18744 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices

This administrative review and notice

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

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9972 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; 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; certain hot-rolled lead and

bismuth carbon steel products from the

United Kingdom.

SUMMARY: On December 10, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom. The

review covers one manufacturer/

exporter and the period March 1, 1995

through February 29, 1996.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, and

the correction of certain clerical errors,

we have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4733.

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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 10, 1996, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 65022) the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom (58

FR 15324, March 22, 1993). The

Department has now completed the

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are hot-rolled bars and rods of nonalloy

or other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

or more of bismuth, in coils or cut

lengths, and in numerous shapes and

sizes. Excluded from the scope of this

review are other alloy steels (as defined

by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1(f)), except steels classified as

other alloy steels by reason of

containing by weight 0.4 percent or

more of lead, or 0.1 percent or more of

bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also

excluded are semi-finished steels and

flat-rolled products. Most of the

products covered in this review are

provided for under subheadings

7213.20.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the

HTSUS. Small quantities of these

products may also enter the United

States under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00;

7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90;

7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and

7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this order remains dispositive.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of certain hot-rolled lead and

bismuth steel products, British Steel

Engineering Steels limited (BSES),

formerly United Engineering Steels

Limited (UES), and the period March 1,

1995 through February 29, 1996.

Duty Absorption

As part of this review, we are

considering, in accordance with section

751(a)(4) of the Act, whether BSES

absorbed antidumping duties. See the

preliminary results of this review (61 FR

65022, December 10, 1996). For these

final results of review, we find that

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by BSES. For a further discussion of this

issue, see comments 1 and 2 below.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments and rebuttal

comments from the petitioner, Inland

Steel Bar Co., and BSES.

Comment 1: BSES contends that the

Department lacks the authority to

conduct a duty absorption inquiry in

this, the third administrative review of

this case, because the Act only permits

such inquiries to be made in the second

and fourth administrative reviews after

the order is published.

Petitioner maintains that the

Department was correct in conducting

this duty absorption inquiry. Petitioner

contends that BSES ignores the fact that,

because this order was in effect on

January 1, 1995, it is a transition order

under the Act. Petitioner argues that the

issue date for transition orders, as

prescribed by the Act for the

interpretation of sunset-related

deadlines, is not the date of the original

Federal Register publication, but rather

the effective date of the World Trade

Organization (WTO) agreement, January

1, 1995. As support for its argument,

petitioner cites the URAA, Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) in H.R.

Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2nd Sess.

(1994) at 882.

Petitioner also contends that section

351.213(j) of the Department’s proposed

antidumping regulations follows this

timing interpretation and provides that

for transition orders, if requested, the

Department will make an absorption

inquiry for administrative reviews

initiated in 1996. According to

petitioner, the preamble to the proposed

antidumping regulations states

explicitly that, for transition orders,

‘‘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.’’

Department’s Position: We disagree

with BSES that the Department lacks the

authority to conduct a duty absorption

inquiry in this review. Because the

order for the subject merchandise was in

existence as of the date the WTO

agreement entered into force with

respect to the United States, it is

deemed to be a transition order. See

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. See also

the SAA at 882. With respect to

transition orders, section 351.213(j)(2) of

the Department’s proposed antidumping

regulations explains that the

Department will conduct a duty
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices 18745

absorption inquiry, if requested,

beginning in the second year of review

of such orders. See 61 FR 7307, 7366

(February 27, 1996). The preamble to

the proposed antidumping regulations

states that, for transition orders,

‘‘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.’’

61 FR at 7317. (Although these

proposed antidumping regulations are

not yet binding upon the Department,

they do constitute a public statement of

how the Department expects to proceed

in construing section 751(a)(4) of the

amended statute. Because this review

was initiated in 1996, the Department’s

duty absorption is deemed to be

undertaken in the second year of

review.)

Comment 2: BSES maintains that, if

the Department declines to terminate

the absorption inquiry, it must find that

BSES has not absorbed antidumping

duties. BSES further maintains that the

existence of dumping margins does not

necessarily mean that duty absorption

has occurred. If this were the case, then

the Department’s obligation to conduct

an absorption review would be

meaningless, and there would be no

need for a separate inquiry by the

Department and the International Trade

Commission (ITC).

BSES further maintains that the

question of liability for antidumping

duties is fundamentally different from

the question of absorption in that the

absorption inquiry involves at least two

very distinct concepts that differentiate

it from the ordinary dumping analysis.

First, the absorption inquiry is intended

to provide information to the ITC for

consideration in a future sunset review.

See sections 751(a)(4) and 752(a)(1)(D)

of the Act. Secondly, BSES maintains

that the Department should recognize

that the small dumping margins that

BSES has not yet succeeded in

eliminating are not evidence of

absorption.

BSES contends that, in determining

whether a respondent’s pricing policies

demonstrate an intent to pass on or

absorb duties, the Department may and

should consider a respondent’s sales

prices in the aggregate and thus should

offset the sale-specific dumping margins

found in the review by the negative

margins found in the review. BSES

notes that the Department’s preliminary

review results found that BSES had a

very low dumping margin and argues

that the Department should recognize

that BSES’s pattern of pricing shows

that it has conscientiously raised its

prices and reduced its margin and thus

has not absorbed antidumping duties.

BSES recognizes the Department’s

traditional methodology of setting

negative dumping margins at zero in the

calculation of the weighted-average

dumping margin, but argues that there

is no policy reason to ignore negative

margins in duty absorption inquiries,

and that there certainly is no such

requirement in the statute or

regulations.

Petitioner maintains that, during the

debates over the URAA, the domestic

industry pointed out that the full

remedial impact of dumping duties was

not always reflected in the marketplace.

Petitioner argues that, although 19 CFR

353.26 (1994) prohibited an exporter

from reimbursing an importer of record

for antidumping duties, nothing

prohibited a respondent from acting as

an importer of record, and thereby

absorbing underpayment of duties. As a

result, Congress amended the statute to

direct the Department to identify these

instances of duty absorption because

they could be relevant in the

Commission’s sunset review

determination on the likelihood of

continuing or recurring material injury

if an antidumping order is revoked.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with BSES. An investigation as to

whether there is duty absorption does

not simply involve reading the margin

of the final results. As the Department

noted in the preliminary results of this

review, the determination that duty

absorption exists is also based on the

lack of any information on the record

that the first unrelated customer will be

responsible for paying the duty that is

ultimately assessed. Absent such an

irrevocable agreement between the

affiliated U.S. respondent and the first

unrelated customer, there is no basis for

the Department to conclude that the

duty attributable to the margin is not

being absorbed by the respondent.

This is an instance where the

existence of a margin raises an initial

presumption that the respondent is, in

fact, absorbing the duty. As such, the

burden of producing evidence to the

contrary shifts to the respondent. See

Creswell Trading Co., Inc. v. United

States, 15 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Here, the respondent has failed to place

evidence on the record in support of its

position that it is not absorbing the

duties. Further, while the fact that

respondent’s margin has fallen indicates

that the level of dumping has decreased,

it does not indicate the absence of duty

absorption in this review period, as

there is still a positive margin.

We disagree with BSES that negative

and positive margins should be

aggregated. The Department treats socalled ‘‘negative’’ margins as being

equal to zero in calculating a weightedaverage margin because otherwise

exporters would be able to mask their

dumped sales with non-dumped sales.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Professional Electric

Cutting Tools and Professional Electric

Sanding/Grinding Tools from Japan, 58

FR 30149 (May 26, 1993). It would be

inconsistent on one hand to calculate

margins using positive margin sales,

which is the Department’s practice, and

then argue, in effect, that there are no

margins because credit should be given

for nonmargin sales. Thus, those sales

which are used to determine whether

there are margins should also be used to

determine whether there is duty

absorption.

Whether or not respondents

‘‘intended’’ to absorb duties is also

irrelevant to the Department’s inquiry.

The Act does not provide a basis for the

Department to render judgements on the

intentions of respondents, but instead to

make an empirical finding as to whether

absorption is occurring.

Comment 3: Petitioner claims that

some grades of scrap purchased by

BSES from its affiliated parties were not

at arm’s-length transaction prices. If the

scrap price from BSES’s affiliated

supplier is less than the scrap price

from its unaffiliated supplier, petitioner

claims, it is not an arm’s-length

transaction. To account for such grades

that were not at arm’s-length prices,

petitioner maintains that the

Department should increase BSES’s

total cost of production by the

difference between the price paid to

affiliated parties and the price paid to

unaffiliated parties. Petitioner contends

that the overall average for all grades of

scrap does not recognize that individual

grades of scrap may not have been

purchased from affiliated parties in an

arm’s-length transaction. As support for

its argument, petitioner cites 19

U.S.C.A. 1677b(f)(2) (1996 Supp.); also,

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Dynamic

Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above From the Republic of Korea, 61

FR 20216, 20221 (May 6, 1996); Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Certain Components

Thereof, from Japan, 56 FR 65228,

65237 (December 16, 1991); and Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value; Certain Granite Products From

Italy, 53 FR 27187, 27193 (July 19,

1988).

BSES contends that scrap is not a

uniform commodity with a single,

stable, established price. The market is
18746 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices

volatile, with prices varying from period

to period and from supplier to supplier.

BSES claims that each month it and its

suppliers assess the market and

negotiate the price for each grade of

scrap to be purchased in the coming

month. The relationship does not affect

the negotiated price. BSES further

claims that both affiliated and

unaffiliated suppliers sell to BSES in a

tight cluster of prices that hover closely

to theoretical market price, which

sometimes is slightly higher than the

average and sometimes slightly lower,

but always dictated by the going market

price. BSES notes that, out of 21 grades

supplied by both affiliated and

unaffiliated suppliers, affiliated

suppliers’ average prices were higher for

12 of these grades and unaffiliated

suppliers higher for 9 grades. BSES

maintains that the affiliated scrap prices

for many of the grades are understated,

since its most important affiliated

suppliers do not include freight to

BSES’s location in their prices while the

unaffiliated suppliers sell on a delivered

basis. BSES notes that, where scrap

sales were made on an ex-factory basis,

BSES included its freight expense in the

material cost used in the reporting of the

cost of production and constructed

value (CV). BSES claims that petitioner

has distorted its scrap data, to conclude

that the data show affiliated prices to be

generally lower than unaffiliated prices.

Department’s Position: We agree with

BSES that scrap purchases from

affiliated suppliers were made at arm’slength prices, and that therefore no

adjustment to scrap prices is warranted.

As BSES notes, the overall weightedaverage price for all grades of scrap

during the fiscal year is somewhat

higher from affiliated suppliers than

from unaffiliated suppliers. See

memorandum to the file from Leon

McNeill, April 9, 1997.

Comment 4: Petitioner argues that, for

the upcoming administrative review, the

Department should require respondent

to allocate each individual rebate over

only those sales benefitting from the

rebate rather than over all sales.

BSES contends that no changes

should be made to the Department’s

analysis in either this review or future

reviews.

Department’s Position: Since this

comment refers to an upcoming

administrative review of this order, it is

not relevant to this review. Therefore,

for these final results, the Department

has not taken any action on this issue.

Comment 5: BSES argues that the

Department failed to make a

circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustment

for home market imputed credit

expenses for CV comparisons. BSES

notes that, in the preliminary results,

the Department added imputed U.S.

credit expenses to the foreign unit

prices in dollars (FUPDOL). However, it

failed to make a corresponding

adjustment for home market credit

expenses by subtracting such expenses

from the CV. BSES suggests that the

Department make this correction by

calculating separately a weightedaverage imputed home market credit

expense in addition to the total actual

direct selling expenses, and then

deducting the weighted average home

market credit expenses from CV. BSES

maintains that the Department’s normal

value calculation methodology

recognizes that home market price

includes all cost and expenses,

including imputed credit expense, since

the Department makes a COS

adjustment for this expense in price-toprice comparisons. Similarly, a COS

adjustment is also required for CV, since

imputed credit expenses are included in

CV. BSES cites section 773(e) of the Act,

which directs the Department to

calculate CV as the sum of actual

expenses incurred in the manufacture of

the product sold in the United States,

plus the actual selling expenses from

the home market sales file, plus general

and administrative expenses (including

net interest expense), plus the actual

profit realized on home market sales.

BSES argues that since the Department

added imputed U.S. credit to the

FUPDOL, to ensure a fair comparison it

must correspondingly deduct home

market credit from CV. BSES contends

that the Department’s Office of

Accounting has endorsed the

methodology and it is also reflected in

the following cases: Final Results of

Administrative Review: Certain Welded

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey, 61 FR 69067 (December 31,

1996) and Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value; Large

Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan

(LNPPs from Japan), 61 FR 38139,

38147–48 (July 23, 1996).

Petitioner argues that since the

Department did not include home

market imputed credit in CV, it is not

appropriate to deduct a home market

credit expense from CV. Petitioner notes

that although the Department has

reached the opposite conclusion in

several recent cases, including LNPPs

from Japan, as cited by BSES, it should

apply the pre-URAA policy of adjusting

CV for imputed credit expenses.

Department’s Position: We agree with

BSES that a COS adjustment should be

made for home market imputed credit

expenses in CV comparisons. Under the

URAA, for both COP and CV, the statute

provides that selling, general and

administrative expenses be based on

actual amounts incurred by the exporter

for production and sale of the foreign

like product. Consistent with section

773(a)(6) of the Act, adjustments to

normal value are appropriate where CV

is the basis of normal value. The

Department uses imputed credit

expenses to measure the effect of a

specific respondent’s selling practices in

the United States and the comparison

market. See Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Singapore, and the United

Kingdom; Final Results of

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2119–20

(January 15, 1997). Because export price

is the basis for United States price in

this review, the adjustment entails

adding U.S. imputed credit to the CV,

and subtracting home market imputed

credit from the CV. The U.S. imputed

credit was added for the preliminary

results; for these final results, we have

also subtracted the home market

imputed credit. See section

773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act.

Comment 6: BSES contends that the

Department inadvertently deducted the

home market quantity adjustment twice

at lines 149 and 321 of the preliminary

margin program.

Department’s Position: We agree with

BSES and have revised our computer

programming language accordingly for

these final results of review.

Comment 7: BSES argues that the

Department erroneously applied a

conversion factor to U.S. credit

insurance. BSES claims that, since U.S.

credit insurance is denominated in U.S.

dollars, applying the conversion factor

is incorrect.

Department’s Position: We agree with

BSES and have revised our computer

programming language accordingly for

these final results of review.

Comment 8: BSES maintains that the

Department erred in converting U.S.

packing from pounds sterling to U.S.

dollars twice in calculating the FUPDOL

for both price-to-price and CV

comparisons.

Department’s Position: We agree with

BSES and have revised our computer

programming language accordingly for

these final results.

Comment 9: BSES claims that the

Department misspelled the commission

offset variable in the preliminary margin

program. As a result, the commission

offset was not applied to the FUPDOL

for price-to-price comparisons where

the U.S. commissions are greater than or

equal to the home market indirect

selling expenses.

Department’s Position: We agree with

BSES, and have revised our computer
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices 18747

programming language accordingly for

these final results.

Comment 10: Petitioner argues that

the Department inadvertently used the

field MONTHU to establish the year for

a concordance entry.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner. Accordingly, for these final

results, we have revised our computer

programming language to make the

appropriate clerical error correction.

Correction of Clerical Error

For the preliminary results, we failed

to include direct selling expenses,

indirect selling expenses, and U.S.

packing expenses in the amount by

which the profit ratio was multiplied in

calculating CV profit. For these final

results, we have included these

expenses in the calculation of CV profit.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review

Margin

(percent)

British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES)(formerly United Engineering Steels Limited) ................................. 3/1/95–2/29/96 4.56

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and normal value may vary

from the percentage stated above.

Because there is a concurrent review of

the countervailing duty order on the

subject merchandise, final assessments

for BSES will reflect the final results of

the countervailing duty administrative

review in accordance with 19 CFR

353.41(d)(iv). 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

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom

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

rate for the reviewed company will be

the rate listed above; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

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 all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 25.82 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(58 FR 6207, January 27, 1993). These

deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice 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 subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

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 in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9971 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–810]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Argentina; Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On September 17, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 48882) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from

Argentina. This review covered the

period June 29, 1995 through July 31,

1996 (for OCTG other than drill pipe)

and August 11, 1995 through July 31,

1996 (for drill pipe). This review has

now been rescinded as a result of the

absence of entries into the United States

of subject merchandise during the

period of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alain Letort 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively, or fax (202) 482–

1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

30, 1996, petitioners requested an

administrative review of Siderca

S.A.I.C., an Argentine producer and

exporter of OCTG, and Siderca

Corporation, a U.S. importer and

reseller of such merchandise

(collectively, ‘‘Siderca’’), with respect to

the antidumping duty order published

in the Federal Register on August 11,

1995 (60 FR 41055). We initiated this

review on September 17, 1996 (61 FR

48882).

On October 4, 1996, Siderca filed a

letter with the Department certifying

that it did not export, directly or

indirectly, subject merchandise that was

entered for consumption into the United

States during the period of review

(‘‘POR’’). Siderca also certified that its

U.S. affiliate, Siderca Corporation, did

not import for U.S. consumption any of

the subject merchandise during the

POR.