37320 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

affect the level of export controls

applicable to advanced materials and

related technology.

Agenda:

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.

2. Explanation on purpose of electing

Co-Chair.

3. Election of Co-Chair.

4. Presentation on status of Chemical

Weapons Convention.

5. Presentation on status of Biological

Weapons Convention implementation

protocol.

6. Presentation on technical issues for

chemical and equipment related to

Australia Group list review.

7. Presentation on technical issues for

biologicals and biological equipment

related to Australia Group list review.

8. Presentation of papers or comments

by the public.

The meeting will be open to the

public and a limited number of seats

will be available. To the extent that time

permits, members of the public may

present oral statements to the

Committee.

Written statements may be submitted

at any time before or after the meeting.

However, to facilitate distribution of

public presentation materials to the

Committee members, the Committee

suggests that presenters forward the

public presentation materials two weeks

prior to the meeting to the following

address: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OAS/

EA/BXA MS:3886C, 15th St. &

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230.

For further information or copies of

the minutes, contact Lee Ann Carpenter

on (202) 482–2583.

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Lee Ann Carpenter,

Director, Technical Advisory Committee Unit.

[FR Doc. 98–18152 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–33–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–822, A–122–823]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Intent To Revoke in-Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

the antidumping duty administrative

review of certain corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products and certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Canada.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products and certain cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Canada. These

reviews cover six manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States (three manufacturers/

exporters of corrosion resistant steel and

four manufacturers/exporters of cut-tolength steel plate), and the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (‘‘NV’’) by various companies

subject to these reviews. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of these administrative

reviews, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties based on the difference between

the export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn

Baranowski (Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco

Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Dofasco’’)), Eric

Scheier (Continuous Colour Coat

(‘‘CCC’’)), Lesley Stagliano (Algoma

Steel, Inc. (‘‘Algoma’’)), Gideon Katz

(Gerdau MRM Steel (‘‘MRM’’) and A.J.

Forsyth and Co., Ltd. (‘‘Forsyth’’)), N.

Gerard Zapiain (Stelco, Inc. (‘‘Stelco’’)),

or Maureen Flannery, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997).

Background

On August 19, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 44162) the antidumping duty orders

on certain corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products and certain cut-tolength carbon steel plate from Canada.

On August 12, 1997, Forsyth requested

a review of its exports of cut-to-length

steel plate. On August 13, 1997, CCC

requested a review of its exports of

corrosion-resistant steel. On August 28,

1997, Algoma requested a review of its

exports of cut-to-length steel plate and

that the Department revoke the order on

cut-to-length steel plate with regard to

Algoma. On August 29, 1997, the

following companies also requested

reviews for their exports of corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products:

Dofasco (corrosion-resistant steel),

Stelco (corrosion-resistant steel and cutto-length steel plate), and MRM (cut-tolength steel plate). On August 29, 1997,

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel

Group (a Unit of USX Corporation),

Inland Steel Industries Inc., AK Steel

Corporation, LTV Steel Co., Inc., and

National Steel Corporation, petitioners,

requested reviews of CCC, Dofasco, and

Stelco on corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products. On September 8,

1997, Stelco submitted an addendum to

its August 29, 1997 submission,

requesting that the Department revoke

the orders on corrosion-resistant steel

and carbon steel plate with regard to

Stelco, pursuant to Section 351.222(b) of

the Department’s regulations. On

September 25, 1997, in accordance with

Section 751 of the Act, we published a

notice of initiation of administrative

reviews of these orders for the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997

(62 FR 50292).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. On March 19, 1998, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in the review to July

3, 1998. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate: Extension of Time

Limits for Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 63

FR 13990.

The Department is conducting these

reviews in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by these

administrative reviews constitute two

separate ‘‘classes or kinds’’ of

merchandise: (1) certain corrosionresistant steel and (2) certain cut-tolength plate.

The first class or kind, certain

corrosion-resistant steel, includes flatrolled carbon steel products of

rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or

coated with corrosion-resistant metals

such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37321

aluminum-, nickel-or iron-based alloys,

whether or not corrugated or painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances in

addition to the metallic coating, 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 7210.30.0030,

7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000,

7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090,

7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000,

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060,

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000,

7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000,

7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030,

7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000,

7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,

7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000,

7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000,

7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530,

7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000,

7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and

7217.90.5090. Included are flat-rolled

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is

achieved subsequent to the rolling

process (i.e., products which have been

worked after rolling)—for example,

products which have been beveled or

rounded at the edges. Excluded are flatrolled steel products either plated or

coated with tin, lead, chromium,

chromium oxides, both tin and lead

(‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and

chromium oxides (‘‘tin-free steel’’),

whether or not painted, varnished or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances in addition to

the metallic coating. Also excluded are

clad products in straight lengths of

0.1875 inch or more in composite

thickness and of a width which exceeds

150 millimeters and measures at least

twice the thickness. Also excluded are

certain clad stainless flat-rolled

products, which are three-layered

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75

millimeters in composite thickness that

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

product clad on both sides with

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive of the scope of this review.

The second class or kind, certain cutto-length plate, includes hot-rolled

carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e.,

flat-rolled products rolled on four faces

or in a closed box pass, of a width

exceeding 150 millimeters but not

exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a

thickness of not less than 4 millimeters,

not in coils and without patterns in

relief), of rectangular shape, neither

clad, plated nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

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

in straight lengths, of rectangular shape,

hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances,

4.75 millimeters or more in thickness

and of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060,

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030,

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and

7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is

achieved subsequent to the rolling

process (i.e., products which have been

worked after rolling)—for example,

products which have been beveled or

rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade

X–70 plate. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive of the scope of this

review.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Algoma (cost and sales), Dofasco

(sales), and Stelco (sales, cost and

further manufacturing) using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities and the examination of

relevant sales and financial records. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification

reports.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by the respondent, covered by

the description in the Scope of the

Review section, above, and sold in the

home market during the period of

review (POR), to be foreign like

products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to the most similar

foreign like product on the basis of the

characteristics listed in Appendix V of

the Department’s September 19, 1997

antidumping questionnaire.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject

merchandise to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as

described in the ‘‘United States Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated

monthly weighted-average prices for NV

and compared these to individual U.S.

transaction prices.

Interested Party Comments

On June 22, 1998, the petitioner

submitted comments regarding Stelco

and CCC. On June 23, 1998, Forsyth

submitted comments. Because of the

lateness of these submissions, we are

not able to consider them for these

preliminary results, but will consider

them for the final results.

Intent To Revoke

On August 28, 1997, Algoma

submitted a request, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.222(b), that the Department

revoke the order covering cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Canada with

respect to its sales of this merchandise.

On August 29, 1997, Stelco submitted a

request that the Department revoke the

orders covering cut-to-length carbon

steel plate and corrosion-resistant steel

from Canada with respect to its sales of

this merchandise.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.222(b)(2)(iii), these requests were

accompanied by certifications from

Algoma and Stelco that they had not

sold the subject merchandise at less

than NV for a three-year period,

including this review period, and would

not do so in the future. Algoma and

Stelco also agreed to its immediate

reinstatement in the relevant

antidumping order, as long as any firm

is subject to the order, if the Department

concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that,

subsequent to revocation, it sold the

subject merchandise at less than NV.

The Department conducted

verifications of Algoma’s and of Stelco’s

responses for this period of review. In

the two prior reviews of this order, we

determined that Algoma and Stelco sold

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Canada at not less than NV or at de
37322 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

minimis margins. We preliminarily

determine that both Algoma and Stelco

sold cut-to-length carbon steel plate at

not less than NV during this review

period. Based on Algoma’s and on

Stelco’s three consecutive years of zero

or de minimis margins and the absence

of evidence to the contrary, we

preliminarily determine that it is not

likely that either Algoma or Stelco will

in the future sell cut-to-length carbon

steel plate at less than NV. Therefore, if

these preliminary findings are affirmed

in our final results, we intend to revoke

the order on cut-to-length carbon steel

plate from Canada with respect to

Algoma and to Stelco.

In the last two administrative reviews,

we determined that Stelco sold

corrosion-resistant steel at less than fair

value. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR

12725 (March 16, 1998) and Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18448

(April 15, 1997). Although the final

results of the second and third reviews

are subject to litigation, that litigation is

not yet complete. Additionally, as

discussed below, we have preliminarily

determined that Stelco sold corrosionresistant steel at less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) during the period covered by

this review. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that because

Stelco does not have three consecutive

years of zero or de minimis margins on

corrosion-resistant steel, Stelco is not

eligible for revocation of the order on

corrosion-resistant steel under 19 CFR

351.222(b).

United States Price

For calculation of the price to the

United States, we used EP when the

subject merchandise was sold directly

or indirectly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and constructed export

price (CEP) was not otherwise

warranted, based on facts on the record.

We used CEP for certain sales by Stelco.

See the subsection of ‘‘United States

Price’’ titled ‘‘Stelco.’’

Algoma

The Department calculated EP for

Algoma based on packed, prepaid or

delivered prices to customers in the

United States. We made adjustments to

the starting price, net of billing

adjustments, for movement expenses

(foreign and U.S. movement, brokerage

and handling, and U.S. Customs duties),

in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of

the Act.

We used Algoma’s date of invoice as

the date of sale for both U.S. sales and

home market sales, where applicable, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), and

the Department’s standard practice. See,

e.g., Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 4723, 4725 (January 31,

1997). For further discussion of this

issue, see Memorandum to the File:

Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for

Algoma, July 2, 1998.

CCC

The Department calculated EP for

CCC based on packed, prepaid or

delivered prices to customers in the

United States.

We made deductions to the starting

price, net of discounts and price

adjustments, for movement expenses

(foreign and U.S. movement, brokerage

and handling, and U.S. Customs duties),

in accordance with section 772(c)(2).

Although the record does not contain

pre-sale agreements for certain

payments which CCC reported as

‘‘credit notes,’’ based on CCC’s

information we have determined to treat

these payments as price adjustments

which should be excluded from the

starting price. See Memorandum to the

File: Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for CCC,

July 2, 1998.

Dofasco

For purposes of these reviews, we

treated Dofasco, Inc. and Sorevco, Inc.

as one respondent, as we have done in

prior segments of the proceeding. See,

e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value, 58 FR 37099 (1993), and Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Canada, 63 FR 12725

(March 16, 1998). The Department

calculated EP for Dofasco based on

packed prices to customers in the

United States.

We made deductions to the starting

price, net of discounts and rebates, for

movement expenses (foreign and U.S.

movement, U.S. Customs duty and

brokerage, and post-sale warehousing)

in accordance with section 772(c)(2).

As discussed in prior reviews, certain

Dofasco sales have undergone minor

further processing in the United States

as a condition of sale to the customer.

See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From Canada:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18461,

(April 15, 1997). In order to determine

the value of subject merchandise at the

time of exportation of such merchandise

to the United States, the Department has

deducted the price charged to Dofasco

for this minor further processing from

gross unit price to determine U.S. price.

It is the Department’s current practice

normally to use the invoice date as the

date of sale; we may, however, use a

date other than the invoice date if we

are satisfied that a different date better

reflects the date on which the exporter

or producer establishes the material

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i) (62

FR at 27411).

The questionnaire we sent to the

respondents on September 19, 1998

instructed them to report the date of

invoice as the date of sale; it also stated,

however, for EP sales, that ‘‘(t)he date of

sale cannot occur after the date of

shipment.’’ In this review, Dofasco’s

date of shipment in many instances

preceded the date of invoice, and

therefore we cannot use the date of

invoice as the new regulations

prescribe. Accordingly, as allowed by

the exception set forth in section

351.401(i) of the regulations, we used

the dates of sale described below. These

sale dates reflect the dates on which the

exporter or producer established the

material terms of sale.

We used the date of order

acknowledgment as date of sale, as

reported by Dofasco, Inc., for all

Dofasco, Inc. sales in both the U.S.

market and the home market, except for

sales made pursuant to long-term

contracts. For Dofasco, Inc.’s sales made

pursuant to long-term contracts, we

used date of the contract as date of sale.

We used the date of order

confirmation as the date of sale, as

reported by Sorevco, Inc., for all

Sorevco, Inc. sales in the U.S. and the

home market, except that when Sorevco

shipped more merchandise than the

customer originally ordered, and such

overages were in excess of accepted

industry tolerances. Lacking any

evidence of the precise date after the

date of order confirmation on which the

quantity was changed, we used date of

shipment as date of sale for the excess

merchandise.

MRM

The Department calculated EP for

MRM based on packed, prepaid or

delivered prices to customers in the

United States. We made deductions to

the starting price for movement

expenses (foreign and U.S. movement,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37323

brokerage and handling, and U.S.

Customs duties) pursuant to section

772(c)(2) of the Act.

We used MRM’s date of invoice as the

date of sale for its U.S. sales in

accordance with the Department’s

standard practice.

Stelco

Corrosion-resistant steel: We

calculated EP or CEP, as appropriate,

based on the packed price to

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. We

made deductions to the starting price for

movement expenses, including foreign

and U.S. freight, brokerage and

handling, and U.S. Customs duties, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the

Act. In accordance with sections

772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act, for CEP

sales, we also deducted credit expenses,

technical service expenses, indirect

selling expenses, inventory carrying

costs, U.S. inland freight incurred by

Stelco USA (‘‘SUSA’’), and further

manufacturing costs incurred by SUSA.

Finally, we made an adjustment for an

amount of profit allocated to these

expenses, when incurred in connection

with economic activity in the United

States, in accordance with section

772(d)(3) of the Act.

We used Stelco’s date of invoice as

the date of sale for both EP and CEP

corrosion-resistant sales in accordance

with the Department’s standard

practice.

Plate: We calculated EP based on the

packed price to unaffiliated purchasers

in, or for exportation to, the United

States. There were no CEP sales of plate.

We made deductions for movement

expenses, including foreign and U.S.

movement, brokerage and handling, and

U.S. Customs duty, in accordance with

section 772(c)(2) of the Act. We used

Stelco’s date of invoice as the date of

sale for EP plate sales in accordance

with the Department’s standard

practice.

Normal Value

The Department determines the

viability of the home market as the

comparison market by comparing the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales. We found that each

company’s quantity of sales in its home

market exceeded five percent of its sales

to the United States for the relevant

class or kind of merchandise. Moreover,

there is no evidence on the record

supporting a particular market situation

in the exporting country that would not

permit a proper comparison of home

market and U.S. prices. We, therefore,

have determined that each company’s

home market sales are viable for

purposes of comparison with sales of

the subject merchandise to the United

States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the home market, in the

usual commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade, at the same

level of trade as the EP sale.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we used CV as the basis for

NV when there were no above-cost

contemporaneous sales of identical or

similar merchandise in the comparison

market. We calculated CV in accordance

with section 773(e) of the Act. We

included the cost of materials and

fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit.

In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)

of the Act, we based SG&A expenses

and profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by the respondent in

connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

We used sales to affiliated customers

only where we determined such sales

were made at arm’s-length prices, i.e., at

prices comparable to prices at which the

firm sold identical merchandise to

unaffiliated customers.

For both classes or kinds of

merchandise under review and for all

respondents with the exception of

Forsyth, the Department disregarded

sales below the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) in the last completed review as

of the date of the issuance of the

antidumping questionnaire (see Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 18448

(April 15, 1997)). We therefore had

reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect, pursuant to section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of

the foreign like product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in this review may have been made

at prices below the COP. Pursuant to

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated

COP investigations of sales by all

respondents, except Forsyth, in the

home market.

We compared sales of the foreign like

product in the home market with the

model-specific cost of production figure

for the POR (‘‘COP’’). In accordance

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we

calculated the COP based on the sum of

the costs of materials and fabrication

employed in producing the foreign like

product plus selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and all

costs and expenses incidental to placing

the foreign like product in condition

packed and ready for shipment. In our

COP analysis, we used home market

sales and COP information provided by

each respondent in its questionnaire

responses.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of subject

merchandise were made at prices below

COP and, if so, whether the below-cost

sales were made within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities

and at prices that did not permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. Because each individual

price was compared against the PORlong average COP, any sales that were

below cost were also not at prices which

permitted cost recovery within a

reasonable period of time. We compared

model-specific COPs to the reported

home market prices less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, and

rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given model

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

model because the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities

within an extended period of time.

Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s sales of a given model

during the POR were at prices less than

the weighted-average COPs for the POR,

we disregarded the below-cost sales

because they were made within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities in accordance with sections

773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and

were at prices which would not permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on

this test, we disregarded below-cost

sales with respect to all companies and

classes or kinds of merchandise.

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, where

possible, we based NV on sales at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the U.S.

price. See the Level of Trade Section

below.

The Department determined in the

final results of the last administrative

review (Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR

12725, March 9, 1998) that it would be

inappropriate to resort directly to

constructed value (CV), in lieu of

foreign market sales, as the basis for NV

if the Department finds foreign market
37324 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

sales of merchandise identical or most

similar to that sold in the United States

to be outside the ‘‘ordinary course of

trade.’’ Therefore, we will match a given

U.S. sale to foreign market sales of the

next most similar model when all sales

of the most comparable model are below

cost. The Department will use CV as the

basis for NV only when there are no

above-cost sales that are otherwise

suitable for comparison. Therefore, in

this proceeding, when making

comparisons in accordance with section

771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products sold in the home market as

described in the ‘‘Scope of Review’’

section of this notice, above, that were

in the ordinary course of trade for

purposes of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Where there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market made

in the ordinary course of trade to

compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar

foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade, based on the

characteristics listed in Sections B and

C of our antidumping questionnaire.

This methodology is pursuant to the

ruling of the Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit in CEMEX v. United

States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir. 1998),

and has been implemented to the extent

that the data on the record permitted.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV for differences in

circumstances of sale (COS), in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) and

(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses. We also made

adjustments, where applicable for home

market indirect selling expenses to

offset U.S. commissions in EP pursuant

to 19 CFR section 351.410(b). For

comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses pursuant to

section 772(d) of the Act.

Algoma

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to unaffiliated purchasers

(Algoma made no home market sales to

affiliated parties), in accordance with 19

CFR 351.403. Home market prices were

based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the home market.

We calculated the starting price net of

discounts, rebates, and post-sale

adjustments, where applicable. We

made adjustments, where applicable, for

packing and movement expenses in

accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A)

and (B) of the Act. We also made

adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act and for differences in COS in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For

comparison to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses (credit and

warranty expenses) and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses (credit and

warranty expenses). When comparisons

were made to EP sales on which

commissions were paid, but no

commissions were paid on the foreign

market sales, we made adjustments for

home market indirect selling expenses

to offset these U.S. commissions

pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.410(e).

MRM

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to unaffiliated purchasers

(MRM made no home market sales to

affiliated parties), in accordance with 19

FR 351.403. Home market prices were

based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the home market.

We used a starting price net of

rebates, where applicable. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act.

For comparison to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses (credit expenses)

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(credit expense). When comparisons

were made to EP sales on which

commissions were paid, but no

commissions were paid on the foreign

market sales, we made adjustments for

home market indirect selling expenses

to offset these U.S. commissions

pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.410(e).

CCC

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to unaffiliated parties, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. Home

market starting prices were based on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market, net of discounts and price

adjustments, where applicable.

Although the record does not contain

pre-sale agreements for certain

payments which CCC reported as

‘‘credit notes,’’ based on CCC’s

information we have determined to treat

these payments as price adjustments

which should be excluded from the

starting price. We made adjustments,

where applicable, for packing and

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act.

We also made adjustments for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for COS

differences in accordance with

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.410. For comparison to EP, we

made COS adjustments by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

(credit) and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses (credit). When comparisons

were made where commissions were

paid on EP sales, but no commissions

were paid on the foreign market sales,

we made adjustments for home market

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions pursuant to 19 CFR

section 351.410(e).

Dofasco

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to affiliated parties (when

made at prices determined to be arm’slength) or unaffiliated parties, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. Home

market starting prices were based on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in

the home market, net of discounts and

rebates, where applicable. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

packing and movement expenses in

accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A)

and (B) of the Act. We also made

adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act and for COS differences in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For

comparison to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses (credit, royalties

and warranty expenses) and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses (credit, royalties

and warranty expenses). When

comparisons were made where

commissions were paid on EP sales, but

no commissions were made on foreign

market sales, we made adjustments for

home market indirect selling expenses

to offset U.S. commissions pursuant to

19 CFR 351.410(e).

We denied Dofasco’s requested startup adjustment to its costs, as we

determined that Dofasco did not meet

the statutory criteria for granting an

adjustment. Under section

773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, Commerce

may make an adjustment for start-up
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37325

costs only if the following two

conditions are satisfied: (1) A company

is using new production facilities or

producing a new product that requires

substantial additional investment, and

(2) production levels are limited by

technical factors associated with the

initial phase of commercial production.

The Statement of Administrative Action

(‘‘SAA’’) to the URAA states that ‘‘any

determination of the appropriate startup

period involves a fact-intensive

inquiry.’’ This includes a consideration

of ‘‘factors unrelated to startup

operations that may have affected the

volume of production processed, such

as demand, seasonality, or business

cycles.’’ The SAA further states that the

‘‘start-up [period] will be considered to

end at the time the level of commercial

production characteristic of the

merchandise, producer, or industry

concerned is achieved. The attainment

of peak production levels will not be the

standard for identifying the end of the

start-up period, because the start-up

period may end well before a company

achieves optimum capacity utilization.’’

SAA at 836. Moreover, ‘‘[t]o determine

when a company reaches commercial

production levels, Commerce will

consider first the actual production

experience of the merchandise in

question. Production levels will be

based on units processed.’’ SAA at 836

(166).

In the instant case, we agree with

Dofasco that the construction of the new

Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) facility

constitutes a new production facility.

In order to determine the duration of

the initial phase of commercial

production, we examined Dofasco’s

reported production starts at the EAF.

Our determination of an appropriate

startup period was based, in large part,

on a review of scrap starts at the new

facility during the POR, which

represents the best measure of the

facility’s ability to produce at

commercial production levels. We

concluded that the number of scrap

starts during the first two months

(September and October 1996) did not

meet commercial production levels

characteristic of the producer, but that

commercial production levels were

reached by November 1996.

However, we have determined that

the reported technical factors which

Dofasco claims limited production

during this two-month period are

insufficient to constitute what the

Department believes to be technical

factors. The kind of chronic production

problems experienced by Dofasco do not

constitute ‘‘technical factors’’ which are

unique to a startup operation. As such,

we have not granted Dofasco a startup

adjustment for the POR. For further

details, see Memorandum to the File:

Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for

Dofasco, July 2, 1998.

Stelco

For those models for which there was

a sufficient quantity of sales at prices

above COP, we based NV on home

market prices to affiliated (when made

at prices determined to be arms-length)

or unaffiliated parties, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.403. Home market

starting prices were based on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in

the home market net of discounts and

rebates. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for packing and movement

expenses, in accordance with sections

773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We also

made adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act and for COS differences in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

Corrosion resistant steel: We adjusted

home market prices for interest revenue

on certain sales. For comparison to EP,

we made COS adjustments by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

(credit, warranties, advertising and

technical services) and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses (credit,

advertising, warranties and technical

services). For comparison to CEP, we

made COS adjustments by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

Plate: For comparison to EP, we made

COS adjustments by deducting home

market direct selling expenses (credit,

warranties, advertising, commissions,

and technical services) and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses (credit,

warranties, advertising and technical

services). We offset home market

commissions by the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on the U.S.

sale, up to the amount of the home

market commission.

Level of Trade (‘‘LOT’’)

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or

CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on constructed value (‘‘CV’’), that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general and administrative

(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses and profit. For EP,

the U.S. LOT is also the level of the

starting-price sale, which is usually

from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In the present review, only Dofasco,

Forsyth, and CCC claimed that more

than one LOT existed; none of the

respondents requested a LOT

adjustment. To evaluate LOTs, we

examined information regarding the

distribution systems in both the U.S.

and Canadian markets, including the

selling functions, classes of customer,

and selling expenses for each

respondent. Forsyth’s claim of LOT

differences is discussed below in the

Facts Available section.

Algoma

In both the home market and the

United States, Algoma reported one

LOT and one distribution system with

two classes of customers: end-users and

steel service centers. We analyzed the

selling functions and activities

performed for both classes of customers

in both markets. We preliminarily

determine that Algoma’s selling

functions and activities are substantially

similar for both classes of customers for

sales of subject merchandise and,

therefore, that there is one level of trade

in both markets. For a further discussion

of the Department’s LOT analysis with

respect to Algoma, see Memorandum to

the File: Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for

Algoma, July 2, 1998.
37326 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

CCC

CCC reported three different LOTs in

the home market based on class of

customer: OEMs, steel service centers,

and scrap merchants. However, we

examined the reported selling functions

and found that CCC provides the same

selling functions to its home market

customers regardless of channel of

distribution. We preliminarily

determine that the selling functions

between the reported LOTs are

sufficiently similar to consider them as

one LOT in the comparison market.

CCC stated that it sells to two LOTs

in the United States: OEMs and steel

service centers. Again, we examined the

selling functions at both claimed levels,

and found they were the same.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that the selling functions between the

reported LOTs are sufficiently similar to

consider them as one LOT in the United

States market. Finally, we compared the

selling functions performed at the home

market LOT and the LOT in the United

States and found them substantially

similar. For a further discussion of the

Department’s LOT analysis with respect

to CCC, see Memorandum to the File:

Analysis Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of Review for CCC,

July 2, 1998.

Dofasco

Dofasco reported three LOTs in the

home market. Dofasco defined its LOT

categories by customer category: service

center, automotive, and construction

and converters/manufacturers

(‘‘construction’’). We examined the

selling functions performed at each

claimed level and found that there was

a significant difference in selling

functions offered to these three

categories. Of the seventeen reported

selling functions, Dofasco performed

only three of the same or similar selling

functions at both the automotive and

service center sales levels. Dofasco

reported fourteen selling functions

which were different between these two

levels. Moreover, Dofasco has

established a separate sales division for

its automotive sales. Additionally, sales

to automotive customers are sales to end

users, while sales to service centers are

sales to resellers. In sum, these sales

were made at different stages of

marketing. Therefore, we preliminarily

conclude that the automotive and

service center classes of customer

constitute separate levels of trade.

Although both automotive and

construction customers are OEMs, we

note that both quantitatively and

qualitatively, the selling functions

offered to automotive customers involve

significantly greater resources and thus

represent a distinct stage of marketing.

Specifically, of the seventeen reported

selling functions, Dofasco performed

only seven of the same or similar selling

functions to both automotive and

construction customers. Dofasco’s

functions for these two channels

differed with respect to ten other

activities. Therefore, given these

differences, we preliminarily conclude

that automotive and construction

constitute separate levels of trade.

There were numerous differences in

selling functions between construction

and service center sales channels. Of the

seventeen reported selling functions,

Dofasco performed only eight of the

same or similar selling functions at both

levels. We found that these differences

suggested distinct stages of marketing.

Therefore, we preliminarily conclude

that construction and service centers

constitute different LOTs.

Overall, we determine that the selling

functions for the automotive, service

center, and construction customer

categories are substantially dissimilar to

one another and that these sales are

made at different stages of marketing.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that the automotive, service center, and

construction customer categories should

be treated as three LOTs in the

comparison market.

Respondents reported the same three

LOTs in the U.S. market: automotive,

service center, and construction. We

preliminarily determine that the results

of our analysis of U.S. LOTs are

identical to those of the comparison

market. In addition, there were only

insignificant differences in selling

functions at each LOT between the

comparison market and the U.S. market.

Therefore, we found that the three U.S.

LOTs corresponded to the three

comparison market LOTs.

The Department did not find that

there existed a pattern of consistent

price differences between the three

levels of trade. Therefore, we did not

make LOT adjustments when comparing

sales at different LOTs. For a further

discussion of the Department’s LOT

analysis with respect to Dofasco, see

Memorandum to the File: Analysis

Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of Review for Dofasco, July 2,

1998.

MRM

In both the home market and the

United States, MRM reported one LOT

and one distribution system with two

classes of customers in the home

market, distributors and OEMs, and one

class of customer, OEMs, in the U.S.

market. We analyzed the selling

functions and activities performed for

each class of customer in each market.

We found that MRM’s selling functions

and activities were substantially similar

for both classes of customers for sales of

subject merchandise and, therefore,

constitute one level of trade in the home

market. Finally, we compared the

selling functions performed at the home

market LOT and the LOT in the United

States and found them substantially

similar. Thus, no adjustment was

appropriate.

Stelco

Stelco identified one level of trade

and two channels of distribution (to

end-users or to resellers) in the home

market for each class or kind of

merchandise. We examined the selling

functions performed in each channel

and found that Stelco provided many of

the same or similar selling functions in

each, including inventory maintenance,

after sales service, technical advice, and

freight and delivery arrangements. We

found few differences between selling

functions for transactions made through

the two channels of trade. Overall, we

determine that the selling functions

between the two sales channels are

sufficiently similar to consider them one

LOT in the home market for sales of

both corrosion-resistant products and

plate products.

In the United States, Stelco Inc. sold

both products through the two channels

of distribution listed above. For EP

sales, we determine that the results of

our analysis of the U.S. LOT is identical

to that of the home market: the selling

functions performed for sales to the

United States are sufficiently similar to

consider them one LOT for both

corrosion-resistant products and plate

products. Additionally, we consider this

LOT to be the same as that identified in

the home market. Therefore, no

adjustment is appropriate.

For CEP sales of corrosion-resistant

steel made by SUSA, we compared the

selling activities associated with the sale

to the affiliated reseller to those

associated with the home market sales

and found them to be dissimilar. For

example, the level of trade of the CEP

sales involved no after sales services, or

technical advice. Therefore, we

considered the home market sales to be

at a different level of trade and at a more

advanced stage of distribution than the

CEP sales. Because the sole home

market level of trade was different from

the level of trade of the CEP, we could

not match to sales at the same level of

trade in the home market nor could we

determine a level-of-trade adjustment

based on Stelco’s home market sales of

merchandise under review.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37327

Furthermore, we have no other

information that provides an

appropriate basis for determining a

level-of-trade adjustment. Accordingly,

for Stelco, we determined NV at the sole

home market level of trade and made a

CEP offset adjustment in accordance

with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For

a further discussion of the Department’s

LOT analysis with respect to Stelco, see

Memorandum to the File: Analysis

Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of Review for Stelco, July 2,

1998.

Facts Available

Forsyth has stated that it sells subject

merchandise in the home market at

three distinct LOTs and at only one LOT

in the U.S. market. Forsyth did not

report a significant portion of its home

market sales because it claims that these

home market sales are made at a

different LOT than the U.S. sales made

during the POR, that there are sufficient

contemporaneous sales of identical

merchandise at the same LOT, and that,

therefore, the Department will not be

using these sales in its calculation of

NV. The Department, however, clearly

warned Forsyth that if it did not report

all of its home market sales made during

the period of review, we may be

required to base our findings on the

facts available.

Forsyth has not provided adequate

information to justify its LOT claim.

More specifically, Forsyth has not

shown there to be a significant

difference in selling functions between

its coil division, which sells in both the

home market and in the U.S. market,

and its distribution and distribution &

processing divisions, which sell only in

the home market. In fact, there was

substantial overlap among the selling

functions performed by these three

divisions. Moreover, many of the

alleged ‘‘selling functions’’ which

Forsyth identified and claimed differed

among the three divisions were not

selling functions at all, but rather

manufacturing processes. Section

773(a)(7)(A) clearly establishes that

relevant differences between levels of

trade must be supported by differences

in selling functions. See also, SAA at

829–830 and 19 C.F.R. § 351.412. The

statute accounts for other differences

between sales through other

adjustments; thus, for example, differing

manufacturing processes may be

accounted for under the adjustment for

physical differences in the merchandise

being compared under section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii). It would contravene the

purposes inherent in the adjustment

provisions of section 773 if the

Department were to subsume the

differences for which such specific

adjustments are made within a broader

definition of level of trade differences.

Finally, the SAA specifically warns the

Department against finding differences

in the level of trade that are more

appropriately attributable to differences

in the nature of the products. SAA at

830.

Consequently, we conclude that,

because the record does not reveal

significant differences in the selling

functions performed by Forsyth’s three

home market divisions, all of Forsyth’s

HM sales were made at a single level of

trade. Therefore, we require detailed

information on all of Forsyth’s home

market sales in order to accurately

calculate NV. Since Forsyth did not

report all of its home market sales made

during the POR, we preliminarily

determine that, in accordance with

section 776(a) of the Act, the use of facts

available is appropriate for Forsyth.

Where a respondent has failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability,

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the

Department to use facts available that

are adverse to the interests of that

respondent, which may include

information derived from the petition,

the final determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Forsyth did not respond to our repeated

requests for information about all of its

home market sales; rather it presented

arguments as to why it should not have

to provide that information. Therefore,

we conclude that Forsyth has failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability.

As adverse facts available, we are

using the highest dumping margin

calculated in any segment of this

proceeding, 68.70 percent. This rate was

calculated for Stelco, Inc. in the LTFV

determination of certain cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Canada (58 FR

37121, July 9, 1993).

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margins for the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997 to

be as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Algoma (plate) ......................................................................................................................................... 08/01/96–07/31/97 ............. 1 0.28

Stelco (plate) ........................................................................................................................................... 08/01/96–07/31/97 ............. 0.00

Stelco (corrosion-resistant) ..................................................................................................................... 08/01/96–07/31/97 ............. 2.69

MRM (plate) ............................................................................................................................................ 08/01/96–07/31/97 ............. 0.00

CCC (corrosion-resistant) ....................................................................................................................... 08/01/96–07/31/97 ............. 2.06

Dofasco (corrosion-resistant) .................................................................................................................. 08/01/96–07/31/97 ............. 0.54

Forsyth (plate) ......................................................................................................................................... 08/01/96–07/31/97 ............. 68.70

1 De minimis.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 37

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs,

limited to issues raised in those briefs,

may be filed not later than 35 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including its analysis of issues raised in

the case and rebuttal briefs, not later

than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of

review, the Department shall determine,

and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Because the

inability to link sales with specific

entries prevents calculation of duties on

an entry-by-entry basis, we will

calculate an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for each

class or kind of merchandise based on

the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer for that class or
37328 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

kind of merchandise made during the

POR.

If the revocation is made final for

Algoma and Stelco, it will apply to all

unliquidated entries of this merchandise

produced by Algoma and Stelco,

exported to the United States and

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption, on or after August 31,

1997, which is the effective date of the

revocation from the order for Algoma

and Stelco.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

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

rate for each reviewed company will be

that established in the final results of

review (except that a deposit of zero

will be required for firms with zero or

de minimis margins, i.e., margins less

than 0.5 percent); (2) for exporters not

covered in this review, but covered in

the LTFV investigation or previous

review, 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 previous review, or the

original 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; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all

others’’ rates established in the 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

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

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.

These administrative reviews and

notices are published in accordance

with 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19

CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18343 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–812]

Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above From the Republic of Korea:

Postponement of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Extension of time limit for final

results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit of the final results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping order on dynamic

random access memory semiconductors

of one megabit or above from the

Republic of Korea, covering the period

May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997,

since it is not practicable to complete

the review within the time limit

mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert W. Blankenbaker or John

Conniff, Antidumping Duty and

Countervailing Duty Enforcement Office

Four, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–0989 or 482–1009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Rounds

Agreements Act.

Background

On June 19, 1997 (62 FR 33394), the

Department initiated an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on dynamic random access memory

semiconductors of one megabit or above

from the Republic of Korea, covering the

period May 1, 1996 through April 30,

1997. On March 9, 1998, the Department

published the preliminary

determination in this review.

Postponent of Final Results of Review

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act

requires the Department to make a final

determination within 120 days after the

date on which the preliminary

determination is published. However, if

it is not practicable to complete the

review within the time period, section

751(a)(3)(A) allows the Department to

extend this time period to 180 days after

the date on which the preliminary

determination is published.

Because of the complexity of the

issues involved in this review, we

determine that it is not practicable to

complete this review within the original

time frame.

Accordingly, the deadline for issuing

the final results of this review will be no

later than 180 days from the publication

of the preliminary determination

(September 8, 1998).

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18291 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–822]

Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers

from the People’s Republic of China:

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limit.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is extending the time limit for the

preliminary results of the fourth

administrative review of the

antidumping order on certain helical

spring lock washers from the People’s

Republic of China. The period of review

is October 1, 1996 to September 31,

1997. This extension is made pursuant

to Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sally Hastings or Todd Hansen, Office 1,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington