Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-485-803]

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 7, 1999 the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of review of the

antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Romania. This review covers one manufacture/exporter of the subject

[[Page 1848]]

merchandise to the United States and the period August 1, 1997 through

July 31, 1998. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on

our preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments

received, we have changed the results from those presented in the

preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2924

(Baker), (202) 482-5222 (James).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are

to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

The Department published an antidumping duty order on certain cut-

to-length carbon steel plate from Romania on August 19, 1993 (58 FR

44167). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request

an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order fur the 1997/

98 review period on August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42821). On August 31, 1998,

respondents Windmill International PTE Ltd. of Singapore, Windmill

International Romania Branch, and Windmill International Ltd. (USA)

(collectively ``Windmill'') requested that the Department conduct an

administrative review. On August 31, 1998, we also received a request

for an administrative review from Bethlehem Steel Corporation and U.S.

Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corporation (petitioners). We published a

notice of initiation of the review on September 29, 1998 (63 FR 51893).

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. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. On March 26, 1999, the

Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this

case. See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania; Extension of

Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 14689.

On September 7, 1999 the Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of review of the antidumping duty

order on cut-to-length carbon steel place from Romania (64 FR 48581).

The Department has now completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered in this review include 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 coil 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, 7212.50.5000 and

7212.50.0000. Included in this review 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 from this review is grade X-

70 plate.

These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

The period of review is August 1, 1997, through July 31, 1998. This

review covers sales of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate by

Windmill International PTE Ltd. of Singapore (Windmill Singapore).

Windmill's supplier during the POR was the unaffiliated producer C.S.

Sidex S.A. (Sidex).

Use of Facts Available

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that if necessary information is

not available on the record, the Department shall use, subject to

section 782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise available in reaching

the applicable determination. In this review, information is not on the

record to enable the Department to make an adjustment to U.S. price for

a miscellaneous fund account using the surrogate value method the

Department uses in calculating margins for shipments from non-market

economy (NME) countries. Therefore, as a non-adverse facts available,

we have made this adjustment using the exact amount Windmill recorded

in its books. Windmill records this amount in a market-economy

currency. For more information, see comment 3 (below).

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received comments from the petitioners.

Comment 1: Use of Surrogate Value for Foreign Inland Freight

Petitioners argue that the Department erred by using a surrogate

value for foreign inland freight, rather than the invoiced value. They

argue that even though nothing on the record indicates whether the

freight provider was a market economy or non-market economy provider,

the record does indicate that the foreign inland freight was invoiced

and paid in U.S. dollars, and that therefore the Department should use

that value in its computation of net U.S. price.

Department's Position: We disagree. Evidence on the record suggests

that the foreign inland freight was originally calculated in Romanian

lei and only later converted into U.S. dollars prior to invoicing. See

Romanian verification exhibit 34 of the August 30, 1999 verification

report, p. 3. Furthermore, the address of the freight provider suggests

that it was a nonmarket economy provider. Id. at 1 and 3. Therefore, in

these final results of review, we have continued to use a surrogate

value for computation of the foreign inland freight.

Comment 2: Tax on Foreign Inland Freight

Petitioners argue that the Department erred by not deducting from

the U.S. price the tax that Windmill pays to the Romanian government on

the foreign inland freight. They argue that this tax

[[Page 1849]]

should be considered a charge incident to bringing the subject

merchandise to the United States, and should thus be deducted from the

U.S. price. They further argue that even though the tax is invoiced and

paid in Romanian lei, the Department should use the U.S. dollar amount

of the tax because only that value is on the record.

Department's Position: We disagree. Because Windmill paid the tax

at issue to the Romanian government, we consider it to be an intra-NME

expense. We do not use such expenses in our margin calculations, but

rather rely on surrogate values. Therefore, we have continued to rely

exclusively on the calculated surrogate value for foreign inland

freight.

Comment 3: Deduction for Miscellaneous Expense Account

Petitioners argue that the Department erred by failing to deduct

from U.S. price a cost Windmill records in its books under the account

for ``commissions.'' The verification report describes this accounting

code as ``a miscellaneous fund used to facilitate, for example,

shipments and loading.'' See the verification report at 28. They argue

that this expense should be considered a charge incident to bringing

the subject merchandise to the United States, and should thus be

deducted form U.S. price. They further argue that even though the

expense is paid in Romanian lei, the Department should use the U.S.

dollar amount of the expense because only that value is on the record.

Department's Position: We agree in part. Contrary to petitioner's

assertion, the record does not indicate in what currency this expense

was paid, and is unclear as to whether it was paid at all. However, the

record does indicate that Windmill recognizes this expense as a cost in

its accounting records. Although it is not our practice to make an

adjustment for expenses paid, as here, to NME suppliers (except through

the use of surrogate values), we regard the expense at issue as a

movement expense and, therefore, we agree with petitioners that we

should make an adjustment for it. As non-adverse facts available, we

have deducted from U.S. price, as petitioners suggested, the exact

amount that Windmill records in its accounting records. We used this

method because Windmill records the expense in market-economy currency

and because the record explains how Windmill determines the amount to

be recorded in its books. See the verification report, p. 28.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we have determined that a weighted-

average dumping margin of 21.07 percent exists for Windmill for the

period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department shall

issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-

specific assessment rate by dividing the dumping margin found on the

subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise.

We will direct the United States Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the

entered value of the merchandise entered during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for

all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as

provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the case deposit

rate for Windmill will be the rate established in the final results of

this administrative review; (2) for all other Romanian exporters, the

case deposit rate will be the Romania-wide rate made effective by the

final determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation (see

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-

Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993));

(3) for non-Romanian exporters of subject merchandise from Romania, the

cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Romanian supplier

of that exporter.

These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction

of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby

requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice

in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 5, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-744 Filed 1-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M