27260 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices

above. Stelco does not dispute the

mathematical application of the

Department’s decision but instead has

expressed its disagreement with the

Department’s decision in this instance.

The Department explicitly intended to

use the date of the final results in its

credit calculation. Therefore, we reject

Stelco’s allegation of ministerial error.

Comment 7: Petitioners allege that the

Department inadvertently used an

incorrect dataset for the concordance

data in the margin calculation program

for plate. The model match program

creates a concordance dataset named

CONCORD; however, the margin

calculation program uses the term

CONCORDP. Petitioners argue that the

Department should use the dataset name

CONCORD in its margin calculation

program.

Stelco did not comment on this issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners. Because this error is

typographical in nature, it falls within

the Department’s definition of

ministerial error. We have corrected the

margin calculation program for plate to

use the proper concordance dataset. See

Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors

for Plate at page 2.

Comment 8: Petitioners allege that the

Department failed to exclude general

sales tax (‘‘GST’’) and provincial sales

tax (‘‘PST’’) from home market credit

expenses in its final programs for both

corrosion-resistant steel and plate. They

note that the Department stated in its

Final Results notice that it ‘‘corrected

Stelco’s home market credit expenses to

exclude both GST and PST’’ (see Final

Results at 12742).

Stelco did not comment on this issue.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioners. We have amended the final

programs for both corrosion-resistant

steel and plate to exclude GST and PST

from the calculation of home market

credit expenses. See Analysis of Alleged

Ministerial Errors for CorrosionResistant Steel Products at pages 3 and

4. See also Analysis of Alleged

Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 3.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have

determined that the following margins

exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

Corrosion—Resistant

Steel:

Dofasco ...................... 0.72.

CCC ........................... 0.54.

Stelco ......................... 1.55.

Cut-to-Length Plate:

Algoma ....................... 0.44 (de minimis).

MRM .......................... 0.00.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

Stelco ......................... 0.35 (de minimis).

Pursuant to section 353.28 of the

Department’s regulations, parties to the

proceeding will have five days after the

date of publication of this notice to

notify the Department of any new

ministerial or clerical errors, as well as

five days thereafter to rebut any

comments by parties.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

sales to the United States and normal

value may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective, upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of review, for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be the rates for those

firms as stated above, except if the rate

is less than .5 percent and therefore de

minimis, the cash deposit will be zero;

(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, or the original less-than-fairvalue (‘‘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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review, the cash deposit

rate 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)). These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

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.

This amendment of final results of

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: May 11, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–13138 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–401–805]

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate From Sweden

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On January 13, 1998, the

United States Court of International

Trade affirmed the Department of

Commerce’s final remand results

affecting the final assessment rate for

the 1993/94 administrative review in

the case of certain cut-to-length carbon

steel plate from Sweden. SSAB Svenkst

Stal AB v. United States, Slip Op. 98–

3 (CIT January 13, 1998). As there is

now a final and conclusive court

decision in this action, we are amending

our final results of review, and we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate entries subject to this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Blozy or Stephen Jacques, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0374 or 482–1391,

respectively.

Applicable Statue

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Tariff Act’’), are

references to the provisions in effect as

of December 31, 1994. In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices 27261

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part

353 (April 1, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 9, 1996, the Department

published its final results of

administrative review in the case of

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Sweden; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 15772 (‘‘Final Results’’).

The review covered one manufacturer/

exporter, SSAB Svenskt Stal AB

(‘‘SSAB’’), of the subject merchandise

for the period February 4, 1993, through

July 31, 1994. Subsequently, SSAB filed

a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) challenging

the results.

In the context of this litigation, the

Department requested a remand to

reconsider the propriety of making an

adjustment for post-sale price

adjustments (‘‘PSPAs’’). The CIT granted

this remand on August 29, 1997. On

remand, through an examination of the

record, the Department found that all

rebates were made on either a fixed or

constant percentage-of-sales value or on

a fixed and constant Swedish Kronerper-ton of total tonnage sold. Therefore,

the Department determined that these

PSPAs qualified as adjustments to

foreign market value.

The Department filed its

redetermination with the Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) on October

29, 1997. See Final Results of

Redetermination on Remand, SSAB

Svenskt Stal AB v. United States, Court

No. 96–05–01372, Slip Op. 97–123

(August 29, 1997) (‘‘Remand Results’’).

In its Remand Results, the Department

stated that it would ‘‘instruct the

Customs Service to collect cash deposits

at the above rate [of 7.25%] for entries

from SSAB of cut-to-length carbon steel

plate from Sweden’’ (Remand Results at

4). Since then, parties and the CIT have

agreed that such instructions would be

incorrect because the Department has

published subsequent administrative

reviews that govern future cash

deposits. Therefore, cash deposit rates

will be governed not by the rate

published in the Remand Results, but

by the most recently completed

administrative review, according to the

Department’s normal procedures. See

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Sweden; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 46947 (September 5,

1997).

On January 13, 1998, the CIT affirmed

the Department’s final remand results

(with the exception noted above), Slip

Op. 98–3. As there is now a final and

conclusive court decision in this action,

we are amending our final results of

review in this matter and we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate entries subject to this review

in accordance with the remand results.

Amendment to Final Results

Pursuant to 516A(e) of the Tariff Act,

we are now amending the final results

of administrative review of the

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

Sweden for the period February 4, 1993,

through July 31, 1994. As a result of the

remand determination, the final

weighted-average margin for SSAB is as

follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

SSAB .......................................... 7.25

Accordingly, the Department shall

determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess appropriate

antidumping duties on entries of the

subject merchandise manufactured by

SSAB. We calculated an importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment

rate for the merchandise based on the

ratio of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

during the POR to the total quantity of

sales examined during the POR. To

determine the amount of antidumping

duties on those U.S. sales for which the

Department assigned a margin based on

the best information available (‘‘BIA’’),

we calculated a unit duty rate (based on

the BIA rate of 24.23%) for all BIA sales.

Consequently, the assessment rate for

SSAB represents a weighted-average of

the total amount of antidumping duties

for non-BIA sales and the total amount

of antidumping duties for BIA sales.

Individual differences between U.S.

price and normal value may vary from

the percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions to the U.S. Customs Service

after publication of this amended final

results of review.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: May 7, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–13047 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–506]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

the People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Intent Not To Revoke

Antidumping Duty Order, In Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances antidumping

duty administrative review and intent

not to revoke antidumping duty order,

in part.

SUMMARY: On August 27, 1997, the

Department of Commerce initiated a

changed circumstances antidumping

duty administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from the People’s

Republic of China, and subsequently

published the preliminary results of this

review and an intent not to revoke the

order, in part, in the Federal Register on

January 29, 1998 (63 FR 4430). We

received no comments regarding the

preliminary results. Thus, these final

results are unchanged from the

preliminary results, and we are not

revoking the order, in part, with regard

to porcelain-on-steel tea kettles from the

People’s Republic of China.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Morris or Lorenza Olivas, Office

of CVD/AD Enforcement 6, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the regulations as set

forth at 19 CFR § 353.1, et seq., as

amended by the interim regulations

published in the Federal Register on

May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

On May 30, 1997, respondent, Clover

Enamelware Enterprises Ltd. and Lucky