18396 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under § 353.26 of the Department’s

regulations 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.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with § 353.34(d) of the Department’s

regulations. Timely notification of

return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and this

notice are in accordance with § 751(a)(1)

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

§ 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9113 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–401–805]

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Sweden: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On October 4, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Sweden. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period August 1, 1994 through July

31, 1995. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We have not

changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Patience or Jean Kemp, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3793.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act), are references 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

the current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 4, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 51898) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain cutto-length carbon steel plate from

Sweden (58 FR 44162). We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results and

held a public hearing on November 19,

1996. We received written comments

from SSAB Svenskt Sta ̊l AB (SSAB),

respondent, and from petitioners:

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. At the request of

respondent and petitioners, a public

hearing was held on November 19,

1996. We have now completed the

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Review

Certain cut-to-length plate includes

hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill

plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a

width exceeding 150 millimeters but not

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters,

not in coils and without patterns in

relief), of rectangular shape, neither

clad, plated nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances; and certain hotrolled carbon steel flat-rolled products

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape,

hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances,

4.75 millimeters or more in thickness

and of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060,

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030,

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,

7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled

products of non-rectangular crosssection 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 is grade

X–70 plate. These HTS item numbers

are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is August

1, 1994, through July 31, 1995.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1—Reconciliation of Kalkyl

System Costs

SSAB argues that it maintains two

cost accounting systems, the normal

cost accounting system and the kalkyl

system. The company’s normal cost

accounting system is used for financial

accounting purposes and records total

costs for each major cost center. The

kalkyl system, on the other hand, is a

‘‘parallel system’’ which is used to

compute budgeted costs for each order

item. Respondent contends that the

kalkyl system is an alternate cost

accounting system and not a ‘‘sales

estimating tool’’ as stated in the

Department’s preliminary results. SSAB

states that it uses the kalkyl system to

ensure profitability of orders it accepts

and that the kalkyl system has been

used historically in the normal course of

business. SSAB further notes that this

system has been accepted by the

Department in a past review.

Respondent claims that the kalkyl

system is the only costing system

maintained by its Oxelo ̈ sund facility

(SSOX) that contains the cost detail

required to meet the Department’s

demands for costs per control number

(i.e., per product).

SSAB argues that it notified the

Department of the fact that the kalkyl

system was not a formal part of SSOX’s
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18397

normal cost and financial accounting

system but, rather a separate and

distinct system relied upon by the

company in the normal course of

business. Despite this fact, according to

SSAB, the Department, at verification,

insisted that the kalkyl system be

reconciled to costs recorded under the

company’s normal cost accounting

system as presented in its audited

financial statements. SSAB asserts that

the Department has discretion as to

whether to reconcile the submitted costs

to audited financial statements and,

since it did not do so in the last review,

it abused its discretion by making

reconciliation a requirement in this

review. SSAB maintains that the SSOX

kalkyl system provided an accurate,

reliable, and fully verifiable cost

database. SSAB argues that the

Department would have rejected any

new data base SSAB tried to create

based on a revised accounting system

and would have resorted to facts

available. See Foam Extruded PVC and

Polystyrene Framing Stock from the

United Kingdom: Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR

51411, 51415 (October 2, 1996)

(Framing Stock).

SSAB also argues that the

Department’s determination that it

failed the cost verification because it

could not reconcile its reported costs to

the costs in the financial accounting

system is arbitrary, capricious, and is

contrary to law. According to SSAB, the

Department’s actual past practice

demonstrates that reconciliation of

reported costs to audited financial

statements is not a mandatory test

uniformly applied by the Department.

SSAB contends that the Department

determined in Certain Pasta From

Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR 30309,

30317 (June 14, 1996) that the refusal of

the Turkish respondent to provide the

financial statements to the Department

did not warrant total adverse facts

available as the Department was,

through some unexplained means, ‘‘able

to substantiate much of the remaining

information contained in its COP/CV

data base.’’ See also, Framing Stock,

Certain Pasta from Italy: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 61 FR 30326, 30358 (June

14, 1996), and Welded Stainless Steel

Pipe from Malaysia: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 59 FR 4023, 4027 (January

28, 1994).

Moreover, SSAB alleges that the cost

verification methodology employed by

the Department in this review is

arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to

law. SSAB contends that in this review,

the Department verifiers applied a

dramatically different verification

methodology than the first review by

demanding that SSOX first directly

reconcile all submitted kalkyl-based

cost data with SSOX’s normal

accounting system. Respondent argues

that verifiers in this review pursued

reconciliation of the reported kalkyl

costs to SSOX’s financials and therefore

refused to, or had no time to, verify the

accuracy of the kalkyl costs (and the

reported SSOX costs) as a stand-alone

system. Respondent maintains that it

had no reason to believe, on the basis

of section D of the Department’s

questionnaire or supplemental cost

questionnaires, that the Department

would, without notice, change its

methodology in the second review cost

verification and require SSOX to

reconcile the kalkyl product-specific

cost data directly to the cost data

contained in SSOX’s financial

statements.

SSAB argues, citing Shikoku

Chemicals Corp. v. United States, 795 F.

Supp. 417 (CIT 1992), National Corn

Grower’s Association v. Baker, 840 F.2d

1547, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and IPSCO,

Inc. v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 614,

631 n.27, that it was an abuse of

discretion for the Department, in the

second administrative review, to

change, without prior notice to SSAB,

the verification methodology used by

the Department in the first review and

relied upon by SSAB in reporting its

cost data in the second administrative

review. Respondent cites to Calcium

Hypochlorite from Japan, 55 FR 41259

(October 10, 1990) as a case where the

Department reversed its preliminary

decision and made an adjustment

consistent with previous reviews for the

‘‘purposes of administrative equity.’’

Respondent contends that in

evaluating the kalkyl system and in

establishing the verification outline, the

Department ignored the fact that the

kalkyl system is not a formal part of

either SSOX’s cost accounting system or

SSOX’s financial accounting system.

Respondent argues that the statute

requires the Department to consider all

allocations of costs if they have been

historically used by the producer and

reasonably reflect costs associated with

the production and sale of the

merchandise. However, respondent

argues that the statute does not mention

normal accounting records, audited

financials or the reconciliation of all

reported product-specific costs to the

audited financials or normal accounting

systems of a respondent. Respondent

argues that the Department’s regulations

do not require reconciliation to audited

financials. Additionally, respondent

maintains that neither the statute nor

the regulations regarding verification

discuss either a full reconciliation of all

reported costs to audited financials or

minimum thresholds a respondent must

meet during a verification.

SSAB maintains that it advised the

Department early in this proceeding that

the SSOX normal accounting system

does not track product-specific costs.

Citing American Permac, Inc. v. United

States, 703 F. Supp. 97 (CIT 1988),

respondent claims there is nothing in

the statute or regulations that requires a

respondent, during verification, to

‘‘precisely and conclusively’’ tie its

reported costs directly into a

respondent’s normal accounting system.

Respondent argues that SSOX was

able to establish a link between the

normal kalkyl system costs and the costs

reported in the company’s financial

accounting system demonstrating that

the total normal kalkyl system costs

were completely consistent with the

total costs in the accounting system. See

Silicon Metal from Brazil, 61 FR 46763,

46767 (September 5, 1996). Respondent

maintains that once this link was

established, the verification team should

have, but failed to, move on to verify the

costs contained in the SSOX kalkyl

system and to verify SSAB Tunnpla ̊t’s

(SSTP) reported costs.

Petitioners argue that the cost data

submitted by SSAB could not be

verified to the Department’s satisfaction.

Additionally, petitioners contend that

SSAB’s submitted costs could not be

reconciled to its audited financial

records. Petitioners maintain that

respondent’s submitted costs were not

demonstrated to be accurate and

reliable. Petitioners claim that because

the kalkyl system is a management

reporting system and not an alternative

cost accounting system, generally

accepted accounting principles are not

applicable. Moreover, petitioners

maintain that SSAB’s representation

that the kalkyl system is maintained in

the ordinary course of business does not

demonstrate that the system reflects

actual costs or is otherwise accurate and

reliable.

Petitioners contend that the

Department’s request for a

reconciliation between SSAB’s

submitted costs and the company’s

normal accounting system and its

audited financial statements was

reasonable, consistent with

longstanding practice, supported by

substantial evidence and in accordance

with law. Petitioners argue that the

Department’s verification methodology

is consistent with longstanding practice,

supported by substantial evidence, and

in accordance with law. Petitioners note
18398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

that the Department is provided with

wide discretion in determining the

verification methodology it will employ

and the Department’s verification team

properly determined not to accept new

cost information at verification.

Department Position

We disagree with SSAB. The

Department’s practice with respect to

calculating costs is directed by section

773(f)(1)(A) of the Act. This provision

specifically requires that costs be

calculated based on the records of the

exporter or producer of the

merchandise, if such records are kept in

accordance with the generally accepted

accounting principles (GAAP) of the

exporting country and reasonably reflect

the costs associated with the production

and sale of the merchandise. Consistent

with the statute, the Department will

accept costs of the exporter or producer

if they are based on the records which

are kept in accordance with GAAP of

the exporting country and reasonably

reflect the costs associated with the

production and sale of the merchandise.

After establishing that the costs are

based on the normal books and records,

which are in conformity with GAAP, the

Department is charged with determining

if those costs reasonably reflect the costs

associated with the production and sale

of the merchandise, i.e., have they been

properly allocated to the products. In

determining if the costs were properly

allocated to products the Department

will look at whether the allocation

methods have been historically used.

In this case, SSAB has stated that it

has two cost accounting systems, its

normal financial accounting system and

the kalkyl system. From the financial

accounting system, the company

prepares its audited financial

statements. These financial statements

reflect the company’s actual costs, in

accordance with GAAP. The basic

accuracy of the statements and their

consistency with GAAP is evidenced by

the opinion of the independent auditors.

With regard to its kalkyl system, SSAB

explains that it is ‘‘not a formal part of

either the cost accounting system or the

financial accounting system. Instead it

is used as a tool in assessing the

appropriate price for a given order.’’ See

SSAB’s May 27, 1996 response to the

Department’s supplemental Section D

questionnaire at 39. SSAB further

explains that the two systems are

‘‘designed around entirely different

parameters, and are designed to serve

completely different purposes.’’ See

respondent’s case brief at 18. With

regard to SSAB’s argument that they had

to report costs using the more specific

kalkyl system or suffer the

consequences of facts available, we

disagree. We find the fact that the kalkyl

system is capable of calculating more

detailed product-specific costs to be

without significance to proper cost

reporting if such costs cannot be shown

to be the actual costs incurred by the

company as recorded in financial

accounting records that are maintained

following GAAP.

Further, we note that the system

SSAB used to prepare its cost response

for its SSOX facility was not the

company’s usual kalkyl system but,

instead, was a ‘‘modified’’ version of the

kalkyl system. Verification testing

showed that the per unit costs from the

‘‘modified’’ kalkyl system (i.e., the

submitted cost data) were substantially

less than the costs in the company’s

basic kalkyl system. SSAB was unable

to reconcile these discrepancies during

verification. Apart from the

inconsistencies between the reported

costs and the kalkyl system costs, the

Department’s verification also

established that both the total

production costs and the per unit costs

from SSAB’s kalkyl system differed

from information in the company’s

financial accounting system (i.e., the

financial statements). SSAB was unable

to reconcile these discrepancies. In

short, the company was unable to

demonstrate that the submitted data

properly reflected the actual costs

incurred by the company as recorded in

its normal system, consistent with

GAAP. (The cost verification report

details the specific procedures

performed and the results of this testing.

See Memorandum from Theresa Caherty

and Elizabeth Patience, September 20,

1996, the Cost Verification Report. See

also, Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Sweden: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review 61 FR 51898, 51899, October 4,

1996.)

With regard to SSAB’s claim that the

Department changed its verification

standard from the prior review period

without providing notice of this change,

we disagree and note that the

Department’s basic methodology (i.e.,

the requirement that the submitted costs

be reconciled to the company’s normal

accounting records maintained in

accordance with GAAP) was

unchanged. SSAB’s statement that in

the first review period it ‘‘could not

reconcile its kalkyl-based reported costs

directly to SSOX’s normal accounting

system’’ is not supported by the findings

of that proceeding. See Memorandum

from Paul McEnrue, August 3, 1995,

Public Version of Cost Verification

Report.

Consistent with the statute and

legislative history, the Department has a

long-standing practice of requiring a

reconciliation of the reported data to the

company’s financial statements. This

practice ensures that the reported costs

are reflective of the company’s actual

experience as shown in its books and

records. (See S. Rep. No. 412, 103rd

Cong., 2nd Sess. 74–75 (1994) ‘‘* * *

costs that most accurately reflect the

resources actually used on the

production of the merchandise in

question.’’ See also H.R. Rep. No. 826,

103rd Cong. Sess., pt. 1, at 90–91 (1994),

and the SAA at 164–165.)

SSAB’s reliance on Certain Pasta from

Turkey to support its contention that

reconciliation of reported costs is

discretionary is misplaced. A more

careful reading of this notice reveals

that the facts present in Certain Pasta

from Turkey are not analogous to

SSAB’s situation in the instant

proceeding. In Certain Pasta from

Turkey, the respondent (Maktas) did not

fail to reconcile its submitted costs to its

own books and records, but rather

Maktas did not provide the financial

statements of its majority owner (PiyaleBesin). Because of the parent-subsidiary

relationship, the Department generally

relies on the consolidated financial

expenses of such entities. Absent

information for the parent company,

Piyale-Besin, the Department relied on

facts available to estimate the

appropriate financial expenses of the

consolidated entity in Certain Pasta

from Turkey. Thus, that case does not

address the issue of a respondent

company’s failure to reconcile its

reported manufacturing costs to the

actual production costs recorded in its

normal books and records.

Likewise, we cannot agree with

SSAB’s reliance on Silicon Metal from

Brazil in support of its belief that a

minimal ‘‘link’’ to the financial

statements is sufficient. In Silicon Metal

from Brazil the respondent relied on its

financial accounting system to prepare

the actual costs submitted to the

Department. Because of the limitations

of its cost accounting system the

respondent relied only on data

maintained in the financial accounting

system. At verification, the company

was able to demonstrate that its reported

costs reconciled to its financial

statements. Thus, the Department was

able to rely on the respondent’s

financial statements to support the

reported costs. Accordingly, Silicon

Metal from Brazil has no relevance to

the instant proceeding where SSAB was

unable to reconcile its reported costs to

its own financial statements. We further

note that SSAB was also unable to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18399

reconcile its reported costs to its normal

kalkyl system.

SSAB’s argument that the

Department’s verifiers erred by not

proceeding beyond the overall

reconciliation of submitted costs to

actual financial statement costs fails to

recognize the importance of this

reconciliation as the starting point of the

Department’s cost verification

procedures. The Department conducts

antidumping inquiries of companies

that operate in a wide variety of

industries. In those cases involving COP

and CV, the Department attempts to

work within the limitations presented

by the respondent’s normal accounting

systems for purposes of establishing a

reasonable method for allocating costs

to individual models of the subject

merchandise. Before assessing the

reasonableness of respondent’s cost

allocation methodology, however, the

Department must ensure that the total

amount of the reported costs account for

all of the actual costs incurred by the

respondent in producing the subject

merchandise during the period under

examination. This is done by

performing a reconciliation of the

respondent’s submitted COP and CV

data to the company’s audited financial

statements (when such statements are

available). Because of the time

constraints imposed on verifications,

the Department must rely generally on

the independent auditor’s opinion that

the respondent’s financial statements

present the actual costs incurred by the

company as reported in accordance with

GAAP in the exporting country. In

situations where the respondent’s total

reported costs differ from amounts

reported in its financial statements, the

overall cost reconciliation helps the

Department to identify and quantify the

amount of those differences in order to

determine whether it was reasonable for

the respondent to depart from its normal

GAAP accounting methods for purposes

of reporting COP and CV.

Although the format of the

reconciliation of submitted costs to

actual financial statement costs depends

greatly on the nature of the accounting

records maintained by the respondent,

the reconciliation represents the starting

point of a cost verification because it

assures the Department that the

respondent has accounted for all costs

before allocating those costs to

individual products. Contrary to SSAB’s

assertion, it would be of little value for

the Department to review respondent’s

cost allocation methods and individual

elements of costs before determining

that, in total, all actual production costs

for the subject merchandise had been

accounted for in the submitted costs.

Verifying individual elements of cost

and their allocation without ensuring

that these elements represent actual

costs incurred by the company provides

no assurance with respect to the

accuracy and reasonableness of the

submitted COP and CV data. Moreover,

in this specific instance, the Department

verifiers could not proceed to verify

SSAB’s submitted COP and CV data

based on the modified kalkyl system

before understanding that the kalkyl

system from which these costs were

derived reconciled to SSAB’s actual

production costs as presented in the

company’s audited GAAP financial

statements.

Respondent cites to American Permac

with regard to the burden of proof on a

respondent. In American Permac, the

CIT found that Commerce had required,

as the basis of a level of trade

adjustment, that respondent trace

‘‘precisely and conclusively the exact

level of impact the difference in the

levels of trade might have on (home

market prices).’’ The CIT found that this

burden of proof was unreasonable,

citing the fact that the statute contains

a presumption that certain differences

in commercial terms will distort the

price comparison. Id. Thus, American

Permac is irrelevant to the instant

proceeding for two reasons. First, the

issue here is not level of trade, but

rather the Department’s consistent

practice of requiring that the respondent

establish that the reported costs are

based on the company’s normal books

and records kept in conformity with

GAAP. This practice has been affirmed

in Nippon Pillow Block v. U.S., 820 F.

Supp. 1444 (CIT 1993). Second, unlike

circumstances of sale, there is not a

presumption in the statute or

regulations that reported costs will

reconcile to the company’s normal

books and records. Indeed, the very

purpose of verification, which is to

confirm the accuracy of the data

reported, reflects the absence of any

such presumption.

Our verification testing and other

evidence on the record regarding

SSAB’s use of a modified kalkyl system

indicate that this system is not

maintained in accordance with GAAP

and had a significant distortive impact

on SSAB’s reported COP and CV data.

SSAB’s failure to reconcile its submitted

costs to its normal books and records

prevented us from quantifying the

magnitude of the distortions which exist

in its submitted data. Accordingly, the

Department’s determination that SSAB

failed the cost verification was objective

and consistent with our past practice to

reject a respondent’s COP and CV data

when it cannot be shown that the costs

reported to the Department are the

respondent’s actual costs for the subject

merchandise. See e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Grain Oriented Electrical

Steel from Italy, 59 FR 33952 (July 1,

1994).

Comment 2—Verification Team

SSAB argues that the verification was

systematically flawed. SSAB alleges that

the Department ‘‘prejudged’’ the

integrity of SSOX’s cost data, such

‘‘prejudgment’’ evidenced by the

Department’s statements at the

beginning of verification. For example,

SSAB declares that the Department’s

verifiers in this review indicated an

intent to pursue reconciliation of the

reported kalkyl costs to SSOX’s

financial statement costs and, as a

result, refused to, or had no time to,

verify the accuracy of the kalkyl costs.

SSAB also argues that the verification

team’s instructions that they would be

unable to accept new information

during verification demonstrates the fact

that they had prejudged the integrity of

the company’s submitted cost data. In

SSAB’s view, this evidence shows a

prejudicial ‘‘mindset.’’ Petitioners argue that the

Department’s verification team properly

determined not to accept new cost

information at verification. Petitioners

maintain that verification is intended to

test the accuracy of data already

submitted rather than to provide the

respondent the opportunity to submit a

new response. Petitioners note that the

Department’s verification agenda in the

present case, and nearly every

verification agenda issued by the

Department in recent years contains

such a statement: ‘‘Please note that

verification is not intended to be an

opportunity for submitting new factual

information.’’ See Cost Verification

Agenda, August 1, 1996 at 2. Petitioners

argue that a statement by the verifiers

that new cost data would not be

accepted at verification does not

demonstrate any preconceived bias by

the Department against SSAB.

Petitioners maintain that the

Department afforded SSAB more

chances than is appropriate to prove the

accuracy and reliability of its

submissions.

Department Position

We find SSAB’s comments with

respect to the procedures applied by

and ability of the Department’s

verification team to be unfounded. The

Department’s verification was

conducted in accordance with the

regulatory and statutory requirements

and followed standard verification

procedures. As discussed in our
18400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

response to Comment 1, SSAB’s cost

verification failure was due to its

inability to demonstrate that the costs

submitted to the Department were

reflective of the actual costs and

reconciled to actual costs recorded in its

normal books and records.

SSAB’s assertions regarding the

‘‘mindset’’ of the verification team are

unsupported by the record in this

proceeding. Indeed, SSAB raised for the

first time its claim of a particular

‘‘mindset’’ by the team in its case brief.

This brief was submitted more than

eleven weeks following the completion

of the verification. Throughout the

course of the on-site verification,

SSAB’s company officials, its counsel

and consultants were informed of the

discrepancies that the verification team

had identified. In fact, the verification

team discussed with SSAB company

officials, its counsel and consultants the

need to take breaks in the verification

process in order to confer with

Department officials in Washington

concerning these discrepancies. At no

time during the verification proceedings

did SSAB contact Department officials

in Washington to express concern that

the verification team was prejudicial

and not proceeding in an appropriate

manner. Further, in the eleven weeks

following the conclusion of the cost

verification, SSAB did not contact the

Department to express its concerns

regarding the Department’s assigned

team. SSAB’s current attempts to cast

doubts on the fairness and competence

of the verification team are not credible.

With regard to SSAB’s claim that the

verification team’s improper approach

to verification was demonstrated by the

statement that they could not accept

new information while at verification,

we find this assertion to be without

merit. The team’s actions were

consistent with the statutory and

regulatory deadlines regarding

submissions of new factual information.

This requirement, which applies in

every antidumping proceeding, was

noted in the Department’s verification

agenda which was sent to SSAB prior to

verification. See Verification Agenda,

August 1, 1996.

Comment 3—Total Facts Available

SSAB contends that, pursuant to

section 782(d) of the Act, the

Department may not resort to facts

available unless, upon determining that

a response to a request for information

does not comply with the request, the

Department promptly informs the

respondent submitting the response of

the nature of the deficiency. Respondent

maintains that the Department is

required to provide the respondent with

the opportunity to remedy or explain

the deficiency subject to the time limits

established for the completion of the

review.

Respondent argues that the

Department never informed SSAB that

the SSOX kalkyl-based cost data

submitted by the company did not

comply with the Department’s requests

for COP and CV information for the

subject merchandise. Respondent also

argues that neither of the two

supplemental cost questionnaires issued

by the Department constitute

notification that the company’s cost

response was deficient. Therefore,

respondent concludes that the failure of

prompt notification of the alleged

deficiencies in SSAB’s submitted costs

prohibits the Department from relying

on facts available in this review.

Additionally, respondent notes that,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,

the Department may use adverse facts

available only if substantial evidence on

the record permits the Department to

find that an interested party has failed

to cooperate by not acting to the best of

its ability to comply with a request for

information. SSAB maintains that it

cooperated fully with the Department,

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with the Department’s requests for

information.

Respondent notes that the

Department’s determination that SSAB

had not acted to the best of its ability

in meeting the Department’s

requirements is based on the following

assertions: (1) SSAB failed the cost

verification, i.e., failed to report cost

information that could be reconciled to

its financial statements, and (2) failed to

give the Department fair notice of this

alleged defect. Respondent argues that

neither of these assertions are supported

by substantial evidence in the record,

and therefore cannot provide the

foundation to rely on adverse facts

available required by statute. SSAB

maintains that by relying on the very

same basis to claim the right to apply

adverse facts available, the Department

is taking the position that the basis for

deciding to rely on total facts available

is also automatically grounds to rely

upon adverse facts available.

Respondent contends that this

interpretation of the statute renders

section 776(b) null and void as such an

interpretation ignores that, in addition

to the basis for deciding to rely on facts

available, the Department must also find

a separate and distinct basis for relying

on adverse facts available. Respondent

maintains that a verification failure

cannot trigger the use of adverse facts

available under section 776(b),

otherwise that statutory provision is

meaningless.

Respondent argues that it is

inherently unreasonable to expect that a

respondent will give fair notice of a

defect it has no reason to believe exists.

Respondent maintains that it is for the

Department, not a respondent, to first

determine whether a questionnaire

response is deficient or defective or

whether a respondent will be able to

pass a verification. Respondent argues

that failure by the Department to give

fair notice of a defect cannot be viewed

as a failure of a respondent to act to the

best of its ability to comply with a

request for information. Respondent

maintains that the Department never

requested that SSAB notify the

Department of any defects in its

submission. Respondent, citing Olympic

Adhesives Inc. v. United States, 899

F.2d 1565, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990),

maintains that the Department cannot

resort to facts available if the

Department never requested that a

respondent supply the information, the

absence of which is the basis for facts

available.

Respondent further notes that under

the amendments to the antidumping

laws by the URAA, the Department no

longer has the discretion to return to an

original investigation and apply adverse

facts available rate based upon the

highest previously determined margin,

which, in turn, was calculated on the

basis of BIA. Respondent notes that the

Department is not permitted to

automatically equate facts available

with the most adverse information

available. SSAB claims that the adverse

facts available rate applied in this

review by the Department is clearly

intended to punish SSAB for

circumstances outside of its control and

is contrary to law. Respondent

maintains that the Department is

obligated, to the extent possible, to use

actual data submitted for the record. See

e.g., section 776(b) (3) and (4).

Furthermore, respondent contends that

the Department is now, by statute,

clearly encouraged to rely upon actual

data submitted in previous reviews.

Respondent maintains that

reconciling the kalkyl system cost data

directly to the costs reported in SSOX’s

financial accounting system is a demand

impossible for the company to meet.

The demand that SSOX perform a

function that was impossible for the

company to perform is inherently

unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and

contrary to law. Citing Bo ̈we Passat

Reinigungs-und Wa ̈ schereitechnik v.

United States, 962 F. Supp 1138 (CIT

1996) and NEC Home Electronics, Ltd. v.

United States, 54 F. 3d 736 (Fed. Cir.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18401

1995), respondent contends the

Department cannot make demands on

respondent that the respondent could

not meet under any practical

circumstances.

Petitioners argue that the

Department’s determination to employ

total facts available was reasonable,

supported by substantial evidence and

in accordance with law. Petitioners also

maintain that the Department has

adhered to the statutory elements for the

application of total facts available,

including the notice requirement.

Petitioners also contend that the

Department’s determination to employ

adverse facts available is reasonable,

based on substantial evidence and in

accordance with law. Moreover,

petitioners argue that the Department

properly applied total adverse facts

available.

Department Position

We disagree with SSAB. We find that

our determination to rely on adverse

facts available is reasonable, supported

by evidence on this record and is

otherwise in accordance with the law.

Consistent with section 776(b) of the

Act, we have applied total adverse facts

available in reaching these final results

of review.

We believe that SSAB has

misconstrued the notice provisions of

section 782(d) of the Act. Specifically,

we find SSAB’s arguments that the

Department was required to notify it

and provide an opportunity to remedy

its verification failure are unsupported.

The provisions of section 782(d) apply

to instances where ‘‘a response to a

request for information’’ does not

comply with the request. Thus, after

reviewing a questionnaire response, the

Department will provide a respondent

with a notice of deficiencies in that

response. However, after the

Department’s verifiers find that a

response cannot be verified, the statute

does not require, nor even suggest, that

the Department provide the respondent

with an opportunity to submit another

response.

With regard to SSAB’s claims that a

respondent cannot be found to be

uncooperative for failing to comply with

a request that is impossible to satisfy,

the facts of this case do not support

SSAB’s claims for two reasons. First,

pursuant to section 782(c)(1) of the Act,

the Department will consider a party’s

ability to submit the information in the

form requested if the respondent

promptly after receiving the request

notifies the Department that it is unable

to supply the requested information

together with a full explanation and

suggested alternative forms so that the

Department can consider modification

of the requirements. In this case,

respondent never notified the

Department of its inability to provide

the requested information. Second, if

SSAB knew that SSOX’s modified

kalkyl system could not be reconciled to

SSOX’s normal financial accounting

system, it should not have used this

system for reporting the submitted cost

data.

Additionally, we disagree with

respondent’s claim that the Department

treated its basis for total facts available

as automatic grounds for adverse facts

available. In our preliminary results, we

clearly distinguish between the two

concepts. The Department’s bases for

relying on total facts available were:

SSAB’s inability to demonstrate that the

costs submitted to the Department were

reflective of actual costs accrued to

produce the subject merchandise and

reconcilable to information recorded in

the normal books and records; and our

inability to use partial facts available to

fill in for the unverified information. On

the other hand, the Department’s basis

for relying on an adverse inference in

selecting the appropriate facts available

was SSAB’s failure to act to the best of

its ability in complying with our

information requests, specifically,

submitting cost data for the record

which could not be verified, failing to

prepare the requested reconciliations,

and failing to inform the Department

that the cost data could not be tied to

actual costs as reflected in the financial

accounting system. While the standards

under the statute for total facts available

and adverse inferences are different,

there is no reason why some of the facts

adduced to support findings under the

two provisions cannot be the same. See,

for example, Certain Pasta from Turkey

at 30312 (adverse facts available as to

Filiz).

With regard to SSAB’s claim that it

did cooperate to the best of its ability,

we note that SSAB now dismisses the

specific guidance provided by the

Department that the submitted costs

must reconcile to the actual costs as

reflected in the company’s financial

accounting system. SSAB asserts that

these instructions were mere

‘‘boilerplate’’ instructions which did not

apply to its submitted data. We disagree

with this interpretation. The fact that

the Department explains the same cost

reconciliation requirements in every

proceeding does not render them less

significant; rather, the Department’s

consistent approach provides evidence

of the paramount importance of these

requirements in ensuring the accuracy

of the submitted data.

Further, we disagree with

respondent’s claim that the Department

is required to use other data submitted

by SSAB in this review. For reasons

stated in the preliminary results of

review, the submitted sales data is not

usable. As part of those results, we

noted that because of the flawed nature

of the cost data, home market sales

could not be tested to determine

whether they were made at prices above

production cost. We further explained

that we could not rely upon SSAB’s

home market sales data due to the

absence of reliable difference in

merchandise figures which are based on

the unverified cost information from the

company’s section D response.

Additionally, the preliminary results

stated that, in the absence of home

market sales data (i.e., when the home

market is viable but there are

insufficient sales above COP to compare

with U.S. sales), the Department would

normally resort to the use of constructed

value as normal value. However, the

constructed value information reported

by SSAB includes the discredited cost

data. Therefore, the use of facts

available for cost of production data

precludes the use of the submitted

constructed value information. We

continue to find that the absence of

reliable cost data renders SSAB’s entire

response unusable.

SSAB’s claim, citing Olympic

Adhesives, that we ‘‘cannot resort to

facts available if the Department never

requested that a respondent supply the

information’’ is not relevant to this case.

In this case, the Department requested

from SSAB certain cost information

regarding the company’s actual

production costs during the POR. As

previously noted, we find that, by

failing to provide verifiable information

responsive to this request SSAB did not

comply with the Department’s request.

With regard to the appropriate total

facts available, section 776(b) of the Act

provides that adverse inferences may be

used against a party that has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information. See also SAA at 200. There

is nothing ‘‘automatic’’ about the choice

of adverse facts available, as the CIT has

noted with respect to ‘‘best information

available’’ (the predecessor to adverse

facts available), Congress ‘‘explicitly left

a gap for the agency to fill.’’ Allied

Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States,

996 F.2d 1185, 1191 Fed. Cir. 1993)

(quoting Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467

U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984)). We note,

however, that our preliminary results

specifically stated that, in the instant
18402 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

proceeding, we did not apply the most

adverse facts available to SSAB.

We also disagree with SSAB’s

suggestion that we are not permitted to

use petition data as total facts available.

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the

Department to use as adverse facts

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination in the

investigation, a previous administrative

review, or other information placed on

the record. The statute provides no

‘‘clear obligation’’ or preference for

relying on a particular source in

determining adverse facts available. As

to respondent’s suggestion that we

cannot rely on the final determination

in the LTFV proceeding because it was

based on best information available, we

find no support for this claim. In fact,

the SAA specifically states that facts

available may include such sources as

‘‘the petition, other information placed

on the record, or determinations in a

prior proceeding.’’ (See, SAA at 200.)

Comment 4—Alternatives for

Determining Facts Available

Respondent argues that the

Department should select, as facts

available, an alternative cost

methodology and calculate a dumping

margin in this review on the basis of

price-to-price comparisons or, in the

alternative, apply the margin calculated

for SSAB in the most recently

completed review. As alternative cost

methodologies, respondent suggests

using (1) SSAB costs reported in the

first administrative review, or (2) the

costs reported in this review by SSTP.

Respondent argues that the cost data

reported by SSAB in the first review

were fully verified by the Department

and relied upon in calculating a margin

for SSAB in that review. Alternatively,

respondent maintains that SSTP’s

reported costs in both the first and

second reviews were based upon that

company’s normal accounting records

and were verified in the first review.

Respondent argues that SSTP did not

rely upon the kalkyl system in reporting

control number specific costs in either

the first or second review. Citing Certain

Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30312

(June 14, 1996), respondent argues that

the Department should use the cost data

submitted by SSTP either in the first

review or this review. Respondent

argues that SSAB was entitled to believe

that had SSOX failed the cost

verification, that verified SSTP cost data

would be relied upon as facts otherwise

available.

SSAB argues that its total cost

database consisted of two separate cost

databases, one for SSOX and the other

for SSTP. These two data bases were

merged into a single cost database for

purposes of reporting COP and CV to

the Department. SSAB contends that the

Department erred in rejecting SSAB’s

entire cost database because SSOX was

unable to reconcile its reported costs,

based on the kalkyl system, to its

normal accounting system. Respondent

maintains that the Department’s

planned verification of SSTP reported

costs was extensive and exhaustive.

Respondent claims that had the

Department wanted to complete the cost

verification of SSTP, all SSTP resources

necessary were available to the

Department during the cost verification

at SSOX to enable the Department to do

so. Respondent therefore concludes that

if the Department determines SSAB did

fail verification, it should use SSTP’s

costs as the most appropriate facts

available.

Alternatively, respondent argues that

the Department should apply the

antidumping margin from the first

administrative review as alternative

facts available. Respondent contends

that in that review, the Department

relied upon actual cost data, fully

verified, in determining SSAB’s control

number specific costs of production.

Respondent maintains that based on

that data, the Department conducted its

sales below cost test and calculated an

antidumping margin using price-toprice comparisons. See Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden,

61 FR 15772 (April 9, 1996).

Respondent argues that a BIA margin

rate, by definition, is not based on

actual costs and cannot be viewed as a

reliable or more accurate indicator of an

antidumping duty margin which was

calculated on the basis of actual,

verified data, in a more recent review.

Petitioners argue that the Department

properly used a total adverse facts

available rate based on SSAB’s less than

fair value investigation margin.

Petitioners maintain that cost data from

the first review are not part of the

administrative record and have not been

determined to be related to the connumspecific costs in the present review.

Additionally, petitioners contend that

SSTP’s reported costs are not

appropriate as alternative facts available

because SSTP’s cost data was not

merged with SSOX’s cost data. To

substantiate this claim, petitioners point

to SSAB’s response where SSAB stated

that no control number was produced at

both SSOX and SSTP and therefore the

reported cost for each control number

was the COP and CV from the plant

where the product was produced.

Furthermore, petitioners refer to SSAB’s

response which states that only SSOX

products were sold in the U.S. and that

there were no U.S. or home market

comparison products sold at SSTP.

Moreover, petitioners assert that

because the Department was unable to

verify SSTP’s cost data due to problems

encountered at the SSOX cost

verification, it would be inappropriate

to use the SSTP cost data as a substitute

for the flawed SSOX cost data. Finally,

petitioners argue that the margin from

the first administrative review

inappropriately rewards SSAB for

failing to provide responsive

information and may allow SSAB to

control the results by refusing to

provide responsive information

resulting in margins in excess of the

previous review rate.

Department Position

We disagree with respondent. None of

the alternatives suggested by SSAB

would appropriately serve as adverse

facts available in this review because

none of them is adverse. First, we note

that actual costs from a previous review

period are by definition not adverse. If

the Department were to rely on such

data, a respondent would have no

incentive to report its costs once it was

satisfied with the verified costs from a

particular review period. Second, as to

the use of SSTP’s cost data, we have no

reason to regard these costs as adverse

with respect to SSOX’s cost experience

in producing the subject merchandise.

Moreover, it is not clear that SSTP’s cost

data has any relation to SSOX’s cost

experience as SSTP’s products are

significantly different in terms of

product characteristics from SSOX’s (as

respondent has repeatedly

acknowledged).

Finally, we note that the rate from the

first administrative review is not

appropriate because it does not capture

the decision to assign an adverse facts

available rate to SSAB. We agree with

petitioners that the margin from the first

review inappropriately rewards SSAB

for failing to provide responsive

information and may allow SSAB to

control the results by refusing to

provide responsive information

resulting in margins in excess of the

previous review rate.

Comment 5—Other Issues

Petitioners argue that SSAB’s sales

data could not be verified. Petitioners

contend that SSAB’s assignment of plate

specification codes is so flawed that

proper product comparisons are not

possible. Specifically, petitioners argue

that SSAB miscoded its plate

specifications resulting in inaccurate

matches and SSAB has impeded the

Department’s ability to make

appropriate comparisons by failing to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18403

provide industry standards. Petitioners

also argue that numerous other

deficiencies in sales completeness, date

of sale reporting, product characteristics

and inaccurate, incomplete and

unreported sales information render

SSAB’s sales responses unusable.

Respondent argues that its

specification codes provide a reliable

and reasonable basis for model matches

by the Department. Respondent

maintains that the deficiencies alleged

by petitioners do not render SSAB’s

sales data unusable. SSAB maintains

that it disclosed the primary

deficiencies alleged by petitioners to the

Department in corrections submitted to

the Department on the opening day of

SSAB sales verifications. Respondent

argues that it provided a complete

reporting of home market and U.S. sales,

as appropriate.

Department Position

These issues are moot since the

Department is using an assigned facts

available margin in this review.

Comment 6—Duty Absorption

Petitioners argue that the Department

should determine that SSAB has

absorbed antidumping duties on behalf

of its U.S. customers. Petitioners

maintain that the Department has the

discretion to conduct such an inquiry

even if it is not required to do so.

Moreover, petitioners argue that the

Department should exercise this

discretion to conduct an absorption

inquiry because they argue absorption is

obvious on the record of this review and

such an inquiry in this review would

promote the efficient use of

Departmental and interested party

resources. Petitioners contend that

SSAB and its U.S. subsidiary, Swedish

Steel Inc., have absorbed antidumping

and countervailing duties. Additionally,

petitioners argue that confining

absorption to the second and fourth

reviews will encourage respondents to

manipulate the administrative review

process to avoid duty absorption

findings.

Respondent argues that the

Department should reject petitioners’

request to initiate a duty absorption

investigation in this review. Respondent

argues that the request for the duty

absorption investigation is untimely.

Respondent maintains that the

Department’s proposed timetable for

conducting duty absorption

investigations for transition reviews

does not provide for a duty absorption

investigation in this review. Moreover,

respondent contends that the

Department has established precedent

in a parallel review that it will not

undertake a duty absorption

investigation. See Certain Cold-Rolled

and Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel

Flat Products From Korea: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 51882

(October 4, 1996). Respondents also

maintain that initiating a duty

absorption investigation in this

administrative review would not

promote the efficient use of

Departmental and interested party

resources. Respondent argues that it

would require the Department to

consider additional documentation,

review all record information, and allow

both parties the opportunity to comment

on the results of the Department’s

analysis, in order to determine whether

duty absorption has actually taken

place.

Department Position

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

proposed regulations provides that the

Department will make a duty absorption

determination, if requested, for any

administrative review initiated in 1996

or 1998. See Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Request for Public

Comments, 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February

27, 1996) (‘‘Proposed Regulations’’). The

commentary to the proposed regulations

explains that reviews initiated in 1996

will be considered initiated in the

second year and reviews initiated in

1998 will be considered initiated in the

fourth year. Id. at 7317. Although these

proposed regulations are not yet binding

upon the Department, they constitute a

public statement of how the Department

expects to proceed in construing section

751(a)(4) of the amended statute. This

approach assures that interested parties

will have the opportunity to request a

duty absorption determination on

entries for which the second and fourth

years following an order have already

passed, prior to the time for sunset

review of the order under section 751(c).

Because the order on cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Sweden has

been in effect since 1993, these are

transition orders. Therefore, based on

the policy stated above, the Department

will first consider a request for a duty

absorption determination for reviews of

these orders initiated in 1996. Because

this review was initiated in 1995, we

have not considered the issue of

absorption in this review. However, if

requested, we will do so in the next

review.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine the dumping margin (in

percent) for the period August 1, 1994,

through July 31, 1995 to be as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

SSAB ........................................ 24.23

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and normal value may vary

from the percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of these final results for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date as provided by section

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

rates for the reviewed company will be

the rate stated above; (2) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, a

prior review, or the original less-thanfair-value (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 merchandise; and (3) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all

others’’ rate made effective by the final

results of the 1993–1994 administrative

review of this order. (See, Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Sweden; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

15772 (April 9, 1996).) As noted in these

final results, this rate is the ‘‘all others’’

rate from the relevant LTFV

investigation. (See, Final Determination,

58 FR 37213 (July 9, 1993).) These

deposit requirements, 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 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.
18404 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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 the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

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(c)(5).

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9423 Filed 4–14–97; 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: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final results of antidumping

duty administrative reviews.

SUMMARY: On October 4, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of the 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/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period August 1, 1994, through July

31, 1995. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Rast (Dongbu), Steve

Bezirganian (POSCO), Alain Letort

(Union), or John Kugelman, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III—Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone 202/482–5811 (Rast), 202/

482–1395 (Bezirganian), 202/482–4243

(Letort), or 202/482–0649 (Kugelman),

fax 202/482–1388.

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 to

the current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

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 1994/

95 review period on August 1, 1995 (60

FR 39150). On August 31, 1995,

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

(Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel

Group—a unit of USX Corporation,

Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Geneva

Steel, Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama,

Sharon Steel Corporation, and Lukens

Steel Company, collectively referred to

as ‘‘petitioners’’) filed a similar request.

We initiated these reviews on

September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46817—

September 8, 1996).

Under the Act, the Department may

extend the deadline for completion of

an administrative review if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. On

March 22, 1996, the Department

extended the time limits for preliminary

and final results in these reviews. See

Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 14291 (April 1, 1996).

On October 4, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of the second

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on certain

cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products from Korea

(61 FR 51882). The Department has now

completed these administrative reviews

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of the Review

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

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

non-rectangular 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