[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20574-20575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-421-804]


Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 18, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
the Netherlands (63 FR 13204). The period of review is August 1, 1995 
through July 31, 1996. On March 18, 1998, the sole respondent, 
Hoogovens Staal BV, and its U.S. subsidiary, Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc. 
(collectively, Hoogovens) filed a timely request that the Department 
correct certain clerical errors in these final results. On March 25, 
1998, the petitioners (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Company 
(a Unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Geneva 
Steel, Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, and 
Lukens Steel Company) filed a response claiming that none of the errors 
alleged by Hoogovens appeared to be ministerial in nature, inasmuch as 
the Department followed the allocation methodology described in the 
final analysis memorandum. We are publishing this amendment to the 
final results of review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Linda Ludwig, 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-
0405 or (202) 482-3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to 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 19 CFR Part 353 
(1997).

Scope of this Review

    The products covered by this review include cold-rolled (cold-
reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled 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, 
and 7217.90.5090. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of 
nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is certain 
shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil that 
is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 0.002 percent, 
is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in width, and 
has an ultra flat, isotropic surface. These HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.
    The POR is August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. This review 
covers entries of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat

[[Page 20575]]

products from the Netherlands by Hoogovens Staal B.V. (Hoogovens).

Analysis of Comments Received

    Hoogovens argues that the Department inadvertently used the wrong 
denominator to arrive at the per ton factor in reclassifying Hoogovens' 
warranty expenses as direct, rather than indirect expenses. The 
Department divided the total warranty expenses incurred during the 
period of March 1994-July 1996 (``window period'') by the total sales 
entered into the United States during the period of review of August 
1995-July 1996, instead of the total shipments during the window 
period. According to Hoogovens, this resulted in a considerable 
overstatement of U.S. warranty expenses. For the home market warranty 
expenses, the Department used as the denominator the home market sales 
during the window period rather than the shipments, resulting in a 
slight overstatement of per ton expenses. Finally, after deducting 
warranty expenses from the reported home market indirect selling 
expenses (ISE), the Department allocated the remaining ISE on the basis 
of the quantity sold. Hoogovens alleges that the Department's practice 
is to require that ISE be reported as a percentage of sales value 
rather than on the basis of quantity.
    Petitioners argue that the Department allocated the expenses 
exactly as described in its analysis memorandum. Moreover, petitioners 
point out, the Department found in its final results that Hoogovens had 
improperly failed to report its warranty expenses as direct selling 
expenses based on the tonnages sold. While petitioners argued in their 
case brief that the Department should deny any adjustment for the 
reported expense in the home market, in petitioners' view the 
Department's decision to allocate these expenses based on the tonnages 
in Hoogovens' reported data is consistent with the Department's stated 
intention and cannot be said to be a ministerial error. Finally, 
petitioners argue that Hoogovens' questioning of the Department's 
allocation of ISE raises a policy issue, not a ministerial error.
    We agree in part with Hoogovens. For these amended final results we 
have corrected the denominators to correspond to the same period as the 
numerators. We disagree with the petitioners' claim that these were not 
ministerial errors. We did not intend to calculate a ratio in which the 
denominator and numerator were based on data covering different 
periods. Accordingly, we find this error to be ministerial within the 
meaning of 19 CFR 353.28(d).
    In regard to the allocation of ISE, we agree with petitioners that 
this raises a methodological issue, not a ministerial error. We believe 
that the Department's allocation based on quantity rather than value is 
reasonable, and have adjusted the denominator to correspond to the 
quantities shipped in the home market during the extended window 
period.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our correction of ministerial errors, we have 
determined the margin to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter             Period of review  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoogovens Staal B.V.......................     8/1/95-7/31/96       4.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as a result of these corrections, we find that there are 
dumping margins on 84.3 percent of Hoogovens' U.S. sales by quantity. 
In the absence of any information on the record that the unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States will pay the ultimately assessed 
duties, the Department finds that respondent has absorbed antidumping 
duties on 84.3 percent of its U.S. sales.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment 
purposes, the duty assessment rate will be a specific amount per metric 
ton. 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 cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the 
Netherlands 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 rate for the reviewed company will be the 
rate for that firm as stated above; (2) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this 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 (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 19.32 
percent. This is the ``all others'' rate from the amended final 
determination in the LTFV investigation. See Amended Final 
Determination Pursuant to CIT Decision: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 61 FR 47871. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, 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 section 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 section 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.
    These amended final results of 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 353.28(c).

    Dated: April 17, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-11000 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P