[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26876-26878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13430]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-602-803]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Australia: 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 a request by the petitioners, Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corporation, Inland Steel 
Industries, Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, 
AK Steel Corporation, Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel 
Corporation, WCI Steel, Inc., and Lukens Steel Company, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Australia. This review covers The Broken Hill 
Proprietary Company, Ltd. (BHP), the sole manufacturer/exporter of the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review 
(POR) August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1995. Because BHP failed to 
submit a response to our questionnaire, we have preliminarily 
determined to use facts otherwise available for cash deposit and 
assessment purposes.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Jean Kemp, Office of 
Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
3793.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 9, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(58 FR 37079) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on 
certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Australia, 
and published an antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 
44161). On August 1, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 39150) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on certain 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Australia. On 
August 31, 1995, petitioners requested an administrative review of BHP, 
a manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise to the United States. We 
initiated the review on September 8, 1995 (60 FR 46817).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this administrative review constitute one 
``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products. The class or kind includes flat-rolled carbon 
steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated 
with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, 
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 
HTS under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 
7210.49.0030,

[[Page 26877]]

7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 
7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 
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, 7215.90.5000, 
7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 
7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 
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 are flat-rolled 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 
flat-rolled 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. These HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.
    The review covers BHP and the period August 1, 1994 through July 
31, 1995 (POR).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776 of the 
Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for BHP because it 
did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. We sent 
BHP a questionnaire on September 14, 1995, with deadlines of October 
16, 1995 for section A and November 13, 1995 for the remaining 
sections. On October 11, 1995, BHP requested that the Department extend 
the deadlines for section A and all other portions of the questionnaire 
for one month. On October 13, 1995, the Department granted BHP a one-
week extension for its section A response. However, the Department did 
not grant an extension for the remaining sections because we are 
conducting this review under statutory deadlines. Section A of the 
Department's questionnaire is a general information section that the 
Department uses to gather information on the respondents, (corporate 
structure, distribution process, sales process, accounting/financial 
practices, merchandise, aggregate quantity and value of sales, further 
manufacture or assembly in the United States, etc.). On October 23, 
1995, we received a response to section A. Since section A is the 
general information section of the Department's questionnaire, the only 
relevant numerical data provided in section A is the aggregate quantity 
and value of sales. Sections B through E of the Department's 
questionnaire provide the Department with transaction-specific pricing 
and cost data used in the Department's calculation methodology. On 
November 20, 1995, BHP informed the Department that it no longer 
intended to continue to participate in this review. We did not receive 
a response to sections B through E of the questionnaire. Therefore, we 
must make our preliminary determination based on facts otherwise 
available (section 776(a) of the Act).
    The Department finds that, in not responding to the questionnaire, 
BHP failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with a request for information from the Department. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we may, in making our 
determination, use an adverse inference in selecting from the facts 
otherwise available. This adverse inference may include reliance on 
data derived from the petition, a previous determination in an 
investigation or review, or any other information placed on record. 
Accordingly, in this case, we preliminary assign to BHP a margin of 
39.11 percent, the margin calculated in the first administrative review 
using information provided by BHP in that review (see Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 14049-14057 
(March 29, 1996)).
    Because the margin selected for this review is based on information 
obtained in the course of an earlier segment of the proceeding, the 
Department is required, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, to 
corroborate this information to the extent practicable from independent 
sources reasonably at its disposal. This simply means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information used has 
probative value (See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the URAA, published in H. Doc. 103-106, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. At 870).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department 
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse BIA because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case, we have used the 
margin calculated in the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding, the previous administrative review (see Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 14049-14057 (March 29, 
1996)). The margin calculated in the above first administrative review, 
39.11 percent, was a calculated rate, based on information provided by 
BHP. There are no circumstances indicating that this margin is not 
relevant for use as adverse facts available.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin 
of 39.11 percent exists for BHP for the period August 1, 1994 through 
July 31, 1995.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Case

[[Page 26878]]

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 the case 
briefs and comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date 
of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
44 days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. 
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. Upon completion 
of this administrative review, the Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of corrosion-resistant steel from Australia entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act: (1) 
the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for exporters not 
covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the original 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 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, 
previous reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the 
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be the ``All Others'' rate established in the original LTFV 
investigation, which is 24.96 percent.
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and 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 353.22.

    Dated: May 20, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13430 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P