in the levels of trade.

Differences in levels of trade are

characterized by purchasers at different

stages of marketing or their equivalent,

which may be different stages in the

chain of distribution and sellers

performing qualitatively or

quantitatively different functions in

selling to them.

When we compare U.S. sales to homemarket sales at a different LOT, we

make a LOT adjustment if the difference

in LOT affects price comparability. We

determine any effect on price

comparability by examining sales at

different levels of trade in the home

market (or the third-country market)

used to calculate NV. Any price effect

must be manifested in a pattern of

consistent price differences between

home-market (or third-country) sales

used for comparison and sales at the

equivalent LOT of the export

transaction. See, e.g. Granular

Polytetrafluorethylene Resin from Italy;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

26283, 26285 (May 13, 1997); Cement

from Mexico at 17148.) To quantify the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47427

price differences, we calculate the

difference in the weighted average of the

net prices of the same models sold at

different levels of trade in the home

market. Net prices are used because any

difference will be due to differences in

LOT rather than other factors. We use

the average percentage difference

between these weighted averages to

adjust NV when the LOT of NV is

different from that of the export sale. If

there is a pattern of no price differences,

then the difference in LOT does not

have a price effect and no adjustment is

necessary.

In the case of CEP sales, section 773

of the statute also provides for an

adjustment to NV if it is compared to

U.S. sales at a different LOT, provided

the NV is more remote from the factory

than the CEP sales and we are unable to

determine whether the difference in

levels of trade between CEP and NV

affects the comparability of their prices.

This latter situation might occur when

there is no home-market (or thirdcountry) LOT equivalent to the U.S.

sales level, or where there is an

equivalent home-market (or thirdcountry) level, but the data are

insufficient to support a conclusion on

price effect. See, e.g., Certain Corrosion

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

and Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 18448, 18466 (April 15,

1997). This adjustment, the CEP offset,

is identified in section 773(a)(7)(B) and

is the lower of the (1) indirect selling

expenses of the home-market (or thirdcountry) sale; or (2) indirect selling

expenses deducted from the starting

price used to calculate CEP. The CEP

offset is not automatic each time we use

CEP. See Mechanical Transfer Presses

from Japan, Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR 17148, 17156 (October 9, 1996). The

CEP offset is made only when the LOT

of the home-market (or third country)

sale is more advanced than the LOT of

the U.S. CEP sale and there is not an

appropriate basis for determining

whether there is an effect on price

comparability. See, e.g., Cement from

Mexico, at 17156.

A. Dongbu

In its questionnaire responses,

Dongbu stated that there were no

differences in its selling activities by

customer categories within each market.

In order independently to confirm the

absence of separate levels of trade

within or between the U.S. and homemarkets, we examined Dongbu’s

questionnaire responses for indications

that Dongbu’s functions as a seller

differed qualitatively and quantitatively

among customer categories. See

commentary to § 351.412 of the

Department’s new regulations (62 FR at

27371).

Dongbu sold to local distributors and

end-users in the U.S. market. In the

home market, Dongbu also sold to local

distributors and end-users. At both

stages of distribution, Dongbu

performed the same selling and

marketing functions for all its homemarket and U.S. customers. In

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act, we consider the selling

functions reflected in the starting price

of home-market sales before any

adjustments. Our analysis of the

questionnaire response leads us to

conclude that sales within or between

each market are not made at different

levels of trade. Accordingly, we

preliminarily find that all sales in the

home market and the U.S. market were

made at the same level of trade.

Therefore, all price comparisons are at

the same level of trade and any

adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)

of the Act is unwarranted.

B. POSCO

In its questionnaire responses, POSCO

stated that its home-market sales by

affiliated service centers were at a

different level of trade than its other

home-market sales and its U.S. sales

(regardless of the customer category).

The respondent indicated that the

service centers provide certain selling

functions to all of their customers, while

POSCO and its selling arms (e.g.,

POCOS or PSI) provide a different set of

selling functions to all of their

customers (including the service

centers).

In order independently to confirm the

presence of separate levels of trade

within or between the U.S. and home

markets, we examined POSCO’s

questionnaire responses for indications

of substantive differences in selling and

marketing functions, and reviewed this

issue during the sales verification in

Korea. See commentary to § 351.412 of

the Department’s new regulations (62

FR at 27371).

The POSCO group did not provide

evidence of differences in selling

functions to support its characterization

of its home-market service-center sales

as a different level of trade from its U.S.

sales and its other home-market sales.

The POSCO group indicated at

verification that selling functions were

unchanged from the second

administrative review period, and for

that segment of these proceedings the

Department treated all POSCO group

sales in both markets as having been at

the same level of trade. Accordingly, we

preliminarily find that all sales in the

home market and the U.S. market were

made at the same level of trade.

Therefore, all price comparisons are at

the same level of trade and any

adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)

of the Act is unwarranted.

C. Union

In its questionnaire responses, Union

stated that there were no differences in

its selling activities by customer

categories within each market. In order

independently to confirm the absence of

separate levels of trade within or

between the U.S. and home markets, we

examined Union’s questionnaire

responses for indications that Union’s

functions as a seller differed,

qualitatively and quantitatively, among

customer categories. See commentary to

§ 351.412 of the Department’s new

regulations (62 FR at 27371).

Union sold to unrelated distributors

and end-users in the U.S. market. In the

home market, Union sold to unrelated

distributors and end-users and to related

distributors for sale to unrelated endusers. At both stages of distribution,

Union performed the same selling and

marketing functions for sales to all its

home-market and U.S. sales. In

identifying the level of trade for CEP

sales, we considered only the selling

activities reflected in the U.S. price after

deduction of expenses and profit under

section 772(d) of the Act. In accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we consider the selling functions

reflected in the starting price of homemarket sales before any adjustments.

Our analysis of the questionnaire

response leads us to conclude that sales

within and between each market are not

made at different levels of trade.

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that

all sales in the home market and the

U.S. market were made at the same level

of trade. Therefore, all price

comparisons are at the same level of

trade and any adjustment pursuant to

section 773(a)(7) of the Act is

unwarranted.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

At the time the questionnaires were

issued in these reviews, the LTFV

investigations were the most recently

completed segments of these

proceedings in which POSCO had

participated. Because we disregarded

certain below-cost sales by POSCO in

the investigations, we found reasonable

grounds in these reviews, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,

to believe or suspect that POSCO made

sales in the home market at prices below

the cost of producing the merchandise.
47428 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

Furthermore, based on the fact that we

had disregarded certain sales by Dongbu

and Union in the first administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain corrosion-resistant flat

products because they were made below

the COP, we found reasonable grounds

in these reviews, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, to

believe or suspect that Dongbu and

Union made sales of certain corrosionresistant flat products in the home

market at prices below the cost of

producing the merchandise. Finally,

petitioners alleged, on January 8, 1997,

that Dongbu sold certain cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products in the home

market at prices below COP. Based on

these allegations, the Department

determined, on April 9, 1997, that it had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that Dongbu had sold the subject

merchandise in the home market at

prices below the COP. We therefore

initiated cost investigations with regard

to Dongbu, POSCO, and Union in order

to determine whether the respondents

made home-market sales during the

POR at prices below their COP within

the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

Before making any fair-value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for homemarket selling, general, and

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

For certain POCOS and POSCO

control numbers, we revised the cost of

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) to reflect

differences in production costs

associated with differences in quality,

thickness, and coating weight.

B. Test of Home-Market Prices

We used the respondents’ weightedaverage COP, as adjusted (see above), for

the period July 1995 to June 1996. We

compared the weighted-average COP

figures to home-market sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act. In determining

whether to disregard home-market sales

made at prices below the COP, we

examined whether (1) within an

extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home-market

prices (not including VAT), less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, and rebates.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POR were

at prices less than the COP, we found

that sales of that model were made in

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an

extended period of time, in accordance

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the

Act, and were not at prices which

would permit recovery of all costs

within an extended period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act. When we found that below-cost

sales had been made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ and were not at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

we disregarded the below-cost sales in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act. Where all contemporaneous sales

of a specific comparison product were at

prices below the COP, we calculated NV

based on CV.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of respondents’ cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A, U.S. packing costs,

interest expenses, and profit. In

accordance with sections 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based SG&A and profit on

the amounts incurred and realized by

the respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

For selling expenses, we used the

weighted-average home-market selling

expenses. Based on our verification of

the cost responses submitted by POSCO,

we adjusted that respondent’s reported

CV to reflect adjustments to COM and

G&A, as detailed in the ‘‘Calculation of

COP’’ section of this notice. We also

made adjustments, where appropriate,

for home-market indirect selling

expenses to offset U.S. commissions in

EP and CEP comparisons.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate

involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In accordance

with the Department’s practice, we have

determined that a fluctuation exists

when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See,

e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods

from France: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (61 FR 8915, 8918—March 6,

1996). The benchmark is defined as the

rolling average of rates for the past 40

business days. When we determined a

fluctuation existed, we substituted the

benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of these reviews, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margins exist:

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weighted-average margin

(percent)

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products:

Dongbu .............................. 0.00

POSCO ............................. 3.40

Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products:

Dongbu .............................. 0.09

POSCO0 ........................... 0.32

Union ................................. 0.63

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of the administrative

review, including its analysis of issues

raised in any written comments or at a

hearing, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47429

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for each respondent will be the rate

established in the final results of these

administrative reviews (except that no

deposit will be required for firms with

zero or de minimis margins, i.e.,

margins lower than 0.5 percent); (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in these reviews, a

prior review, or the original LTFV

investigations, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in these or any prior reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 14.44

percent (for certain cold-rolled carbon

steel flat products) and 17.70 percent

(for certain corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products), the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigations.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 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 double

antidumping duties.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23857 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–822, A–122–823]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products and certain cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Canada. These

reviews cover five manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States and the period August

1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (‘‘NV’’) by various companies

subject to these reviews. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of these administrative

reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs

to assess antidumping duties based on

the difference between the export price

(‘‘EP’’) and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn

Baranowski (Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco

Inc. (‘‘Dofasco’’)), Carrie Blozy

(Continuous Colour Coat (‘‘CCC’’)), Greg

Weber (Algoma, Inc. (‘‘Algoma’’)) and

Gerdau MRM Steel (‘‘MRM’’)), N. Gerard

Zapiain (Stelco, Inc. (‘‘Stelco’’)), or Rick

Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353, as they existed on April 1,

1996.

Background

On August 19, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 44162) the antidumping duty orders

on certain corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products and certain cut-tolength carbon steel plate from Canada.

On August 16, 1996, Algoma (cut-tolength steel plate) requested a review of

its exports of subject merchandise. On

August 21, 1996, MRM (cut-to-length

steel plate) requested a review of its

exports of subject merchandise. On

August 30, 1996, the following

companies also requested reviews for

their exports of subject merchandise:

CCC (corrosion-resistant steel), Dofasco

(corrosion-resistant steel), and Stelco

(corrosion-resistant steel and cut-tolength steel plate). On August 30, 1996,

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel

Group (a Unit of USX Corporation),

Inland Steel Industries Inc., Gulf States

Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel

Corporation, Geneva Steel, and Lukens

Steel Company, petitioners, requested

reviews of Algoma, CCC, Dofasco, MRM,

and Stelco on both classes or kinds of

merchandise. On September 17, 1996, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we

published a notice of initiation of

administrative reviews of these orders

for the period August 1, 1995, through

July 31, 1996 (61 FR 51892).

On October 10, 1996, petitioners

requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed by Algoma, CCC,

Dofasco, MRM, Sorevco, and Stelco

during the POR, pursuant to section

751(a)(4) of the Act. Section 751(a)(4)

provides that the Department, if

requested, will determine during an

administrative review initiated two

years or four years after publication of

the order whether antidumping duties

have been absorbed by a foreign

producer or exporter subject to the order

if the subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an importer who

is affiliated with such foreign producer

or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added

to the Act by the URAA. The

Department’s interim regulations do not

address this provision of the Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, i.e.,

orders in effect as of January 1, 1995,

§ 351.213(j)(2) of the Department’s May

19, 1997 regulations provides that the

Department will make a duty absorption

determination, if requested, for any

administrative review initiated in 1996

or 1998. See Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27394 (‘‘new regulations’’).