Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From Spain

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-469-805]

Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless

Steel Bar From Spain

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jenkins or Fabian Rivelis, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International

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

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

[[Page 11657]] telephone: (202) 482-1756 or (202) 482-3853,

respectively.

Amendment to the Final Determination

We are amending the final determination of sales at less than fair

value of stainless steel bar from Spain to reflect the correction of

ministerial errors made in the margin calculations in that

determination. We are publishing this amendment to the final

determination in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Case History and Amendment of the Final Determination

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), on December 28, 1994, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) published its final determination that stainless steel

bar from Spain was being sold at less than fair value (59 FR 66931).

Subsequent to the final determination, we received ministerial error

allegations by both petitioners and respondents in this investigation.

On January 12, 1995, petitioners made a timely allegation that the

Department made ministerial errors in its final determination. First,

they alleged that the Department made two incorrect adjustments to the

reported difference-in-merchandise (difmer) data for respondent Roldan,

S.A. (Roldan). Petitioners alleged that, in order to correct a

discrepancy in Roldan's reported variable manufacturing costs for

certain U.S. and home market sales, the Department increased the

variable cost of manufacture (COM) for difmer purposes by adding to the

home market difmer costs reported by Roldan when, in fact, the home

market difmer adjustment should have been subtracted.

Furthermore, petitioners argued that the Department should not have

made a similar difmer adjustment to Roldan's reported variable COM for

U.S. sales because the discrepancy was confined to Roldan's home market

variable COM data.

Respondent agreed with petitioner that the Department should have

subtracted, rather than added, from its difmer data in order for it to

correspond to its COP data. However, respondent argued that the

petitioners were incorrect in their assertion that the discrepancy was

confined only to Roldan's home market sales data. Consequently,

respondent argued that the adjustment should have been made to the

difmer data of both U.S. and home market sales.

We agree that this error constitutes a ministerial error as defined

by Section 751(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),

which states that a ``ministerial error'' is ``an error in addition,

subtraction or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from

inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of

unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.'' We

agree that the Department made a mathematical error when adjusting the

respondent's difmer information. Furthermore, we agree with the

respondent that this adjustment should have been made to its U.S.

difmer information as well as its home market difmer information. We

made the proper adjustments in our margin calculations and the

resulting margin did not change from the margin calculated for the

final determination.

Second, petitioners noted that the Department did not calculate

margins for several of Roldan's U.S. sales that did not have product

matches or constructed value data. Petitioners argued that the

Department should have used the highest non-aberrational margin

calculated for individual sales to calculate margins for these sales.

Respondent stated that the Department correctly deleted the sales

for which there were no product matches from the margin calculation.

We have analyzed the information submitted by Roldan and have

concluded that the Department made a ``ministerial error'' under

Section 751(f) of the Act. We inadvertently omitted these sales in our

concordance before they could be matched to the appropriate home market

products. We have corrected this problem and calculated a margin for

the sales in question.

On January 13, 1995, Acenor, S.A. (Acenor), a mandatory respondent

that withdrew from the investigation, and Roldan, made timely

allegations that the Department made ministerial errors in its final

determination. Acenor alleged that its deposit rate was based on data

presented in a sales below cost of production (COP) allegation which

was determined to be invalid by the Department.

Petitioners argued that because Acenor was no longer an interested

party in the investigation, the firm of George V. Egge Jr., P.C. could

no longer represent itself as counsel for Acenor and submit a

ministerial error allegation on its behalf. Petitioners further

suggested that if the Department were to modify the best information

available (BIA) rate applied to Acenor, it should have used the highest

individual margin calculated in the preliminary determination using

Acenor's own data.

We disagree with petitioners that Acenor is no longer an interested

party. The fact that Acenor decided to withdraw from further

participation does not change the fact that they are a named respondent

who participated substantially throughout most of the investigation. We

also disagree with respondent that the Department made a ministerial

error in calculationg its BIA rate. We determine that this issue is

methodological and was improperly raised as a ministerial error under

Section 751(f) of the Act.

Roldan claimed that over half of its U.S. sales were improperly

matched to home market sales made at a different level of trade.

Petitioners argued that Roldan's argument is not a ministerial error

allegation and should be rejected. We agree with petitioners that this

allegation is not ministerial in nature, but rather a methodological

question.

On January 19, 1995, petitioners commented on respondent's

allegation and on January 20, 1995, respondent commented on

petitioners' allegation.

Scope of Order

The product covered by this order is stainless steel bar (SSB). SSB

means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been

either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise

cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along

their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,

rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other

convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or

ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or

from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have

indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless

steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e.,

cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have

a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or

more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at

least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils,

of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do

not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under

subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

[[Page 11658]] United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings

are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written

description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Antidumping Duty Order

In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, on December 19, 1994,

the Department made its final determination that SSB from Spain was

being sold at less than fair value (59 FR 66931, December 28, 1994). On

February 10, 1995, the International Trade Commission notified the

Department of its final determination, pursuant to section

735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise.

Therefore, all unliquidated entries of SSB from Spain entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 1994,

which is the date on which the Department published its notice of

preliminary determination in the Federal Register, are liable for the

assessment of antidumping duties.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department

will direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the

administering authority, antidumping duties equal to the amount by

which the foreign market value of the merchandise exceeds the United

States price for all relevant entries of SSB from Spain. Customs

officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally

deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to

the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins as noted below.

The ``All Others'' rate applies to all exporters of subject merchandise

not specifically listed below.

The ad valorem weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter percentage

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

Acenor, S.A. (and all successor companies, including

Digeco, S.A. and Clorimax, SRL)........................... 62.85

Roldan, S.A................................................ 7.72

All Others................................................. 25.77

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

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to

SSB from Spain pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested

parties may contact the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main

Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping orders

currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.21.

Dated: February 24, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-5181 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P