Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Canada: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-822]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Canada: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rick Johnston, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

3793.

Scope of This Review

The merchandise under review is certain corrosion-resistant carbon

steel flat products. Although the Hamonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) subheadings are provided for convenience and

customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under

investigation is dispositive.

These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of

rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-

resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel-

or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished

or coated with plastics or other

[[Page 44106]]

nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils

(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness

less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and

which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of

4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters

and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTSUS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000,

7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000,

7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000,

7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in

this review are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-

rectangular 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

beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review are flat-

rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium,

chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium

and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in

addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this review are

clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite

thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at

least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this review are certain

clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-

resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters

in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1994, through July 31,

1995.

Amendment of Final Results

On April 15, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the final results of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada (62

FR 18448-18468). The review covering corrosion-resistant steel includes

three manufacturers/exporters (Stelco, Inc.; Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco,

Inc., collectively ``Dofasco''; and Continuous Colour Coat, Ltd.

(``CCC'')) of the subject merchandise to the United States and the

period August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995.

Interested Party Comments

Dofasco

Comment 1: In a letter to the Department dated May 8, 1997,

petitioners alleged that the Department made a ministerial error by

failing to correct for certain missing freight charges on U.S. sales.

Specifically, when Dofasco sales were reported as direct to the U.S.

customer, with a certain term of sale, and for which Dofasco reported a

value in the computer field for prepaid freight, petitioners alleged

that Dofasco should have reported a value in the field for maximum

freight. Petitioners have proposed computer language to correct the

error, and have also argued that in those instances in which no maximum

freight value exists on the record for a particular destination, the

Department should assign the highest maximum freight value reported by

Dofasco for any destination as the freight rate for that sale.

In a letter to the Department dated May 20, 1997, respondent

disagrees with petitioners that the alleged error is a clerical error.

Instead, Dofasco notes that the alleged error was not brought to the

attention of the Department in a timely manner during the course of the

proceeding. Dofasco argues that, because the Department was unaware of

this alleged error, it could not have committed a ``clerical error'' by

not making petitioners' requested corrections.

Dofasco also disputes petitioners' proposal to assign the highest

maximum freight value reported by Dofasco for any destination as the

freight rate for certain sales, in the event that the Department

determines that the error is clerical in nature. Dofasco contends that

there is verified information on the record for each destination which

the Department could apply in those cases for which maximum freight was

incorrectly excluded from the database.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the error was

a ministerial error. As is clear from the Department's April 3, 1997

analysis memorandum for the final results of review, the Department

intended to account for those instances in which ``no maximum freight

expenses has been reported in any of the relevant computer fields. . .

.'' Thus, the Department's failure to apply maximum freight values for

the sales identified by petitioners was an unintentional error which is

appropriately considered to be ministerial.

Additionally, we agree with respondent that there is adequate

record evidence regarding the appropriate values to assign as maximum

freight values, with the exception of sales to one customer. Thus, with

the exception of sales to one customer, there is no cause for applying

the highest maximum freight values for any destination to the affected

sales. See the Department's Clerical Error Memorandum, dated June 11,

1997 (pp. 1-2) for a complete discussion of this issue.

CCC

Comment 2: CCC alleges that the Department incorrectly recalculated

its selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense ratio. CCC

states that the Department inadvertently included selling expenses for

CCC in calculating the SG&A expense ratio which were already included

in CCC's sales response. CCC asserts that the Department should

recalculate this ratio using the general and administrative expenses

figure provided by CCC in its February 14, 1996 supplemental response.

Petitioners state that if the Department agrees with CCC and

corrects its SG&A expense ratio, the Department should use petitioners'

submitted computer programming language to correct the SG&A expense.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent and petitioners.

Respondent is correct in stating that, when calculating CCC's SG&A

expense ratio, the Department inadvertently used an SG&A figure in the

numerator derived from CCC's November 22, 1995 response rather than

from CCC's February 14, 1996 supplemental response (in which CCC

provided an SG&A expense ratio which excluded selling expenses already

included in the sale response). In addition, we agree with petitioners'

proposed computer programming language to correct this error.

Therefore, for these amended final results, we have recalculated CCC's

SG&A expense ratio using the ratio provided by CCC in its February 14,

1996 supplemental response and have corrected our computer programming

language in the

[[Page 44107]]

margin calculation program. See Clerical Error Memorandum at page 3.

Comment 3: Petitioners argue that the Department introduced new

computer programming lines and values in the constructed value section

of its margin calculation program and that the new lines failed to

function properly because the new values were overwritten by old

values. Therefore, petitioners state that the Department should correct

this error in its programming.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Therefore, for

these amended final results we have corrected the constructed value

section of our margin calculation program. See Clerical Error

Memorandum at pp. 4-5.

Amended Final Results of Review

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

margins exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter Time period (percent)

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

Dofasco, Inc.............................. 8/1/94-7/31/95 0.59

CCC, Ltd.................................. 8/1/94-7/31/95 1,31

Stelco, Inc............................... 8/1/94-7/31/95 0.55

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

Pursuant to section 353.28 of the Department's regulations, parties

to the proceeding will have five days after the date of publication of

this notice to notify the Department of any new ministerial or clerical

errors, as well as five days thereafter to rebut any comments by

parties.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between sales to the United States and normal 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 certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products

from Canada, 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 rates for the reviewed companies will be

the rates for those firms as stated above (except that if the rate is

de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash deposit rate of zero

will be required for that company); (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 will be the ``all others'' rate made effective by the

final results of the 1993-1994 administrative review of these orders

(see Certain Corrision-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 13815 (March 28, 1996)).

These 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 amendment of final results of 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: August 12, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-21961 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M