Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-805]

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium: 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 requests from petitioners and respondent, the

Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium (58 FR 44164). This review covers one

manufacturer and exporter of the subject merchandise. The period of

review (``POR'') is August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

We preliminarily determine that a de minimis dumping margin of 0.22

percent exists for Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi during the POR.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit

[[Page 48214]]

argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen McPhillips, Enforcement Group

III, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202) 482-0405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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).

Background

The Department published an antidumping duty order on Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44164). The

Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 1995/96

review period on August 12, 1996 (61 FR 41768). On August 20, 1996,

respondent Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, S.A. (``FAFER'') requested

that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium. On August

30, 1996, petitioners (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Company

(a Unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel industries, Inc. Geneva

Steel, Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, and

Lukens Steel Company) requested that the Department conduct an

administrative review of this order. We published a notice of

initiation of this review on September 17, 1996 See 61 FR 48882

(September 17, 1996).

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, or

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 7208.40.3030 7208.40.3060,

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030,

7211.14.0045, 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 beveled 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.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified

information provided by the respondent using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's

facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,

and selection of original documentation containing relevant

information. Our verification results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Transactions Reviewed

In accordance with section 751 of the Act, the Department

determined the constructed export price (CEP) and normal value (NV) of

each sale to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States

during the POR.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

plate products produced by the respondent, covered by the descriptions

in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, supra, and sold

in the home market during the POR, to be a foreign like product for

purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market

to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed

in Appendix V of the Department's September 19, 1996, antidumping

questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched each

foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by

the respondent and verified by the Department. Where sales were made in

the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. sales (e.g.,

theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities to the

same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the

respondent, before making our fair value comparisons.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of cut-to-length carbon steel plate by

the respondent to the United States were made at less than fair value,

we compared CEP to NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export Price''

and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with

section 77A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted average prices for NV

and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Constructed Export Price (CEP)

We have preliminarily determined the U.S. sales reported as EP

sales were CEP sales. Our determination is based on the evidence in the

record of this review establishing that U.S. sales were made through an

affiliated sales agent in which FAFER has a substantial equity interest

and which performed more than clerical functions for the producer/

exporter, as detailed in a proprietary memorandum to the file dated May

5, 1997.

Whenever sales are made prior to importation through an affiliated

sales agent in the United States, The Department typically determines

whether to characterize the sales as EP based upon the following

criteria: (1) Whether the merchandise was shipped directly to the

unaffiliated buyer, without being introduced into the affiliated

selling agent's inventory; (2) whether this procedure is the customary

sales channel between the parties; and (3) whether the affiliated

selling agent located in the United States acts only as a processor of

documentation and a

[[Page 48215]]

communication link between the foreign producer and the unrelated

buyer. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

18389, 18391 (April 15, 1997); Large Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled From Germany, 61

FR at 38174, 38175 (July 23, 1996); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 18547, 18551 (April 26, 1996). This test

has been approved by the CIT. Independent Radionic Workers of America

v. United States, Slip Op. 95-45 at 2-3 (CIT Mar. 15, 1995); PQ Corp.

v. United States, 652 F. Supp. at 733-35 (CIT 1987).

Applying the first two criteria to the present review, the

merchandise was shipped directly to the unaffiliated U.S. customer

without being introduced into the agent's inventory. The Department

verified that the terms of sale during the POR were CIF to a port of

entry near the customer's plant, and that the agent did not take

physical possession of the shipment. Moreover, we determined that this

procedure was the customary sales channel between the two parties.

Concerning the third criterion, however, the Department has

determined that the agent did act as more than a processor of sales

documents and a communications link between the unaffiliated U.S.

customer and FAFER, the producer in Belgium. Although FAFER sets

minimum list prices, its sales agent negotiates the sale with the

customer. See Verification Exhibit 10. The sales agent essentially

negotiates all sales in accordance with FAFER's minimum price list and

the sales take place in the United States, not in Belgium.

Because we have determined that the CEP methodology is appropriate,

we sought to deduct from CEP the allocated actual selling expenses

incurred by the agent, pursuant to section 772(d)(1) (C) and (D). In

addition, we adjusted CEP, where appropriate, for all value added in

the Untied States, including the proportional amount of profit

attributable to the value added, pursuant to section 772(d)(2) and

772(d)(3) of the Act. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from South Africa, 60 FR 22550, 22552-53

(1995). In this case, however, respondent did not report indirect

selling expenses incurred in either the U.S. or the home market.

Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the Department

has deducted from CEP, as the ``facts otherwise available,'' the

commission that FAFER paid its agent in connection with the U.S. sales.

We also rejected as unverifiable the interest rate reported by

FAFER to calculate imputed credit expenses in the U.S. market, in

accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In its place, as the

facts available, we used the average prime rate on short-term business

loans in 1996, as reported by the Federal Reserve System.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product

sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper

comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United

States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at

which the foreign like product was first sold to an unaffiliated

customer for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial

quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

We have preliminarily determined that sales of subject merchandise

to a Belgian university research center were outside the ordinary

course of trade. The relevant statutory provision defines the term

``ordinary course of trade'' as ``the conditions and practices which,

for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the subject

merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with

respect to merchandise of the same class or kind.'' The statute defines

certain sales below cost of production and sales to affiliated parties

that are not made at arm's length as sales outside the ordinary course

of trade. See section 771(15) of the Act. However, the statute does not

specify any criteria that the Department should use in determining

appropriate ``conditions and practices.''

The purpose of the ordinary course of trade provision is to prevent

dumping margins from being based on sales which are not representative

of the home market. See Monsanto Co. v. United States, 698 F. Supp.

275, 278 (CIT 1988). Commerce examines the totality of the facts in

each case to determine if sales are being made for ``unusual reasons''

or under ``unusual circumstances.'' Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR

28551, 28552 (1993).

In its Section B response of November 18, 1996, FAFER asked the

Department to consider the sales to the university ``separately, as

they cannot be deemed part of traditional mercantile operation.'' In

making its determination to consider these sales as outside the

ordinary course of trade, the Department took into account all facts,

including the small number of these sales, the circumstance that these

sales were made directly by FAFER, rather than by its sales agent in

the home market, the fact that the models were unique during the POR,

the fact that the merchandise was intended to be used for research at a

welding institute and not for commercial purposes, and the fact that

these were unprofitable. During the POR, the overwhelming majority of

FAFER's home market sales was made through its affiliated sales agent

to industrial end-users.

We have preliminarily determined that one home market customer, a

steel service center to which FAFER sells directly, is an affiliated

party. This finding is based on common control by the Boel family group

within the meaning of section 771(33)(F), as detailed in a proprietary

analysis memorandum to the file dated, May 5, 1997.

In regard to affiliated party transactions, the SAA states (quoting

the statute):

The traditional focus on control through stock ownership fails

to address adequately modern business arrangements, which often find

one firm ``operationally in a position to exercise restraint or

direction'' over another even in the absence of an equity

relationship. A company may be in a position to exercise restraint

or direction, for example, through corporate or family groupings,

franchises or joint venture agreements, debt financing, or close

supplier relationships in which the supplier or buyer becomes

reliant upon the other. SAA at 168 (emphasis added).

In FAFER's response to the Department's original questionnaire

FAFER reported all of its customers as unaffiliated. However,

information on corporate structure and possible affiliations revealed

relationships that led us to examine the possibility that the Boel

family exercises control over many business entities, including FAFER

and one of its customers, a steel service center. In an effort to

determine the nature and extent of the Boel family's control over its

numerous affiliations, the Department requested FAFER to supply

specific information on the shareholders of its various business

associations. To date, FAFER has failed to provide the requested

information on the Boel family's shareholdings.

Since this information is critical to our analysis, we have

preliminarily determined that the Boel family controls both FAFER and

the steel service center. It controls FAFER through the Board of

[[Page 48216]]

Directors (three out of five Directors are members of the Boel family)

and, as facts otherwise available, controlling equity interests. In

addition, FAFER holds shares in a private investment holding company

whose Chairman is a member of the Boel family. This investment holding

company owns a significant percentage of the shares of one of FAFER's

customers, the steel service center. Because FAFER did not provide

complete information on its shareholders and the shareholders of

several holding companies, as requested by the Department, we

preliminarily determine that the Boel family controls FAFER's customer

through its board members and, as facts available, controlling equity

interests.

Consequently, we ran our arm's length test and found that sales to

the affiliated customer were not made at arm's length prices, i.e., at

prices comparable to prices at which the respondent sold identical

merchandise to unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we did not use these

sales in our calculations of the margin.

Based on the Department's previous determination to disregard sales

made at below the cost of production (COP) in the original LTFV

investigation, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that

sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below

the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by FAFER in the home market.

We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market

with the model-specific cost of production figure for the POR. In

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP

based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in

producing the foreign like product plus selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in condition ready for shipment. Based

on our verification of the cost responses submitted by FAFER, we

adjusted the company's reported COP to reflect certain adjustments to

the cost of manufacturing and general and administrative expenses.

Specifically, we eliminated the double counting of scrap revenue,

adjusted the raw material inputs for certain products to the actual

quantities used, added an amount for major repair provisions to fixed

overhead, recalculated G&A as a percentage of COM, and corrected

several minor data errors.

After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of

subject merchandise were made at prices below COP and, if so, whether

the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities. Because each individual price was compared

against the average COP during the extended window period, any sales

that were below cost were also not at prices which permitted cost

recovery within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific

COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable movement

charges.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less

than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product

because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities

within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of

respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices

less than the weighted-average COPs for the extended window period, we

disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made within an

extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with

sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and were at prices which

would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of

time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where we

disregarded all contemporaneous sales of a specific product, we

calculated NV based on CV.

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,

interest expenses, and profit. In accordance with sections

773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the

weighted-average home-market selling expenses. Based on our

verification of the cost response submitted by FAFER, we adjusted the

reported CV to reflect adjustments to COM and G&A, as described in the

COP section.

Differences in Levels of Trade

To the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales

at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When

there are no sales at the same level of trade we compare U.S. sales to

home market (or, if appropriate, third country) sales at a different

level of trade.

For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for level of trade is

the sale from the exporter to the importer. While the starting price

for CEP is that of a subsequent resale to an unaffiliated buyer, the

construction of the EP results in a price that would have been charged

if the importer had not been affiliated. We calculate the CEP by

removing from the first resale to an independent U.S. customer the

expenses under section 772(d) and the profit associated with these

expenses. These expenses represent activities undertaken by, or on

behalf of, the affiliated importer. Because the expenses deducted under

section 772(d) represent selling activities in the United States, the

deduction of these expenses normally yields a different level of trade

for the CEP than for the later resale which is used for the starting

price. Movement charges, duties and taxes deducted under 772(c) do not

represent activities of the affiliated importer, and we do not remove

them to obtain the level of trade. The NV level of trade is that of the

starting price of sales in the home market. When NV is based on

constructed value, the level of trade is that of the sales from which

we derive SG&A and profit.

To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of

trade than U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales are at

different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. The

marketing process in both markets begins with goods being sold by the

producer and extends to the sale to the final user, regardless of

whether the final user is an individual consumer or an industrial user.

The chain of distribution between the producer and final user may have

many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur somewhere along

this chain. In the United States the respondent's sales are generally

to an importer, whether independent or affiliated. We review and

compare the distribution systems in the home market and U.S. export

markets, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent

and level of selling expenses for each claimed level of trade. Customer

categories such as distributor, original equipment manufacturer (OEM),

or wholesaler are commonly used by respondents to describe levels of

trade but, without substantiation, are insufficient to establish that a

claimed level of trade is valid. An analysis of selling functions

substantiates or invalidates claimed levels of trade. If the claimed

levels are different, the selling functions performed in selling to

those levels should also be different.

[[Page 48217]]

Conversely, if levels of trade are nominally the same, the selling

functions performed should also be the same. Different levels of trade

necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences

in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone sufficient

to establish a difference in the level of trade. Differences in levels

of trade are characterized by purchasers at different places in the

chain of distribution and sellers performing qualitatively or

quantitatively different functions in selling to them.

When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different

level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference

in level of trade affects price comparability. Any effect on price

comparability is determined by examining sales at different levels of

trade in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be

manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home

market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of

trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we

calculate the difference in the average of the net prices of the same

models sold at different levels of trade. We use the average difference

in net prices to adjust the NV when NV is based on a level of trade

different from that of the export sale. If there is a pattern of no

price differences, then the difference in level of trade does not have

a price effect, and no adjustment in necessary.

The statute also provides for an adjustment to NV when NV is based

on a level of trade different from that of the CEP, provided the NV

level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level, and we are

unable to determine whether there is or is not a price effect of

different levels of trade in the home market. See section 773(a)(7)(B).

This latter situation can occur where there is no home market level of

trade equivalent to the U.S. sales level, or where there is an

equivalent home market level, but the data are insufficient to support

a conclusion on price effect. This adjustment, the CEP offset, is the

lower of the two following:

The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale

The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting

price used to calculate CEP.

The CEP offset is not automatic each time export price is

constructed. We only make a CEP offset when the level of trade of the

home market sale is more advanced than the level of trade of the CEP

and there is not an appropriate basis for determining whether the

different levels of trade affect price comparability.

In our supplemental questionnaire dated October 28, 1996, we asked

FAFER to respond to the original questionnaire's inquiry on level of

trade. In its November 5, 1996, response, FAFER stated that its selling

activities in the U.S. and home markets did not warrant an adjustment

related to level of trade. We found no indication at verification that

FAFER sells at different levels of trade. Therefore, we made no

adjustment.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the Preliminary results, we made currency

conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates

of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in

order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily

rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's

practice, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g.,

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918--March 6,

1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the

past 40 business days.

Duty Absorption

On October 7, 1996, the petitioners requested, pursuant to section

751(a)(4) of the Act, that the Department determine whether antidumping

duties had been absorbed by respondent during the POR. Section

751(a)(4) provides for the Department, if requested, to determine,

during an administrative review initiated two years or four years after

publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed

by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if the subject

merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer who is

affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter. Section 751(a)(4)

was added to the Act by the URAA. The Department's interim regulations

do not address this provision of the Act.

For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the

Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section

351.213(j)(2) of the Department's new antidumping regulations provides

that the Department will make a duty-absorption determination, if

requested, in any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. See

19 CFR Sec. 351.213(j)(2), 62 FR 27394 (May 19, 1997). While the new

regulations are not binding on the Department in the instant reviews,

which were initiated under the interim regulations, they nevertheless

serve as a statement of departmental policy. Because the order on cut-

to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium has been in effect since

1993, it is a transition order in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C)

of the Act. Since this review was initiated in 1996 and a request for a

duty-absorption inquiry was made, the Department will undertake a duty-

absorption inquiry as part of this administrative review.

The Act provides for a determination on duty absorption if the

subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated

importer. In this case, the reviewed firm sold through an importer that

is ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that there is a dumping

margin on one hundred percent of FAFER's sales. In addition, we cannot

conclude from the record that the unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States will pay the ultimate assessed duty. Therefore, under these

circumstances, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been

absorbed by FAFER on one hundred percent of its U.S. sales. If

interested parties wish to submit evidence that the unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States will pay any ultimately assessed duty

charged to affiliated importers, they must do so no later than 15 days

after publication of these preliminary results. This information would

be considered by the Department if we determine in our final results

that there are dumping margins on certain U.S. sales.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margin exists:

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

Period of Margin

Manufacturer/exporter review (percent)

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

Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi............. 8/1/95-7/31/96 0.22

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

[[Page 48218]]

Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of publication of this notice and any interested party 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 working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written

comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a

notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its

analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not

later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this administrative review for all

shipments of cut-to-length carbon steel plate form Belgium entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by

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

company will be the rate established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for exporters not covered in this review,

but covered in the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate published from the LTFV

investigation; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original LTFV, 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 6.84 percent, the

``all others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These

deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain if effect until

publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

Sec. 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-24278 Filed 9-12-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M