[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 194 (Friday, October 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51891-51897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-822; A-122-823 ]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 51892]]
products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada.
These reviews cover four manufacturers/exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States and the period August 1, 1994 through
July 31, 1995.
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 U.S. Customs to assess
antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price
(``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling (Continuous Colour Coat
(``CCC'')), Eric Johnson (Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco Inc. (``Dofasco'')),
Daniel Miller (Algoma, Inc. (``Algoma'')), N. Gerard Zapiain (Stelco,
Inc. (``Stelco'')), or Jean Kemp, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute refer 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).
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-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada. On August 29, 1995, Algoma (cut-
to-length steel plate) requested review of its exports of subject
merchandise. On August 31, 1995, the following companies also requested
reviews for their exports of subject merchandise: CCC (corrosion-
resistant steel), Dofasco (corrosion-resistant steel), and Stelco
(corrosion-resistant steel and cut-to-length steel plate). Manitoba
Rolling Mills (``MRM'') also requested a review, but subsequently
withdrew its request. We therefore terminate MRM's review with this
notice. On August 31, 1995, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel
Group (a Unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel Industries Inc., Gulf
States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, Geneva Steel,
and Lukens Steel Company, petitioners, requested reviews of the above
four respondents (but not MRM) and both classes or kinds of
merchandise. On September 9, 1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c),
we initiated administrative reviews of these orders for the period
August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1995 (60 FR 46818).
On February 28, 1996, the petitioners requested that the Department
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by Algoma,
Dofasco, and Stelco (for corrosion-resistant only) during the POR,
pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Section 751(a)(4) provides
that the Department, if requested, will determine during an
administrative review initiated two years or four years after
publication of the order whether antidumping duties have been absorbed
by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if the subject
merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer who is
affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter. Section 751(a)(4)
was added to the Act by the URAA.
For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed regulations provides that
the Department will make a duty absorption determination, if requested,
for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. See Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308, 7366
(February 27, 1996) (``Proposed Regulations''). The commentary to the
proposed regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be
considered initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998
will be considered initiated in the fourth year. Id. at 7317. Although
these proposed regulations are not yet binding upon the Department,
they do constitute a public statement of how the Department expects to
proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the amended statute. This
approach assures that interested parties will have the opportunity to
request a duty absorption determination on entries for which the second
and fourth years following an order have already passed, prior to the
time for sunset review of the order under section 751(c). Because the
orders on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products and cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Canada have been in effect since 1993,
these are transition orders. Therefore, based on the policy stated
above, the Department will first consider a request for a duty
absorption determination for reviews of these orders initiated in 1996.
Because this review was initiated in 1995, we have not considered the
issue of absorption in this review. However, if requested, we will do
so in the next review.
Under the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for
completion of administrative reviews if it determines that it is not
practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit of
365 days. On April 1, 1996, the Department extended the time limits for
the preliminary and final results in this case. See Extension of Time
Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 14291 (1996).
The new deadline for the final results of review is April 2, 1997.
The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with
section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Reviews
The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two
separate ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: (1) certain corrosion-
resistant steel and (2) certain cut-to-length plate.
The first class or kind, certain corrosion-resistant steel,
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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7210.31.0000,
7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 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,
[[Page 51893]]
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 non-rectangular cross-section where such
cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,
products which have been worked after rolling)--for example, products
which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded 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 second class or kind, certain cut-to-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 hot-rolled 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 7208.31.0000,
7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000,
7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000,
7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,
7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of
non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been
worked after rolling) --for example, products which have been beveled
or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1994, through July 31,
1995.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by respondents, using standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 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.
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 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 next most similar foreign like
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix III of
the Department's September 14, 1995 antidumping questionnaire. In
making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based
on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent and verified
by the Department.
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 ``Export Price and Constructed Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance
with section 777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted-average prices
for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For calculation of the price to the United States, we used EP, in
accordance with subsections 772(a) and (c) of the Act where the subject
merchandise was sold directly or indirectly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. In addition, we used
CEP in accordance with subsections 772 (b), (c), and (d) of the Act, as
appropriate, for those sales that took place after importation into the
United States.
Algoma
The Department calculated EP for Algoma. EP was based on packed,
prepaid or delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made
adjustments to the starting price for movement expenses (foreign and
U.S. movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties).
We used Algoma's date of invoice as the date of sale for both U.S.
sales and home market sales because that was the date when price and
quantity are fixed.
CCC
The Department calculated EP for CCC. EP was based on packed,
prepaid or delivered prices to customers in the United States.
We made deductions to the starting price for movement expenses
(foreign movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties),
and for discounts and rebates.
We used CCC's date of invoice as the date of sale for U.S. sales
because that was the date when price and quantity were fixed.
Dofasco
For purposes of these reviews, we treated Dofasco, Inc. and
Sorevco, Inc. as one respondent (see Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Canada; Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value, 58 FR 37099 (1993), and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 42511 (1995)). These
companies have submitted no information which would cause us to
question that treatment. The Department calculated EP for Dofasco. EP
was based on packed prices to customers in the United States.
We made deductions to the starting price for discounts, a rebate,
movement expenses, and U.S. Customs duty and brokerage. As in the prior
review, U.S. further processing expenses for certain sales have not
been treated as part of the export price.
[[Page 51894]]
For Dofasco, Inc., we used the date of order acknowledgment as date
of sale for all sales in both the U.S. and the home market (except
sales made pursuant to long-term contracts) because this was the time
at which price and quantity were fixed. For Dofasco, Inc.'s sales made
pursuant to long-term contracts, we used date of the contract as date
of sale because the contract terms fixed price and quantity.
For Sorevco, Inc., we used the date of order confirmation as the
date of sale because both price and quantity are fixed in its order
acknowledgments. When Sorevco shipped more merchandise than the
customer ordered, but which the customer accepted, and such overages
were in excess of accepted industry tolerances, we used date of
shipment as date of sale for the excess merchandise.
Stelco
Corrosion-resistant products: 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 freight, U.S.
transportation expenses, brokerage and handling, U.S. Customs duties
and warehousing.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement
of Administrative Action (SAA) which accompanied the passage of the
URAA (at 823-824), for CEP we also deducted selling expenses associated
with economic activities occurring in the United States, including
credit, technical services, other direct selling expenses, indirect
selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs. Finally, we made an
adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to these expenses 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 because that was the date when price
and quantity were fixed.
Plate: We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated
purchasers in, or for exportation, to the United States. We made
deductions for movement expenses including foreign movement, brokerage
and handling, U.S. Customs duty and warehousing. We made no other
adjustments for EP.
We used the date of invoice as the date of sale for plate sales
because that was the date when price and quantity were fixed.
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 U.S. 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) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the
prices at which the foreign like products were first sold for
consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and
in the ordinary course of trade.
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 unrelated
customers.
Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of
production (``COP'') in the last completed review with respect to CCC
and Stelco for both the classes or kinds of merchandise under review
(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 61 FR 13815 (March 28, 1996)),
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 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 as provided by
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales by CCC
and Stelco in the home market. On January 11, 1996, petitioners alleged
that Algoma and Dofasco made home market sales of subject merchandise
below COP. On January 26, 1996, we initiated COP investigations of
sales by Algoma and Dofasco.
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
they were made within an extended period of time in substantial
quantities, at prices that did not permit recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. Because each individual price was compared
against the POR-long 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 product were at prices less
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
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 product 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 some below-cost sales with respect to all of the above
companies and classes or kinds of merchandise.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV
on sales at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. If NV
was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an additional
adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with section
773(a)(7) of the Act. (See Level of Trade below.)
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like
product 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
[[Page 51895]]
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 weighted-average
home market selling expenses.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56 for circumstance of sale
(COS) differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses except those deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect selling
expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons.
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 353.45(a). Home market prices were based on the
packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in
the home market. We deducted discounts and rebates. We made
adjustments, where applicable, for differences in 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
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison to EP, we made COS
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding
U.S. direct selling expenses. These included direct selling expenses
(credit and warranty) in the home market and credit and warranty
expenses in the U.S. market. When comparisons were made to EP sales on
which commissions were paid, we made adjustments for home market
indirect selling expenses to offset these U.S. commissions.
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 affiliated or
unaffiliated parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market
prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to
affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made
adjustments, where applicable, for packing and movement expenses in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act. We adjusted
for discounts and rebates. 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
353.56. 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, we made adjustments for home market indirect selling
expenses to offset U.S. commissions.
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
(when made at prices determined to be arm's-length) or unaffiliated
parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market prices were
based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to affiliated or
unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We deducted 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 353.56. 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, we made adjustments for home market indirect selling expenses to
offset U.S. commissions.
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 or
unaffiliated parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.45(a). Home market
prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to
affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made
deductions for 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 353.56.
Corrosion resistant steel: We adjusted home market prices for
interest revenue on certain sales to one customer. For comparison to
EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling
expenses (credit, warranties, technical services) and adding U.S.
direct selling expenses (credit, technical services and other direct
selling expenses). For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses except those deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
Plate: For comparison to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting
home market direct selling expenses (commissions, credit, warranties,
technical services) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit,
technical services and other direct selling expenses).
Level of Trade (``LOT'')
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA
accompanying the URAA at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the
Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade
as the U.S. sale. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the
comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the
Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at a
different level of trade. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value; Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996).
In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare
U.S. sales at one level of trade to NV sales at a different level of
trade, the Department will adjust the NV to account for the difference
in level of trade if two conditions are met. First, there must be
differences between the actual selling functions performed by the
seller at the level of trade of the U.S. sale and the level of trade of
the normal
[[Page 51896]]
value sale. Second, the difference must affect price comparability as
evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at
the different levels of trade in the market in which NV is determined.
When CEP is applicable, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes
the procedures for making a CEP offset when: (1) NV is at a more
advanced level of trade, and (2) the data available does not provide an
appropriate basis for a level of trade adjustment.
In order to determine that there is a difference in level of trade,
the Department must find that two sales have been made at different
phases of marketing, or the equivalent. Different phases of marketing
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences
in selling functions (even substantial ones) are not alone sufficient
to establish a difference in the level of trade. Similarly, seller and
customer descriptions (such as ``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'') are
useful in identifying different levels of trade, but are insufficient
to establish that there is a difference in the level of trade.
In implementing this principle in these reviews, we obtained
information about the selling activities of the producers/exporters
associated with each phase of marketing, or the equivalent. We asked
each respondent to establish any claimed LOTs based on these marketing
activities and selling functions.
In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondents, we
considered all types of selling activities that had been performed on
both a qualitative and quantitative basis. In analyzing whether
separate LOTs existed in these reviews, we found that no single selling
activity in the flat-rolled steel industry was sufficient to warrant a
separate LOT (see Proposed Regulations, 61 FR, at 7348).
To test the claimed LOTs, we analyzed the selling activities
associated with the classes of customers and marketing phases
respondents reported. In applying this test, we expect that, if claimed
LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be
similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller
should be dissimilar. The Department does not only count activities,
but weighs the overall function performed by each claimed level of
trade. In determining whether separate LOTs existed in the home market,
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we considered the
selling functions reflected in the starting price of the home market
sales before any adjustment. In identifying the LOT for CEP sales, we
considered only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price
after deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
Algoma
Algoma reported one LOT and one channel of distribution with two
classes of customers: end-users and steel service centers (SSCs) in
both the home market and the United States. Algoma sells all of its
material directly to the customer. Every order is custom made. We
examined the selling functions performed for both classes of customers
in both markets. We found that Algoma's selling activities were
substantially similar for both classes of customers for sales of
subject merchandise and, therefore, warrant one level of trade. Thus,
no adjustment was appropriate.
CCC
CCC reported three different LOTs in the home market: original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel service centers, and scrap
merchants. However, we examined and verified the reported selling
functions and found that CCC provides the same selling functions to its
home market customers regardless of distribution level, marketing
phase, or the equivalent. Overall, we 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 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. Therefore, no adjustment is appropriate.
Dofasco
Dofasco reported four LOTs in the home market. Dofasco defined its
LOT categories by customer category: service center, automotive,
construction, and ``others.'' We examined and verified the selling
functions performed at each claimed level and found that, of 14 selling
functions, the automotive and service center sales levels only
overlapped with respect to two selling functions. Moreover, Dofasco has
established a separate sales division for its automotive sales.
Therefore, given these types of differences, we conclude that these are
separate levels of trade.
Between the automotive and construction sales channels, Dofasco
performed only five of the same or similar selling functions. The
activities differed with respect to numerous other activities. We have
concluded that the extent of these similar selling activities, taken as
a whole, is not sufficient to consider these the same level of trade.
Between the construction and service center sales channels, Dofasco
performed eight of the same or similar selling functions. The
activities differed in numerous other areas. Again, we do not conclude
that the extent of these similar activities, taken as a whole, renders
these the same level of trade.
However, between the construction and ``other'' sales channels, the
selling functions performed overlapped with respect to eleven of the
fourteen selling functions analyzed.
Overall, we determine that the selling functions between the
construction and ``other'' sales channels are sufficiently similar to
consider them a single LOT in the comparison market. For the
automotive, service center, and construction/''other'' customer
categories, we determine that the selling functions between these sales
channels are not sufficiently similar to consider them as the same LOT
in the comparison market. Therefore, we determine that the automotive,
service center, and construction/''other'' customer categories should
be treated as three LOTs in the comparison market.
Respondents reported four LOTs in the U.S. market: automotive,
service center, construction, and ``other.'' The only difference in
selling functions between the comparison market and the U.S. market are
as follows: for certain sales to construction customers in the U.S.
market, one selling activity is offered which is not offered to home
market construction customers; and for certain other sales to
construction customers, there is one selling function which is not
provided in the U.S. market but which is offered in the comparison
market.
We determine that the results of our analysis of U.S. LOTs are
identical to those of the comparison market--there are three LOTs in
the U.S. market: automotive, service center, and construction/
``other.''
Stelco
Stelco identified one level of trade and two phases of marketing
(to end-users or to resellers) in the home market for each class or
kind of merchandise. We examined and verified the selling functions
performed in each phase and
[[Page 51897]]
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 and that Stelco's prices did not vary
consistently based on the type of customer. Overall, we determine that
the selling functions between the two sales channels are sufficiently
similar to consider them one LOT in the comparison market for sales of
both corrosion-resistant products and plate products.
In the United States, Stelco sold both products through one sales
channel and to one class of customer: corrosion-resistant products were
sold only to end users and plate products were sold to service centers
in the United States. For EP sales, we determine that the results of
our analysis of U.S. LOTs are identical to those of the comparison
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 comparison market.
Therefore, no adjustment is appropriate. For CEP sales, we compared the
selling activities associated with the sale to the affiliated reseller
to those associated with the home market level of trade 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. 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.
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.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the
weighted-average dumping margins (in percent) for the period August 1,
1994, through July 31, 1995 to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosion-Resistant Steel:
Dofasco............................................... 0.84
CCC................................................... 1.01
Stelco................................................ 0.45
Cut-to-Length Plate:
Algoma................................................ 0.70
Stelco................................................ 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to this 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 the date of publication of this
notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date
of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or
other written comments from interested parties may be submitted not
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 its analysis of issues
raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not later than 180 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 made during the
POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory
NV and statutory EP or CEP, by the total statutory EP or CEP value of
the sales compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference
between EP or CEP and customs value for all merchandise examined during
the POR).
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 these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those rates established in the final results of these
reviews (except that no deposit will be required for firms with zero or
de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior 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) the cash deposit rate
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all
others'' rate made effective by the final results of the 1993-1994
administrative reviews of these orders (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,
61 FR 13815 (March 28, 1996)). As noted in those final results, these
rates are the ``all others'' rates from the relevant 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 deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative reviews.
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.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22(c)(5).
Dated: September 25, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25533 Filed 10-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P