Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Notice of Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or Mary Jenkins,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

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

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone, (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-1756,

respectively.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this review is porcelain-on-steel

cookware, including tea kettles that do not have self-contained

electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of

steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This

merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware

currently entering under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject

to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope

of this proceeding is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

On May 12, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the final results of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico (62

FR 25908). This review covered Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. (Cinsa) the exporter

of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review

(POR) is December 1, 1993, through November 30, 1994.

On May 13, 1997, counsel for petitioner, General Housewares

Corporation, filed an allegation of ministerial errors with regard to

the final results in this review. We also received allegation of

ministerial errors from counsel for respondent on May 16, 1997. On May

20, 1997, respondent submitted comments regarding petitioner's

allegation of ministerial errors and on May 23, 1997, petitioner

submitted comments regarding respondent's allegation of clerical errors

(see May 28, 1997, memorandum to Louis Apple for a detailed description

of petitioner's and respondent's allegations and the Department's

responses). All submissions from both parties were filed in a timely

manner.

Petitioner's Allegations

Petitioner alleged that:

1. The Department added an incorrect amount for profit in the

constructed value (CV) calculation.

DOC Response

We agree that, in the calculation program for CINSA, we

inadvertently transposed the sequence of commands to calculate the

profit amount to be added to CV. We have corrected the ministerial

error for the amended final results.

2. The final results computer program performed separate cost tests

for first-and second-quality merchandise of each model.

DOC Response

Petitioner has raised a methodological issue rather than a

ministerial issue in reference to its cost test allegation. The record

indicated that second quality POS cookware is normally sold as a

physically different product group in a different channel of trade from

first quality cookware. Accordingly, we concluded that combining first

quality and second quality sales for cost comparisons would not

accurately reflect Cinsa's selling practices for such merchandise.

Since our calculation methodology properly reflects our intention, we

have not made any changes for these final results.

Respondent's Allegations

Respondent alleged that:

1. The Department improperly limited its calculation of CV profit

earned from above-cost home market sales, rather than all home market

sales of the subject merchandise.

DOC Response

In accordance with section 353.28(d) of the Department's

regulations, we have considered the programming for the calculation of

profit an unintentional ministerial error and have made a correction

for the amended final results. In the Notice of Amended Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube from

[[Page 35154]]

Turkey, 62 FR 16547 (April 7, 1997), the case cited by petitioner in

objecting to such a change, the Department's intention was to limit the

application of a change in policy. In the instant case, however, the

Department's calculation of profit for CV was unintentionally based on

a methodology called for in the new definition of ``ordinary course of

trade'' found at 771(15) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) using only above-cost sales, rather

than the pre-URAA methodology which applies to this proceeding.

2. The Department improperly used ``neutral'' best information

available (BIA) in calculating a margin for Cinsa's sales of heavy

gauge (HG) cookware in lieu of using ENASA's home market sales of HG

cookware.

DOC Response

Respondent's argument does not reflect a ministerial error. As

stated in the notice, we did not collapse Cinsa and ENASA for purposes

of this review. During the relevant POR, Cinsa purchased HG cookware

from ENASA; Cinsa then resold that cookware to customers in the United

States. Only ENASA sold HG cookware in the home market. Because the

record contains no information on home market sales by Cinsa of HG

cookware to which Cinsa's sales of HG cookware to the United States

could be compared, and because an adverse selection of BIA was not

warranted under these circumstances, the Department used ``neutral''

BIA for calculating margins for Cinsa's U.S. sales of HG cookware.

3. The Department incorrectly articulated the basis for not

initiating the cost investigation for ENASA.

DOC Position

Respondent's argument does not reflect a ministerial error within

the meaning of section 735(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

The Department's position, as reflected in the Final Determination,

accurately reflects our rationale for not requesting cost data for

Cinsa's sales of HG merchandise produced by ENASA.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have determined that the following

margins exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Review period (percent)

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

Cinsa................................... 12/1/93-11/30/94 6.86

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between United States price and foreign market value may vary from the

percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs Service. Furthermore, the

following deposit requirements will be effective, upon publication of

this notice of amended final results of review for all shipments of

porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from

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

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate

for the reviewed company will be the rate for the firm as stated above;

(2) for previously 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 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 29.52 percent for porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, the all

others rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 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 the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

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 section 353.34(d) of the Department's

regulations. Timely 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: June 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-17050 Filed 6-27-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P