Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-816]

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany:

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 one respondent, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Germany (A-428-816). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of

the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of

review (POR) February 4, 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.

[[Page 36106]]

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Decker, Bruce Harsh or Linda

Ludwig, 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.

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 Department published in the Federal Register

(58 FR 37136) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on

certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Germany, for which we

published an antidumping duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44170).

On August 3, 1994, the Department published the notice of ``Opportunity

to Request an Administrative Review'' of this order for the period

February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994 (59 FR 39543). The respondent,

AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke (Dillinger), requested an administrative

review. We initiated the review on September 8, 1994 (59 FR 46391). The

Department is conducting this review, in accordance with section 751 of

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

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this administrative review constitute one

``class or kind'' of merchandise: certain cut-to-length carbon steel

plate. These products 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

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 Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (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 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 grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

The POR is February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994. This review

covers sales of certain cut-to-length plate by Dillinger.

United States Price

All of Dillinger'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 of the Tariff Act, was

the appropriate basis for calculating USP. All sales were made through

Francosteel, a related sales agent in the United States, to unrelated

purchasers. Whenever sales are made prior to the date of importation

through a related sales agent in the United States, we typically

determine that purchase price is the most appropriate determinant of

the USP based upon the following factors: (1) The merchandise in

question was shipped directly from the manufacturer to the unrelated

buyer, without being introduced into the inventory of the related

shipping agent; (2) direct shipment from the manufacturer to the

unrelated buyers was the customary commercial channel for sales of this

merchandise between the parties involved; and (3) the related selling

agent in the United States acted only as a processor of sales-related

documentation and a communication link with the unrelated U.S. buyers.

See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Final Determination

of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 58 FR 68865, 68868 (December 29,

1993); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan: Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343, 50344

(September 27, 1993). In the present review, we found that: the

essential terms of sale were set prior to importation; the merchandise

was shipped immediately to the customer upon importation into the

United States, without being introduced into the inventory of the

related shipping agent; direct shipment from the manufacturer to the

unrelated buyers was the customary commercial channel for sales of this

merchandise; the merchandise was not warehoused by Francosteel during

the normal course of business; and the related selling agent in the

United States acted only as a processor of sales-related documentation

and a communication link with the unrelated U.S. buyers. We made

adjustments to purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. and foreign brokerage

and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S. inland freight.

We also adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as

outlined in various determinations, including Silicomanganese from

Venezuela; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR

55435, 55439 (November 7, 1994). No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Foreign Market Value

Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third

country sales, we determined that the home market was viable.

Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act,

we based FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in

the home market, using date of shipment as date of sale (see Analysis

Memorandum to the File, May 25, 1995).

Based on a review of Dillinger's submissions, the Department

determined that only a small percentage of Dillinger's U.S. sales were

the same grades of steel as the home market sales made by Dillinger's

related parties to the first unrelated party (downstream sales).

Accordingly, the Department determined that Dillinger need not report

its home market downstream sales because they could provide potential

matches to only a very small portion of the company's reported U.S.

sales.

Based on the Department's previous determination of sales made at

below the cost of production (COP) in the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation, in accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff

Act, we determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that, for this review period, Dillinger made sales of subject

merchandise in the home market at prices less than the COP. As a

result, we investigated whether Dillinger sold such or similar

[[Page 36107]]

merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP for Dillinger as the sum of

reported materials, labor, factory overhead, and general expenses. We

compared COP to home market prices, net of price adjustments,

discounts, and movement expenses.

In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff 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.

In accordance with our normal practice, for each model for which

less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the

POR were made at prices below 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 COP, we excluded those sales priced below 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 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 Tariff 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 Tariff 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 Dillinger provided no indication that its 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 of models 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 Dillinger's models, home market sales

for which less than 10 percent were made below COP, we used all home

market sales of these models in our comparisons.

We also used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there was no

sale of such or similar merchandise in the home market. We calculated

CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff 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 Dillinger's cost

response, we adjusted Dillinger's reported COP and CV to reflect

certain adjustments to the cost of manufacturing, general and

administrative expenses, indirect selling expenses and the calculation

of profit.

In accordance with section 773 of the Tariff 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, and for home market direct expenses, such

as certain rebates tied to specific sales, credit and discounts. In

addition, we adjusted FMV for differences in physical characteristics,

U.S. direct selling expenses, and the German value-added tax. Also,

after deducting home market packing, we added packing expenses incurred

in Germany for U.S. sales to FMV. No adjustment was made for home

market related party commissions because Dillinger did not demonstrate

that these commissions were at arm's length, but we offset an addition

to FMV for U.S. commissions with home market indirect selling expenses.

Due to discrepancies in Dillinger's reporting of certain customers

and level of trade, we are not in a position to know which sales

reported as end-user sales were in fact end-user sales and which were

sales to service centers/distributors. The only known difference in

terms of sale to service centers/distributors and end-users was that

service centers/distributors received a trader discount. Consequently,

in matching home market sales to sales to U.S. end-users, we adjusted

FMV to account for this discount (see Analysis Memorandum to the File,

May 25, 1995).

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily

determine that the following margin exists for the period February 4,

1993, through July 31, 1994:

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

Manufacturer Margin

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

Dillinger..................................................... 2.02%

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

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 these administrative reviews 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

[[Page 36108]]

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 Tariff Act. A cash deposit of

estimated antidumping duties shall be required on shipments of certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Germany as follows: (1) The cash

deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in

the final results of this review; (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, or

the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the

cash deposit rate will be 36.00 percent. This is the ``all others''

rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Germany, 58 FR 37136 (July 9, 1993).

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 Department'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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: July 6, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-17227 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P