Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-412-810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From

the United Kingdom; 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; certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from

the United Kingdom.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon

steel products from the United Kingdom. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter and the period March 1, 1994 through February 28,

1995.

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: November 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

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 May 6, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register

(61 FR 20225) the preliminary results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth

carbon steel products from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324, March 22,

1993). The Department has now completed the review in accordance with

section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of

nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by

weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent or more of bismuth,

in coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded

from the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason

of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or 0.1 percent or

more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-

finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered

in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00 and

7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also

enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings:

7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10,

00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this order

remains dispositive.

This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of certain hot-rolled

lead and bismuth steel products, United Engineering Steels Limited

(UES), now British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES), and the

period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We received comments from UES and

petitioner.

Comment 1: Petitioner contends that the Department erred in the way

it matched home market products to products sold to the United States.

Petitioner maintains that the language included in the concordance

program keeps only the first record of the home market control number,

which identifies a particular home market model, and drops other

records containing the subsequent matches if the same home market

control number is matched to subsequent U.S. products, or to the same

U.S. products in different six-month windows. (A match is made within a

window of time from three months prior to two months after the month of

the U.S. sale.) As a result, petitioner claims, the Department dropped

a number of legitimate home market product matches, and instead, used

constructed value as the basis of normal value.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The original

computer program contained an inadvertent error. We have revised the

computer programming language to correct this error for the final

results of this review.

Comment 2: UES argues that the Department failed to match U.S.

sales to home market sales in the most contemporaneous month. Instead,

the Department matched each U.S. sale to all home market sales

occurring within the six-month window. UES argues that, pursuant to the

Department's matching rule, the most contemporaneous home market match

is selected in the following order of preference: sales in the same

month of the U.S. sale, sales in the month prior to the U.S. sale,

sales in the second month prior to the month of the U.S. sale, sales in

the third month prior to the month of the U.S. sale, sales in the month

subsequent to the month of the U.S. sale, and finally, sales in the

second month subsequent to the month of the U.S. sale.

Department's Position: We agree with UES and have revised our

computer programming language accordingly for these final results of

review.

Comment 3: UES maintains that the Department erred in its

calculation of the profit in calculating constructed value. UES claims

that the Department erred in calculating the ratio applied to the cost

of production to calculate profit by first computing a profit

percentage for each home market sales transaction, and then weight-

averaging the percentages by quantity. UES contends that this

methodology introduces serious distortion. UES suggests that, under the

Department's normal methodology, total home market profit is divided by

total home market costs to calculate the profit ratio.

Department's Position: We agree with UES and have revised our

computer programming language accordingly for these final results of

review.

Clerical Errors

For the preliminary results of review, the Department did not

deduct U.S. brokerage and handling charges from the U.S. price. For

these final results of review, we have deducted such charges from the

U.S. price. See section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

[[Page 56515]]

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following

weighted-average margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)

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

United Engineering Steels Limited

(UES) (now British Steel Engineering

Steels Limited)...................... 3/1/94-2/28/95 1.56

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between export price and normal value may vary from the

percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all

shipments of certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products

from the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate listed above; (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) for all other producers and/or exporters of

this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 25.82 percent, the

``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (58 FR 6207,

January 27, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final 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 subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of

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.

This administrative review 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.

Dated: October 23, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-28117 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P