[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65284-65288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30799]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-815]


Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by two respondents, the Department of 
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from Korea. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of 
the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
review (``POR'') from August 18, 1993, through July 31, 1994.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the foreign market value (``FMV''). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference 
between the United States price (``USP'') and the FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alain Letort or Linda Ludwig, Office 
of Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone (202) 482-
3793 or fax (202) 482-1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

    On July 9, 1993, the Commerce Department published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 37176) the final affirmative antidumping duty 
determination on certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
Korea, for which we published an antidumping duty order on August 19, 
1993 (58 FR 44159). On August 3, 1994, the Department published the 
``Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this 
order for the period August 18, 1993 through July 31, 1994 (59 FR 
39543). We received a request for an administrative review from Dongbu 
Steel Co., Ltd. (``Dongbu'') and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(``Union''). We initiated the administrative review on September 8, 
1994 (59 FR 46391).
    In a letter dated February 1, 1995, petitioners formally requested 
that the Department consider Union and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. 
(``DKI''), which was not a respondent initially, as related parties and 
``collapse'' them as a single producer of cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products.
    In accordance with section 771(13) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), the Department, in determining whether parties 
are related, considers whether the alleged related party:

    1. Is an agent or principal of the exporter, manufacturer, or 
producer;
    2. Owns or controls, directly or indirectly, through stock 
ownership or control or otherwise, any interest in the business of 
the exporter, manufacturer or producer;
    3. Is a party in whose business the exporter, manufacturer, or 
producer owns or controls, directly or indirectly, any interest, 
through stock ownership or control or otherwise; or
    4. Owns or controls, jointly or severally, directly or 
indirectly, through stock ownership or control or otherwise, 20 
percent or more in the aggregate of the voting power or control in 
the business carried on by the person by whom or for whose account 
the merchandise is imported into the United States, and also 20 
percent or more of such power or control in the business of the 
exporter, manufacturer or producer.

Factual information provided on the record by Union, and supplemented 
by petitioners, indicates that DKI and Union are both affiliated with 
Dongkuk Steel Mill (``DSM''). The record shows that DSM holds, directly 
or indirectly, a controlling share in Union's equity. DSM is in turn 
controlled by the Korean family which owns the largest block of shares 
in the company. That same family controls, directly or indirectly, a 
majority of DKI's equity. The Department therefore determined that 
Union and DKI are related to each other by virtue of their common 
affiliation with the same ``parents.'' (See the Department's internal 
memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to Susan G. Esserman, dated May 22, 
1995, and entered onto the record of this proceeding on September 28, 
1995--hereinafter referred to as ``the collapsing memo'').
    It is the Department's practice to collapse related parties when 
the facts demonstrate that the relationship is such that there is a 
strong possibility of manipulation of prices and production decisions 
that would result in circumvention of antidumping law. In determining 
whether to collapse related parties, the Department considers the 
following factors:

    1. The level of common ownership;
    2. Whether there are interlocking officers and directors, (e.g., 
whether managerial employees or board members of one company sit on 
the board(s) of directors of the other related party(ies));
    3. The existence of production facilities for similar or 
identical products that would not require retooling either plant's 
facilities to implement a decision to restructure either company's 
manufacturing priorities; and
    4. Whether the operations of the companies are intertwined 
(e.g., sharing of sales information; involvement in production and 
pricing decisions; sharing of facilities or employees; transactions 
between companies).

    With respect to the first factor, the Department has determined 
that there is a significant level of common ownership of both Union and 
DKI through DSM and the family that controls it. As noted above, 
factual information provided on the record by Union, and supplemented 
by petitioners, indicates that DKI and Union are both affiliated with 
the DSM group. The same family owns by far the largest block of shares 
in DSM and is listed in DSM's annual filing to the Korean Securities 
and Exchange Commission (``KSEC'') as ``controlling'' the company. DSM, 
in turn, directly and indirectly (through its affiliated companies), 
own a majority of the equity in Union. The same family also owns, 
directly and indirectly, a controlling share of DKI's equity.
    With respect to the second factor, evidence on the record 
demonstrates that Union, DSM and DKI have interlocking officers and 
directors. Two of DKI's board are family members and members of DSM's 
board. Five of Union's 18 board members are members of DSM's board; of 
those five, one is a member of the family in question. The president of 
DKI sits on the boards of both DKI and Union. These interlocking 

[[Page 65285]]
board members and officers participate in board meetings, vote, and 
voice their opinions on proposals before the board. Because the 
interlocking directors actively participate in the decision-making 
process, the potential for these interlocking directors to influence 
pricing and production decisions for both Union and DKI exists.
    With respect to the third factor, the Department has recently 
clarified that, although not necessarily determinative, this factor is 
essential. The information presented indicates that DKI and Union 
produce the identical types of products for the major characteristics 
that are relevant to production and price decisions for cold-rolled 
material. They make the same grades and qualities of cold-rolled steel, 
and material in overlapping thicknesses and thickness tolerances. In 
regards to thickness tolerances, DKI can relax its rolling practices to 
make material to Union's tolerances, and Union has the capability to 
produce material comparable to DKI, yet is not supplying it in the home 
market. The very existence of DKI suggests that there is a domestic 
market for tight tolerance material in many of the grades and qualities 
of steel being supplied by Union. With Union not supplying this 
material in the home market, it indicates that DKI is meeting domestic 
demand for this material.
    With respect to the fourth factor, Union and DKI have overlapping 
board members who serve in multiple roles. KSEC filings indicate that 
both DKI and Union are controlled by DSM. Union's 1993 financial data 
was combined with DSM's on an ``equity-method'' basis. (The equity 
method is used when an investor has the ability to exercise significant 
influence over the operating and financial policies of the investment.) 
Union sold subject merchandise through DKI during the POR, and DKI slit 
sheet into narrower widths for Union during the POR.
    On May 22, 1995, for the reasons outlined above, the Department 
decided to ``collapse'' Union and DKI for purposes of this review. (For 
further details, see the collapsing memo.)
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    These products 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 
HTS under item numbers 7209.11.0000, 7209.12.0030, 7209.12.0090, 
7209.13.0030, 7209.13.0090, 7209.14.0030, 7209.14.0090, 7209.21.0000, 
7209.22.0000, 7209.23.0000, 7209.24.1000, 7209.24.5000, 7209.31.0000, 
7209.32.0000, 7209.33.0000, 7209.34.0000, 7209.41.0000, 7209.42.0000, 
7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 
7211.30.1030, 7211.30.1090, 7211.30.3000, 7211.30.5000, 7211.41.1000, 
7211.41.3030, 7211.41.3090, 7211.41.5000, 7211.41.7030, 7211.41.7060, 
7211.41.7090, 7211.49.1030, 7211.49.1090, 7211.49.3000, 7211.49.5030, 
7211.49.5060, 7211.49.5090, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 
7212.50.0000, 7217.11.1000, 7217.11.2000, 7217.11.3000, 7217.19.1000, 
7217.19.5000, 7217.21.1000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.31.1000, 
7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included are flat-rolled products of 
nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded 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 18, 1993 through July 31, 1994. This review 
covers sales of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products by 
Dongbu and Union.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports.

United States Price

    The Department used purchase price, in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to 
unrelated purchasers in the United States. As described below in the 
``Foreign Matket Value'' section of this notice, we added the Korean 
value-added tax to USP.

Dongbu

    All of Dongbu's U.S. sales were based on the price to the first 
unrelated purchaser in the United States. The Department determined 
that purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, was the 
appropriate basis for calculating USP. Depending on the channel of 
trade, we treated the date of either the purchase order, the internal 
confirmation or the date of the production order as date of sale. We 
made adjustments to purchase price, where appropriate, for home-market 
value-added tax, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage, ocean 
freight, containerization, U.S. duty and U.S. brokerage and handling.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Union

    All of Union's U.S. sales were based on the price to the first 
unrelated purchaser in the United States. The Department determined 
that purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, was the 
appropriate basis for calculating USP. Because quantities were not 
finalized until the merchandise was actually shipped to the United 
States, we treated the date of shipment as date of sale (see the 
Department's analysis memorandum dated September 28, 1995). We made 
adjustments to purchase price, where appropriate, for cash discounts 
and rebates, home-market value-added tax, foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
duty, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, and duty 
drawback. Because Union had understated its U.S. credit expenses by not 
including bank charges therein, we increased Union's U.S. credit 
expense by the amount of those charges, which we obtained from the 
audited financial statement of Union's U.S. subsidiary.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed. 
    
[[Page 65286]]


Foreign Market Value

    Based on a comparison of the volume of home-market sales and third-
country sales, we determined that Dongbu's and Union's home markets 
were viable. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act, we based FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated 
purchasers in the home market, using the date of the invoice as the 
date of sale.
    Based on a review of Dongbu's and Union's submissions, the 
Department determined that only a small percentage of those companies' 
home-market sales were made to related parties who, in turn, resold the 
merchandise (``downstream sales''). The Department determined that 
Dongbu and Union need not report their home-market downstream sales 
because of their low volume.
    On December 15, 1994, petitioners alleged that Dongbu and Union 
sold cold-rolled carbon steel flat products in the home market at 
prices below their cost of production (``COP''). Based on this 
allegation, the Department determined, on January 17, 1995 (for 
Dongbu), and on January 18, 1995 (for Union), that it had reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Dongbu and Union had sold the 
subject merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. We 
therefore initiated cost investigations, in accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act. As a result, we investigated whether Dongbu and 
Union sold such or similar merchandise in the home market at prices 
below the COP. In accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.51(c) we calculated 
COP for Dongbu and Union as the sum of reported materials, labor, 
factory overhead, and general expenses, and compared COP to home-market 
prices, net of price adjustments, discounts and movement expenses.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in determining 
whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below the COP, we 
examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an 
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices 
which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time in the normal course of trade.
    To satisfy the requirement of section 773(b)(1) that below-cost 
sales be disregarded only if made in substantial quantities, we applied 
the following methodology. For each model for which less than 10 
percent, by quantity, of the home-market sales during the POR were made 
at prices below the COP, we included all sales of that model in the 
computation of FMV. For each model for which 10 percent or more, but 
less than 90 percent, of the home-market sales during the POR were 
priced below the COP of the merchandise, we excluded from the 
calculation of FMV those home-market sales which were priced below the 
COP, provided that they were made over an extended period of time. For 
each model for which 90 percent or more of the home-market sales during 
the POR were priced below the COP and were made over an extended period 
of time, we disregarded all sales of that model in our calculation and, 
in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we used the constructed 
value (``CV'') of those models, as described below. See, e.g., 
Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).
    In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine 
whether sales below cost had been made over an extended period of time, 
we compared the number of months in which sales below cost occurred for 
a particular model to the number of months in which that model was 
sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months, we did not 
disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that 
model in each month sold. If a model was sold in three or more months, 
we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below 
cost in at least three of the months in which the model was sold. We 
used CV as the basis for FMV when an insufficient number of home-market 
sales were made at prices above COP. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December 8, 1993).
    Because Dongbu and Union provided no indication that their below-
cost sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the 
``between 10 and 90 percent'' categories were at prices that would 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time and in 
the normal course of trade, we disregarded those sales within the ``10 
to 90 percent'' category which were made below cost over an extended 
period of time. In addition, as a result of our COP test for home-
market sales of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' category, 
we based FMV on CV for all U.S. sales for which there were insufficient 
sales of the comparison home-market model at or above COP. Finally, 
where we found, for certain of Dongbu's and Union's models, home-market 
sales for which less than 10 percent were made below COP, we used all 
home-market sales of those models in our comparisons.
    We also used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there was no 
contemporaneous sale of such or similar merchandise in the home market. 
We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We 
included the cost of materials, labor, and factory overhead in our 
calculations. Where the general expenses were less than the statutory 
minimum of 10 percent of the cost of manufacture (``COM''), we 
calculated general expenses as 10 percent of the COM. Where the actual 
profits were less than the statutory minimum of 8 percent of the COM 
plus general expenses, we calculated profit as 8 percent of the sum of 
COM plus general expenses. Based on our verification of Dongbu's and 
Union's cost response, we adjusted Dongbu's, Union's, and DKI's 
reported COP and CV to reflect certain adjustments to general and 
administrative expenses and interest expenses. See the Department's 
separate cost calculation memoranda for Dongbu (dated August 10, 1995) 
and Union/DKI (dated September 21, 1995).
    In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v. 
United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, the Department has changed its 
treatment of home-market consumption taxes. Where merchandise exported 
to the United States is exempt from the consumption tax, the Department 
will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged on 
the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology 
that the Department adopted following the decision of the Federal 
Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and 
which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The 
Court of International Trade (``CIT'') overturned this methodology in 
Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and the 
Department acquiesced in the CIT's decision. The Department then 
followed the CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the 
tax to be added to U.S. price by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by 
the foreign market tax rate; the Department made adjustments to this 
amount so that the tax adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax 
dumping assessment.
    The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed 
that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held 
that the 

[[Page 65287]]
statute did not preclude Commerce from using the ``Zenith footnote 4'' 
methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping assessments (i.e., 
assessments that are unaffected by the existence or amount of home-
market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit recognized 
that certain international agreements of the United States, in 
particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (``GATT'') and 
the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-
neutral dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to 
the CIT with instructions to direct Commerce to determine which tax 
methodology it will employ.
    The Department has determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' 
methodology should be used. First, as the Department has explained in 
numerous administrative determinations and court filings over the past 
decade, and as the Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of 
the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required 
that dumping assessments be tax-neutral. This requirement continues 
under the new Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (``URAA'') explicitly amended the antidumping law to remove 
consumption taxes from the home-market price and to eliminate the 
addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that no consumption tax is included 
in the price in either market. The Statement of Administrative Action 
(p. 159) explicitly states that this change was intended to result in 
tax neutrality.
    While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different 
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA 
law required that the tax be added to United States price rather than 
subtracted from home-market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty 
assessments. In sum, the Department has elected to treat consumption 
taxes in a manner consistent with its longstanding policy of tax-
neutrality and with the GATT.

Dongbu

    In accordance with section 773 of the Act, for those U.S. models 
for which we were able to find a home-market such or similar match that 
had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on the packed, 
f.o.b., ex-factory, or delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in the 
home market. We made adjustments, where applicable, for certain rebates 
tied to specific sales, post-sale inland freight, home-market value-
added tax, and for home market direct selling expenses, i.e., credit 
and warranty expenses. We also adjusted FMV for differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise. Finally, we adjusted FMV for 
differences in packing by deducting home-market packing expenses from, 
and adding U.S. packing expenses to, FMV.

Union

    Because the Department is treating Union and DKI as a single 
producer of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products for purposes 
of this review, we combined Union's and DKI's home-market sales and 
cost-of-production data bases in our preliminary calculations. In 
accordance with section 773 of the Act, for those U.S. models for which 
we were able to find a home-market such or similar match that had 
sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on the packed, 
f.o.b., ex-factory, or delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in the 
home market. We made adjustments, where applicable, for post-sale 
inland freight, home-market value-added tax, and for home-market direct 
selling expenses, i.e., credit expenses.
    We treated Union's warehousing expense as an indirect selling 
expense, rather than direct, as Union had claimed, because Union evenly 
allocated this expense to all home-market sales across-the-board, 
rather than calculating a discrete warehousing expense for each home-
market sale.
    We also treated Union's pre-sale inland freight as an indirect 
selling expense, rather than direct, as Union had claimed, pursuant to 
the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Ad Hoc 
Committee v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The 
Department considers pre-sale movement expenses as direct selling 
expenses only if the movement expenses in question are directly related 
to the home-market sales under consideration. In order to determine 
whether pre-sale movement expenses are direct under the facts of a 
particular case, the Department examines the respondent's pre-sale 
warehousing expenses, since the pre-sale movement charges incurred in 
positioning the merchandise at the warehouse are, for analytical 
purposes, linked to pre-sale warehousing expenses. If the pre-sale 
warehousing constitutes an indirect expense, the expense involved in 
getting the merchandise to the warehouse must also be indirect. 
Conversely, a direct pre-sale warehousing expense necessarily implies a 
direct pre-sale movement expense. We note that, although pre-sale 
warehousing expenses in most cases have been found to be indirect 
selling expenses, these expenses may be deducted from FMV as a 
circumstance-of-sale adjustment in a particular case if the respondent 
is able to demonstrate that the expenses are directly related to the 
sales under consideration. In the instant review, Union did not 
distinguish between pre- and post-sale warehousing expenses, nor did it 
demonstrate that these expenses were directly tied to the home-market 
sales under consideration. The Department, therefore, determined to 
treat home-market warehousing expenses as indirect selling expenses.
    We also adjusted FMV for differences in packing by deducting home-
market packing expenses from, and adding U.S. packing expenses to, FMV.
    During the verification of Union's responses, the Department was 
unable to fully verify the accuracy of Union's reported home-market 
product characteristics, because Union did not retain the relevant 
information in its records. It is the Department's preference to 
calculate antidumping duties on the basis of price-to-price comparisons 
whenever possible. It is also the Department's preference to use as 
much of respondent's data as possible. For purposes of these 
preliminary results, therefore, the Department has decided to use 
Union's model-matching product characteristics, but to apply to all of 
Union's price-to-price sales comparisons a flat, across-the-board 
adjustment for differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise (``difmer'') of 20 percent as the best information 
otherwise available (``BIA''). Twenty percent is the maximum difmer 
allowed between U.S. and home-market models for the purposes of 
comparison. See the Department's internal memorandum from Joseph A. 
Spetrini to Susan G. Esserman, dated August 8, 1995.
    We were able, by contrast, to verify DKI's reported product 
characteristics. In the model-match program, therefore, we programmed 
the computer, whenever DKI sales were used as a basis for comparison 
with Union's U.S. sales, to apply the difmers reported by DKI, rather 
than an across-the-board difmer of 20 percent, as we did when Union's 
home-market sales were used as a basis for comparison. We disagree, 
however, with DKI's categorization of its thickness tolerances as 
``standard.'' Based on the Department's model-matching criteria, we 
have concluded that DKI's thickness tolerances are much closer to U.S. 
``half-mill'' tolerances than to Union's ``standard'' tolerances. We 
have therefore created a new category of thickness tolerance--called 
``other''--for DKI, permitting the 

[[Page 65288]]
comparison of Union's U.S. sales of ``half-mill'' to DKI's home-market 
sales.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following margins exist for the period August 18, 
1993, through July 31, 1994:

             Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu.....................................................         6.07
Union......................................................         1.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date 
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days 
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case 
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs 
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those 
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final 
results of this administrative review including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages 
stated above.
    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 of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act. A cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties 
shall be required on shipments of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from Korea as follows: (1) The cash deposit rates for the 
reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of 
this review; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review or the original 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) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit 
rate for this case will be 14.53 percent, which is the ``all others'' 
rate for the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Korea, 58 FR 37176 (July 9, 1993).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
Sec. 353.22.

    Dated: December 8, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-30799 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P