18468 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

from EP and CEP sales. Also,

respondent states that the URAA House

Ways and Means Committee Report and

the SAA explicitly state that the new

duty absorption provision is not

intended to provide for the treatment of

antidumping duties as a cost. Thus,

states respondent, the Department

should continue to refuse to deduct AD

duties from Stelco’s EP and CEP sales.

Department’s Position. We agree with

respondent. See, CCC comment 5, supra.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of our review of the

comments received, we have changed

the results from those presented in

preliminary results of review. Therefore,

we determine that the following margins

exist as a result of our review:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Corrosion-Resistant Steel:

Dofasco ........................................................................................................................................................... 8/1/94–7/31/95 0.56

CCC ................................................................................................................................................................ 8/1/94–7/31/95 1.58

Stelco .............................................................................................................................................................. 8/1/94–7/31/95 0.55

Cut-to-Length Plate:

Algoma ............................................................................................................................................................ 8/1/94–7/31/95 1 0.37

Stelco .............................................................................................................................................................. 8/1/94–7/31/95 0

1This is a de minimis margin.

The Department shall determine, and

the 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

cash deposit requirements will be

effective upon publication of these final

results for all shipments of this

merchandise, entered or withdrawn

from warehouse for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

for by section 751(a)1) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be the rates for those

firms as stated above (except that if the

rate for a particular product is de

minimis i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a

cash deposit rate of zero will be

required for that company); (2) for

previously 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

this review, or the original investigation,

but the manufacturer is, the case deposit

rate will be the rate established for the

most recent period for the manufacturer

of the merchandise; and (4) the case

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate made

effective by the final results of the 1993–

1994 administrative review of these

orders (see, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Canada;

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 13815

(March 28, 1996)). As noted in those

final results, these rates are the ‘‘all

others’’ rates from the relevant LTFV

investigations which were 18.71 percent

for corrosion-resistant steel products

and 61.88 percent for plate (see,

Amended Final Determination, 60 FR

49582 (September 26, 1995)). These

deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

reviews.

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. This notice 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 § 353.22

of the Department’s regulations.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9425 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–405–802]

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

from Finland; 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 1994–95 administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain cut-to-length carbon steel

from Finland. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter, Rautaruukki Oy

(‘‘Rautaruukki’’), for 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 made the changes

described in this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Wimbush or Linda Ludwig,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

III, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1374 or

482–3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 4, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 51901) the preliminary results of the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18469

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

Finland (58 FR 44165). The Department

has now completed this administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations

to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Tariff 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).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review constitute one

‘‘class or kind’’ of merchandise: certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These

products include 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 hot-rolled carbon steel flatrolled 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

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (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, and 7212.50.0000.

Included 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 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.

This review covers entries of certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate by

Rautaruukki.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received briefs

and rebuttal comments from Bethlehem

Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group a

unit of USX Corporation, Inland Steel

Industries, Inc., LTV Steel Company,

Inc., National Steel Corporation, AK

Steel Corporation, Gulf States Steel Inc.

of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation,

and WCI Steel Inc., collectively

petitioners, and from Rautaruukki,

respondent, an exporter of the subject

merchandise. At the request of

respondent, we held a hearing on

December 2, 1996.

Comment 1

The respondent argues that the

Department erred by failing to consider

all subject merchandise with

shipbuilding specification ‘‘A’’ as

identical merchandise. Respondent

states that the Department assigned new

control numbers (‘‘CONNUMs’’) to

shipbuilding steel for each specification

and/or grade (‘‘PLSPECH’’) based on the

national classification society.

Consequently, respondent argues that

the Department considered only the

shipbuilding plate certified as ‘‘ABA’’

for sale in the Finnish home market and

the U.S. market as identical

merchandise, and erroneously treated

shipbuilding plate which was certified

by a different national classification

society as non-identical merchandise.

Respondent claims that its customers

sometimes demand that identical

merchandise be certified in accordance

with the specifications of the national

classification society of the country in

which the product will be used. As a

result of this, respondent states that it

reported multiple PLSPECH codes for

the same CONNUM. Respondent argues

that the administrative record shows

that merchandise manufactured to the

‘‘A’’ specification is identical regardless

of national classification society

certification. Respondent alleges that it

gave the Department a table of identical

and most similar merchandise which

demonstrated that the physical

characteristics, including chemistry,

delivery condition, elongation, yield

strength and tensile strength are

identical for all shipbuilding plate with

the ‘‘A’’ specification (see Exhibit

SUPP–17, dated December 6, 1996, as

part of Rautaruukki’s response to the

Department’s supplemental

questionnaire). Respondent notes that it

provided the Department with mill

certificates for various shipbuilding

(‘‘A’’) specifications, which indicated

that the chemical and physical

properties are the same for shipbuilding

steel with the ‘‘A’’ specification, and the

steel from the same cast or heat was

used to meet orders of shipbuilding

plate sold to two different classification

society certifications.

Respondent claims that the

Department has acknowledged that all

‘‘A’’ specification shipbuilding plate are

identical products. Respondent cites the

Department’s verification report which

states: ‘‘We examined mill certificates

for products which have identical

physical characteristics but were sold to

different countries with different

specifications: It is clear that the

products were identical based on

physical characteristics.’’

Respondent also contends that the

Department has improperly changed its

model-match program from the previous

administrative review. Respondent

notes that in the first review, the

Department assigned identical

designated values for PLSPECHs which

represented subject merchandise

manufactured to the ‘‘A’’ specification

of shipbuilding steels. Respondent

states that in the first administrative

review, the Department recognized that

these products are identical products

with the same chemical and physical

characteristics.

Respondent argues that an

administrative agency must either

follow existing decisions and

precedents or else explain its deviation,

citing Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United

States, 12 CIT 1196, 1209, 704 F. Supp.

1075, 1088 (1988). Respondent argues

that the Department should have either

conformed to, or explained the reasons

for its departure from, its prior

determination. Respondent claims that

no new facts were presented that

supported a different conclusion than

that reached in the prior administrative

review, citing Shikoku Chemicals Corp.

v. United States, 16 CIT 382, 795 F.

Supp. 417, 421 (1992).

Respondent argues that the

Department never asked for information

explaining in greater detail its product

code system nor did it ever notify

Rautaruukki regarding any change in the

review. Thus, Rautaruukki claims that it

was never given an opportunity to

supplement or clarify the record or

change its existing reporting

methodology, citing SKF USA Inc. v.

United States, 888 F. Supp. 152 (CIT
18470 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

1995). Respondent also cites BowePassat v. United States, 17 CIT 335, 343

(1993), in which its states that the

Department sent out a general

questionnaire and a brief deficiency

letter, without disclosing other

deficiencies unspecified in the letter

until after ‘‘it was too late, i.e., after

preliminary determination.’’

Petitioners contend that if

Rautaruukki’s PLSPEC matching

hierarchy was accepted as accurate by

the Department, the Department would

be faced with insurmountable obstacles

that would prevent it from correcting

Rautaruukki’s CONNUM and PLSPEC

data. Petitioners argue that acceptance

of Rautaruukki’s ‘‘explanation’’ would

necessitate the collapsing and

‘‘splitting’’ of CONNUMs, which the

Department should not and could not

do. Petitioners claim that Rautaruukki’s

PLSPEC matching hierarchy indicates

some specifications with a given

CONNUM to be identical to the PLSPEC

sold in the U.S., some to be ‘‘similar’’

to that PLSPEC, and that separate

CONNUMs should have been created for

other PLSPECs.

Petitioners contend that Rautaruukki’s

database would have to be reconfigured

before it could be used if Rautaruukki’s

submitted PLSPEC matching hierarchy

were deemed accurate and dispositive.

Petitioners note that it is not the

Department’s responsibility to make

such changes, citing Neuweg Ferrigung

GmbH v. United States, 797 F. Supp.

1020, 1023–24 (CIT. 1992). Petitioners

argue that the Department’s acceptance

of Rautaruukki’s matching hierarchy

would necessarily render its sales and

cost databases unusable for purposes of

the sales-below-cost test, because

Rautaruukki’s reported matching

hierarchy only identifies a limited

number of PLSPECs. Thus, the

Department would be preluded from

reconfiguring the vast majority of

Rautaruukki’s database.

Petitioners argue that it would be

impossible for the Department to correct

Rautaruukki’s PLSPEC and CONNUM

information. Petitioners claim that the

ramifications of the Department’s

inability to correct Rautaruukki’s

submitted data would affect the

Department’s analysis at a most

fundamental level. Petitioners argue that

(1) the creation of new CONNUMs

would require correcting the

corresponding model-specific cost

information, by creating new costs for

newly collapsed and split CONNUMs;

and (2) that the Department’s inability

to correct Rautaruukki’s CONNUMs

prevents it from performing its salesbelow-cost test. Petitioners argue that

the Department’s acceptance of

Rautaruukki’s matching hierarchy

would necessarily render its sales and

cost databases unusable for purposes of

the arm’s-length test. Petitioners claim

that the fact that the arm’s-length test

cannot be performed is of great

significance given the number of sales

in the home market that were made to

affiliated parties.

Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki’s

attempts in its case brief to focus the

Department’s attention on its treatment

of four PLSPEC designations, and two

CONNUMs under which these PLSPECs

are reported in the home market

database overlook the deficiencies

throughout Rautaruukki’s database.

Petitioner argue that such a decision

would set a terrible precedent, and that

the respondent would only need to

ensure that it report correctly certain

home market sales that it predicted

would match to U.S. sales, and not

bother ensuring that the rest of its

submitted information was correct.

Petitioners state that the Department

gave Rautaruukki notice of the problems

inherent in its data and an opportunity

to correct or clarify this information.

Petitioners argue that the statute does

not, and cannot legitimately be read to,

require notification of data deficiencies

or failures where the department could

not know the extent or particulars of the

problem until verification. Petitioners

state that if the Department were not

allowed to reject unreliable, inaccurate,

or incomplete information provided by

the respondents and discovered at

verification, the very basis of the

Department’s statutory authority would

be negated, citing Sweaters Wholly or in

Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber from

Taiwan, 55 FR 34,587 (Aug. 23, 1990)

(Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value); and Silicon Metal

from Brazil, 59 FR 42,806, 42,812 (Aug.

19, 1994) (Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Review). To do otherwise, in

petitioner’s view, would require either

the acceptance of unverified

information or additional verification by

the Department. Petitioners claim that

the major deficiencies in Rautaruukki’s

data base were discovered and raised by

the Department at the earliest

opportunity at verification, and the

department had no opportunity or

reason to inquire into these issues prior

to verification. Petitioners argue that

Rautaruukki should have been aware of

the deficiencies in its data base prior to

verification and has had every

opportunity to clarify or correct its

submitted information. Petitioners state

that in the original questionnaire, the

Department provided clear instructions

for providing specification/grade

information, emphasized the

importance of the specification/grade

classification, and gave Rautaruukki

every opportunity to request guidance

from the Department regarding the

assignment of specification or grade

information.

Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki

never requested guidance from the

Department, and that the Department

issued a lengthy supplemental

questionnaire in this case, which

requested clarification of Rautaruukki’s

PLSPEC and CONNUM assignments.

Petitioners argue that Rautaruukki’s

claims in this regard are without merit

and should be rejected by the

Department.

Department’s Position

We agree in part with petitioners.

Under the Department’s methodology

for assigning CONNUMs, each product,

based on the Department’s model match

criteria, should be assigned its own

unique CONNUM. Based on these

criteria, there should not be more than

one PLSPEC in any CONNUM because

different specifications have different

physical, mechanical or chemical

requirements. Respondent has not

assigned its CONNUMs consistent with

the Department’s model match criteria.

In certain instances, respondent

reported within the same CONNUM

shipbuilding ‘‘A’’ specifications, as well

as non-shipbuilding specifications. In

the Department’s preliminary results,

we created new CONNUMs for each of

the shipbuilding ‘‘A’’ specifications

identical or most similar to the U.S.

sales. this is a change from the prior

review in which this issue did not come

to the Department’s attention.

We relied on respondent’s model

match hierarchy, which indicates that

all shipbuilding ‘‘A’’ PLSPECs are

identical, to weight the physical

characteristics for matching purposes.

However, the statement in the

Department’s verification report, that

‘‘based on the mill certificates it is clear

that the products were identical based

on physical characteristics,’’ referred

only to the fact that products are

physically identical with respect to

certain characteristics analyzed by the

Department, and not that the

specifications that they are meeting are

identical. The PLSPEC variable is

intended to identify the differences in

the specification to which the product is

sold. Prices can vary based on the

specifications to which the product is

sold, even though the product is

physically identical. It is inconsistent

with the Department’s model matching

criteria in this case to consider products

sold to different specifications as

identical for margin calculation
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18471

purposes. We assigned one weight to

‘‘ABA’’, the only PLSPEC sold in the

United States. Since all other ‘‘A’’ grade

shipbuilding specifications possess

different requirement from ‘‘ABA’’ but

essentially are the same product, we

treated them as the next most similar

product, as we had no basis to

distinguish among these PLSPECs from

respondent’s model match hierarchy.

All U.S. sales were matched to

shipbuilding ‘‘A’’ specification material.

While the Department did not

specifically request respondent to revise

its CONNUMs, we did ask Rautaruukki

to explain in detail how each reported

product characteristic was determined

and assigned to sales of subject

merchandise. Respondent never

explained why it combined PLSPECs in

CONNUMs as it did. Nor did

Rautaruukki ask the Department to

consider modifying its methodology to

allow Rautaruukki to report CONNUMs

as it did. We agree with petitioners that

respondent has likely incorrectly

assigned CONNUMs throughout the

data base. The Department was able to

and has revised the data base where it

was necessary to do so for purpose of

the margin calculation.

This effort by the Department does

not impair our ability to perform the

cost test in this review. As explained in

Comment 3, we are using facts available

and assigning a single cost for all

CONNUMs. (See Comment 3, below.)

Consequently, we are able to perform

the cost test without obtaining

additional cost data from Rautaruukki,

and have done so for these final results.

With respect to the arm’s length test,

we are already using facts available as

NV for all U.S. sales matching to these

sales, making this issue moot.

Comment 2

Respondent argues that the

Department has erred by comparing

normal cut-to-length carbon steel plate

sold to the U.S. market with the wide

flats and beveled plate sold in the home

market because these products are not

identical or similar. Respondent asserts

that the United States Customs Service

has issued a number of definitional

rulings concerning the classification of

‘‘wide flats’’ under the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(1996) (‘‘HTSUS’’). Respondent claims

that these rulings indicate that ‘‘wide

flats’’ are considered to be parts of steel

structures and, therefore, classifiable

under heading 7308 of the HTSUS. See,

e.g., Headquarter Ruling 088116 (Feb.

27, 1991); Headquarters Ruling 084532

(July 14, 1989).

Respondent claims that beveled plate

and wide flats are structural steel

products which require separate

handling on a different product line,

and that the raw material for both is

basic cut-to-length plate. Respondent

claims that the Department was

provided extensive information about

the different and additional cost

associated with both products, as well

as the additional processes which are

necessary to produce these products.

Respondent claims that the Department

has verified that wide flats and beveled

products require additional processing,

and that the Department erred in

comparing sales of these products with

those of normal plate. Respondent states

that it assigned distinct CONNUMs to

beveled plate and to wide flats although

they may have the same physical

characteristics as basic cut-to-length

plate, because they are manufactured by

different processes and have different

end uses.

Petitioners claim that Rautaruukki’s

arguments regarding the Department’s

treatment of beveled and wide flat

products are without merit. Petitioners

argue that Rautaruukki raised the same

arguments in the first administrative

review regarding beveled plate products

and the Department rejected them.

Petitioners state that the Department

correctly determined in the first

administrative review that Rautaruukki

failed to establish the relevance of the

beveling as a product matching criteria,

and that ‘‘beveled plate does not possess

physical characteristics which make it

unique from non-beveled plate with

regards to applications and uses,’’ citing

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Finland, 61 FR 2792, 2795 (Jan. 29,

1996) (Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review).

Petitioners also note that in response to

a letter from the Department to

interested parties on model match prior

to the first administrative review,

Rautaruukki commented on several

issues, but did not mention the

treatment of beveled plate or wide flat

products in any regard.

Petitioners argue that nothing has

changed with respect to this issue in the

second review, and the Rautaruukki has

not established on the record the

relevance of beveling or wide flats as

product matching criteria. Petitioners

argue that Rautaruukki has simply

ignored the Department’s hierarchy and

attempted to create its own and,

therefore, the Department has correctly

determined that neither beveled plate

nor wide flat products possess any

physical characteristics that set them

apart from non-beveled or non-wide

flats plate products.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners. The

Department issued clear instructions on

how to construct CONNUMs. Whether

or not subject merchandise is beveled or

wide flat is not a model match criterion.

Rautaruukki never explained that it had

modified the Department’s model match

criteria or why it had done so.

Rautaruukki did not ask the Department

to consider modifying the model match

criteria. As petitioners correctly note,

respondent cannot modify the

Department’s model match criteria on

its own initiative. The Department

agrees with the petitioners that

respondent did not submit any

information on the record to establish

the revelance of beveling and wide flats

as a product matching criterion, nor did

respondent provide information to

demonstrate that the beveled and wide

flats plate possess physical

characteristics to make them unique

from the non-beveled or non-wide flats

with regard to applications and uses.

Therefore, the Department continues to

consider these products identical to

other subject merchandise. With respect

to the cited Customs Rulings,

Rautaruukki did not provide any

information on the record to suggest that

wide flats are not subject merchandise.

For the preliminary results, the

Department modified Rautaruukki’s

submitted CONNUMs for the products

identical or most similar to the U.S.

sales to combine beveled, wide flat and

other plate into a single CONNUM. We

have not changed this for these final

results.

We used facts available as NV for U.S.

sales matching to home market

CONNUMs that included beveled or

wide flat sales as we were unable to

verify cost for beveled or wide flat

products. We have identified additional

CONNUMs as containing beveled or

wide flat material for these final results.

See Comment 3 below.

Comment 3

Petitioners argue that the Department

should reject Rautaruukki’s submitted

cost information and resort to total facts

available. While petitioners support the

Department’s determination in the

preliminary results that the cost data for

beveled and wide flat products could

not be verified, they claim that the

Department erred by failing to recognize

that other significant cost information

reported by Rautaruukki could not be

verified.

In petitioners’ view, the productspecific cost information submitted by

Rautaruukki (the ‘‘cost extras’’) could

not be verified. Petitioners state that
18472 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

Rautaruukki’s reported COP/CV values

are derived from a two-step calculation:

A single weighted-average base cost for

all plate products; and an adjustment to

that weighted-average cost to account

for dimensional cost extras and quality

cost extras. Petitioners argue that these

two cost extras could not be verified.

Petitioners claim that these cost extras

are a significant portion of

Rautaruukki’s total cost and the only

product-specific element of the

submitted product costs.

According to petitioners, Rautaruukki

failed to provide accurate or relevant

source documentation for the cost extras

at verification, and the documentation

provided by Rautaruukki at verification

was insufficient to demonstrate that its

reported costs were accurate, reliable, or

related to the period of review.

Petitioners state that the Department’s

verification agenda states that complete

supporting documentation should be

available for selected CONNUMs. It is

argued by petitioners that Rautaruukki

did not provide the requisite

information as it pertains to the

product-specific cost extras identified

above. Petitioners cite the Department’s

cost verification report, at 4, which

states that ‘‘Rautaruukki representatives

indicated to the Department at

verification that they do not maintain a

log or any documentation which

identifies product-specific cost changes

from one period to another.’’ Petitioners

claim that Rautaruukki did not maintain

crucial supporting documentation that

was required to verify the accuracy of its

reported cost extras.

Petitioners question the relevance or

accuracy of Rautaruukki’s on-line

computer system as a source document

to verify cost extras. Petitioners note

that Rautaruukki employs a

continuously updated computer cost

system (i.e., the product-specific costs

the Department reviewed at verification

were the costs relevant to the time of

verification, and were not the costs in

effect during the period of review, nor

were they the costs in effect at the time

the questionnaire response was

prepared). Petitioners hold that reliance

on such a computer system in the

course of a verification does not meet a

‘‘reasonable standard’’ incumbent upon

the Department. (See Micron

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 893 F.

Supp. 21, 39 (CIT 1995) and Hercules,

Inc. v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 454,

469 (CIT 1987).) At the hearing,

petitioners clarified that their objection

to an on-line, live system is not the lack

of a print-out, but the absence of ties to

financial statements.

Petitioners state that Rautaruukki also

showed the Department a cost extras

book published in July 1995 to verify

cost extras. Petitioners note that the

book was published at the end of the

POR and there is no evidence on the

record indicating that the values of the

extras in the book were related to the

POR. Petitioners also question whether

the cost extras book is a reference for

costs of production for particular extras

or whether the book is used to

determine the charges to be paid by

customers for particular extras.

Petitioners allege that when the

Department attempted to verify these

cost extras, it was unable to tie the cost

extras values reported by respondent to

source documentation and that when

compared to the documentation that did

exist, numerous errors were uncovered.

Petitioners note that of 48 cost extras

examined at verification, 38 percent of

the cost extras had been misreported.

Petitioners argue that in situations

where respondent has failed to retain

and failed to provide the necessary

supporting documentation for such key

components of the cost data set, the

respondent is said to have failed

verification, and the Department should

therefore apply total facts available,

citing Grain Oriented Electrical Sheet

Steel from Italy (59 FR 33952, (July 1,

1994)); Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Sweden (61 FR

51,898, 51,899, (Oct. 4, 1996)) (Flat

Products from Sweden). Petitioners note

that in Flat Products from Sweden, the

Department applied total facts available

because the respondent was unable to

reconcile its submitted cost data to its

normal accounting books and records

and was unable to demonstrate that the

submitted COP/CV data was based on

the company’s actual production

experience. Like respondent in Flat

Products from Sweden, in petitioners

view, Rautaruukki did not provide

documentation at verification that could

demonstrate that the submitted COP/CV

data was based on the company’s actual

production experience.

Rautaruukki contends that the

Department conducted a

‘‘comprehensive and proper cost

verification’’ and that the Department

confirmed that the cost information

submitted by Rautaruukki was based on

Rautaruukki’s normal accounting and

financial records. Moreover,

Rautaruukki claims that the Department

verified Rautaruukki’s reported base

cost figures for allocation of indirect

costs to direct cost centers, maintenance

expenses, by-product and scrap

allocations, cost of manufacturing,

selling, general and administrative

expenses, and reported per-unit costs.

Respondent asserts that no

discrepancies were noted in the course

of verifying these items.

Rautaruukki distinguishes this case

from Flat Products from Sweden by

arguing that in that case the Department

found that the respondent had based its

AD response on a special system which

was not used as part of the respondent’s

normal accounting system. Rautaruukki

claims that the Department found that

its submitted cost information was

based both on its normal accounting

books and records and on its actual

production experience.

Rautaruukki notes that the values for

quality extras were taken from data in

its on-line computer system, which is

constantly updated to reflect changes in

costs so that Rautaruukki can make the

corresponding changes in its prices.

Respondent states that it ‘‘does not

maintain a log of the changes in extras

costs from one period to another.’’

Rautaruukki admits that the Department

found at verification that some quality

extras values were different from those

reported by Rautaruukki, but attributed

these differences to the system being

updated since Rautaruukki had

prepared its questionnaire response.

Respondent claims that these

differences were slight, about one or two

FIM per cost extra. In response to a

question at the hearing, Rautaruukki

explained that the extras cost book is in

fact a cost book, not a price extras book.

In some cases, respondent noted that the

discrepancies in cost extras were

positive and in other cases negatives.

Department’s Position

We agree, in part, with both parties.

We agree with respondent that the

Department was able to tie

Rautaruukki’s base costs to appropriate

financial and accounting

documentation. This represents by far

the largest portion of Rautaruukki’s total

cost.

We agree with petitioners that the

Department was unable to tie

Rautaruukki’s extras costs to supporting

documentation at verification. With

respect to beveled and wide flat

products, as we stated in our

preliminary results, the use of facts

available is appropriate because the

Department was unable to verify

Rautaruukki’s total COP data. This was

because Rautaruukki made no attempt

to provide supporting documentation

with respect to its cost extras, simply

indicating that these extras could not be

verified.

Rautaruukki did provide some

documentation to support its cost extras

submission with respect to other

products. This documentation consisted

of its on-line computer system and a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18473

cost extras book. However, neither of

these sources was for the POR—the online system was current as of the date

of verification and the cost extras book

was prepared at the end of the POR,

with no indication as to the period for

which the costs in the book were in

effect. As stated in the Department’s

cost verification report concerning a

particular CONNUM, ‘‘in reviewing the

extras costs associated with this

product, we could not verify the

accuracy of the reported cost for (a

particular plate extra) * * *.

Respondents were unable to provide

documentation indicating that the figure

was correct when the material was

manufactured or when the response was

prepared.’’

At verification, we did compare 48

different reported cost extras to the costs

listed in the cost extra book. Of these,

there were discrepancies for 16, or 38

percent. The differences were extremely

small, usually only one or two FIM. For

all of the home market products that

were matched to U.S. sales, the reported

cost extras represented a small

percentage of total cost. No

documentation was provided to link

either the cost extra book or the on-line

computer system into Rautaruukki’s

audited financial accounting system.

Because of Rautaruukki’s failure to

report properly extra cost data based on

the POR, failure to retain the data that

it did use to prepare its questionnaire

response, and the failure of Rautaruukki

to provide documentation linking the

reported extras costs with accounting

and financial documentation, the

Department has determined to use facts

available for Rautaruukki’s reported

extras costs.

However, the Department disagrees

with petitioners’ suggestion that it apply

total facts available in this review. The

cases cited by petitioners, Grain

Oriented Electrical Sheet Steel from

Italy and Flat Products from Sweden,

differ from this case. In both of those

cases, the Department was unable to

verify numerous and fundamental

aspects of the respondents’ responses. In

this case, however, the significant

problems encountered at verification

were limited to cost extras. Base costs—

the primary component of cost—were

fully verified. The observed

discrepancies with respect to cost extras

for products other than wide flats and

beveled plate were extremely small, and

for the home market products used to

match to U.S. sales, reported cost extras

represented a small portion of total cost.

As a result, rather than resort to total

adverse facts available for these

products, as advocated by petitioners,

for products other than wide flats and

beveled plate we are using facts

available only for the cost extras in the

calculation of COP and CV. As facts

available, we are using the highest

reported cost extras for products that are

not beveled or wide flat. Due to the

significant difference in cost between

painted and non-painted products, we

have also separately identified the

highest reported extra costs for painted

and non-painted plate. In calculating

difference of merchandise (difmer)

adjustments, we have assigned a difmer

of zero to shipbuilding specification

‘‘A’’ material that same cost as the U.S.

product.

For wide flats and beveled products,

Rautaruukki made no attempt to provide

information to verify its reported extras

data. Indeed Rautaruukki admitted that

this information could not be verified.

As stated in the cost verification report:

We also noted that the costs reported for

wide flats and beveled material are

incorrect. The report goes on to state

that this failure to correctly report the

extras cost of these products rendered

moot our attempt to verify the costs.

(Department’s Cost Verification report at

4.) We are continuing to use facts

available as NV for U.S. sales matching

to CONNUMs including wide flats and

beveled plate as we did in the

preliminary results.

We also note that respondent

improperly reported COP and CV data

for two separate periods, 1994 and

seven months of 1995, rather than report

a single weighted average COP/CV for

the entire POR. Respondent also

improperly included data for all of

calendar year 1994 in its COP/CV data,

rather than limiting the data used to the

months of the POR. For the final results

of this review, we are weight averaging

respondent’s submitted data, with the

modifications noted above.

Comment 4

Petitioners argue that the Department

is compelled to reject Rautaruukki’s

submitted sales information and resort

to total facts available. Petitioners claim

that respondent has offered three

inconsistent and mutually exclusive

explanations of how it assigned PLSPEC

and CONNUM codes to its various

products:

• That whenever multiple PLSPECs

are assigned to a particular CONNUM,

those PLSPECs are identical to one

another because they merely reflect

various countries’ designations of the

same specification/grade;

• That respondent’s PLSPEC codes

each reflect different specification and

grades; and

• That the various PLSPECs within a

given CONNUM in some cases are

identical to one another, in other cases

are only similar (although not identical),

and in still other cases are dissimilar.

Petitioners argue that the submitted

sales information should be rejected

because: (1) The PLSPEC and CONNUM

codes are critical to the Department’s

dumping analysis; (2) the Department

has no basis for selecting among

Rautaruukki’s various inconsistent

explanations of these codes; and (3) the

Department is unable to correct

Rautaruukki’s data. Petitioners argue

that the assignment of PLSPEC and

CONNUM codes directly affects almost

every critical element of the

Department’s analysis of the existence

and magnitude of dumping, including

attribution and allocation of costs,

model match, and application of the

arm’s length test.

Petitioners summarize the record

evidence in support of each of the three

explanations which it believes

respondent has offered. Petitioners offer

various cites to the record in support of

the first proposition that certain

different PLSPEC designations included

within a single CONNUM are in fact

identical and that respondent merely

assigned different PLSPECs to reflect the

nomenclature of different international

standards for identical products.

Petitioners claim that the Department

verified that these PLSPECs are

identical. In support of the second

proposition, petitioners cite the cost

verification report, which they claim

indicated that respondent separately

tracked and recorded costs for certain

PLSPECs within the same CONNUM.

Petitioners also reference the sales

verification report which states that

‘‘Rautaruukki has correctly assigned

different PLSPEC codes to different

specifications and grades. The

specifications and grades are, indeed,

different* * *.’’ Petitioners also cite

respondent’s submitted model match

hierarchy in support of their third

proposition, that some PLSPECs under a

CONNUM are identical, while others

only similar and others are not even

similar.

Petitioners argue the quantum of

evidence of the record and the number

of statements made by Rautaruukki

consistent with each of the alternatives

is roughly equivalent, and Rautaruukki

has supported each of its claims with

documentation, and in two of the three

instances, the Department purportedly

confirmed this information at

verification.

Petitioners argue that if the

Department were to accept the first

claim, that all PLSPECs under a single

CONNUM are identical, the Department

would have to collapse PLSPECs within
18474 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

a CONNUM, and also collapse PLSPECs

that are identical to each other but are

assigned different CONNUMs

throughout the entire database.

Petitioners claim that this would entail

extraordinarily complex computer

programming and the Department could

not be certain of making all the

necessary corrections. Petitioners also

note that if this claim were accepted, the

Department would have to correct all

corresponding cost information and

revisit the issue of downstream sales.

Petitioners also argue that the

Department would have to reject

Rautaruukki’s submitted model match

hierarchy and, as a result, would be

precluded from performing the model

match.

Petitioners argue that if the

Department were to accept the second

claim that all reported PLSPECs are

different, the Department would have to

split all the CONNUMs that contain

multiple PLSPECs and determine the

correct cost for each new CONNUM.

However, in petitioners’ view, the

Department has no basis upon which to

apportion the COP/CV of the original

CONNUM to the newly-created

CONNUMs. Petitioners claim that under

this scenario the Department again

would have to reject Rautaruukki’s

submitted model match hierarchy and,

as a result, would be precluded from

performing the model match.

Petitioners claim that if the

Department were to accept

Rautaruukki’s third claim that some

PLSPECS reported under a CONNUM

are identical, while others are only

similar and others are not similar at all,

then the Department would have to

collapse the PLSPECs listed in the

model match hierarchy as identical and

separate all of the non-identical

PLSPECs listed under the same

CONNUM. Petitioners also claim that

the Department would have to correct

the corresponding cost information.

However, petitioners noted that the

model match hierarchy does not list all

PLSPECs and they argue the Department

would be precluded from running the

arm’s length test.

Respondent alleges that it provided

the Department with a consistent,

accurate and verified explanation of its

assignment of CONNUMs and PLSPECs

in this administrative review.

Respondent asserts that petitioners’

claims are contradicted by the record,

including the Department’s verification

of the methodology and accuracy of

Rautaruukki’s assignment of CONNUMs

and PLSPECs. Respondent states that

PLSPECs may be identical, similar or

different.

Citing the Department’s analysis

memorandum, respondent claims that

in performing the model match, the

Department first identified home market

sales with the same CONNUM as the

U.S. sales and, then matched identical

PLSPECs within that CONNUM.

Respondent asserts that it has assigned

separate PLSPEC codes to separate

specifications or grades. Respondent

notes that in some cases, these PLSPEC

codes identify identical products, but

the codes are different to reflect the

national specification or classification

standard to which the product was

certified. Rautaruukki claims that it

clearly identified the PLSPEC codes

which it used, and the Department

verified that information.

Respondent also states that it assigned

different CONNUMs to products with

the same physical characteristics when

those products fell into different

product groups which are manufactured

by different processes and have different

end uses. Respondent contends that the

Department verified that some of these

products, including wide flats and

beveled plate, require additional

processing.

Respondent notes that the record

establishes that:

• The same CONNUM may have

included two or more PLSPECs. There

are some PLSPECs within a CONNUM

which define identical products (e.g.,

the PLSPECs assigned to the

certifications of shipbuilding plate ‘‘A’’

by the various national classification

societies), while other PLSPECs define

similar or different products.

• Different CONNUMs reflect

different product groups with the same

physical characteristics, i.e., normal cutto-length plate, wide flats, and beveled

plate.

• Individual PLSPECs represent

separate specification or grade codes.

Respondent claims that petitioners

attempt to construct a dilemma where

none exists, and that Rautaruukki’s

‘‘explanations’’ are not inconsistent and

certainly not mutually exclusive.

Department’s Position

We disagree with petitioners that

Rautaruukki has offered three

inconsistent and mutually-exclusive

explanations of how it assigned PLSPEC

and CONNUM codes and that the

Department has no basis for choosing

among these explanations. We believe

that the third explanation cited by

petitioners—that in some instances

PLSPECs are identical, in other

instances they are similar, and in other

instances they are not similar—is

consistent with the information

submitted on the record. The

‘‘evidence’’ which petitioners cite in

support of the other two explanations is

not global in nature. For example,

statements cited by petitioners in

support of the first explanation—that

whenever multiple PLSPECs are

assigned to a particular CONNUM, those

PLSPECs are identical to one another

because they merely reflect various

countries’ designations of the same

specification/grades—are referring to

shipbuilding specifications only.

Similarly, none of the information

referenced by petitioners regarding the

second explanation—that PLSPEC codes

each reflect different specification and

grades—indicates that this is true of all

PLSPECs. Thus, we find that

Rautaruukki’s explanations regarding

PLSPECs are consistent.

This does not mean that we find that

Rautaruukki has correctly assigned

CONNUMs. As indicated in response to

Comment 1, we do not agree that all

shipbuilding ‘‘A’’ PLSPECs should be

combined in a single CONNUM. We are

continuing to make the changes to

Rautaruukki’s data base with respect to

the reconfiguration of CONNUMs that

were made in the preliminary results.

Petitioners’ concerns with respect to

cost data, the sales-below-cost test and

the arm’s length test have been

addressed in Comment 1.

Comment 5

Petitioners state that Rautaruukki has

compelled the Department to use

adverse total facts available, because

Rautaruukki failed to provide the

Department with a response that is

consistent; an explanation of how

Rautaruukki’s response was prepared;

and the necessary information needed to

verify the submitted cost information.

Petitioners argue that under the terms

of the statute, the Department is

compelled to reject Rautaruukki’s

responses, and resort to total facts

available. Petitioners note that 19 U.S.C.

1677e(a)(1995) provides that if:

(1) Necessary information is not available

on the record, or

(2) an interested party or any other

person—

(A) withholds information that has been

requested by the administering authority

. . .,

(B) fails to provide such information by the

deadlines for submission of the information

or in the form and manner requested . . .,

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this subtitle, or

(D) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified . . ., the

administering authority and the Commission

shall . . . use the facts otherwise available in

reaching the applicable determination under

this subtitle.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18475

Petitioners contend that the statute

provides that any one of the above five

scenarios requires the Department to

reject Rautaruukki’s responses and

resort to facts available. Petitioners

allege that despite repeated requests by

the Department, Rautaruukki did not

provide adequate information by which

the Department could verify its reported

cost information, and it did not provide

the Department with a consistent and

reliable explanation of how the

company assigned PLSPEC and

CONNUM codes to its various products.

Petitioners state that section 1677m of

the statute provides that the Department

may still rely on submitted information

that fails to meet the above criteria in

certain circumstances which in

petitioners’ view have not been satisfied

by Rautaruukki. Petitioners claim that

the Department has complied with the

statutory notice requirements necessary

to reject Rautaruukki’s deficient

submissions.

Petitioners state that section 1677m

(d) of the statute requires that, upon

receiving a deficient submission, the

Department is to, ‘‘promptly inform

* * * respondent of the nature of the

deficiency and shall, to the extent

practicable, provide that person with an

opportunity to remedy or explain the

deficiency in light of the time limits

established for the completion of * * *

reviews.’’ Petitioners argue that in

addition to its original questionnaire,

the Department issued a lengthy

supplemental questionnaire in the case,

which specifically requested

clarification of Rautaruukki’s PLSPEC

and CONNUM assignments, as well as

its submitted cost information,

including cost ‘‘extras.’’

Petitioners state that section 1677e(b)

of the statute provides that if a

respondent fails ‘‘to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with * * * the Department’s request for

information, * * * the Department in

reaching its determination may use an

inference that is adverse to the interests

of that party in selecting from among the

facts otherwise available.’’ Petitioners

claim that Rautaruukki has not acted to

the best of its ability to comply with the

Department’s instructions in this

review; therefore, the Department

should use an adverse inference when

applying facts available. Petitioners

assert that the Department should apply

the highest rate from any prior segment

of this proceeding—32.80 percent.

Respondent claims that it provided

the necessary information requested by

the Department during this

administrative review. In Rautaruukki’s

view, its cooperation is confirmed by

the record. Respondent argues that it

provided information which was within

its corporate control and sought

information from other companies as

well as the Government of Finland.

Respondent states that it was fully

cooperative and responsive during the

sales and cost verifications by the

Department, which extended over a

period of ten days. Rautaruukki claims

it responded fully and promptly to the

Department’s requests, and it assigned

sufficient and appropriate personnel to

insure the orderly and accurate

progression of the verification.

Respondent argues that the Department

confirmed that the information

submitted by Rautaruukki was accurate,

complete and verifiable through its

testing of Rautaruukki’s responses

against the company’s normal

accounting and financial records, and

that the Department reconciled

Rautaruukki’s response to those records.

Department’s Position

As indicated in previous comments,

we disagree with petitioners that the

Department should reject Rautaruukki’s

responses, and apply adverse total facts

available. We are making the

adjustments to Rautaruukki’s submitted

data described above and using this data

to calculate Rautaruukki’s antidumping

duty margin. As the Department finds

that the use of total facts available is not

appropriate, the issue of whether or not

we should apply adverse facts available

is moot.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists:

Manufacturer/

exporter

Period of reviewMargin

(percent)

Rautaruukki

Oy .............. 8/1/94–7/31/95 24.95

The Department shall determine, and

the Customers Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and normal value may vary

from the percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Finland within the scope of the order

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

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

deposit rate for the reviewed company

will be the rate listed above; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the 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

this review, a prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-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 (4) for cash deposit

for all other manufacturers or exporters

will continue to be 32.80 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation. See Antidumping Duty

Order: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from Finland, 58 FR 44165

(August 19, 1993). These requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice 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.

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 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

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 notice

are published in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9426 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M