Calcium Aluminate Flux From France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[Docket No. A-427-812]

Calcium Aluminate Flux From France; 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.

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

SUMMARY: On August 2, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on calcium aluminate flux from France (CA

flux) (61 FR 40396). The review covers one manufacturer/exporter,

Lafarge Aluminate Flux, Inc. (Lafarge), for the period June 15, 1994,

through May 31, 1995.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. On September 3, 1996, we received a case brief

from the sole respondent, Lafarge. Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made changes, primarily clerical in nature,

to these final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips or Linda Ludwig, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3019 or 482-3833,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 2, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register

(61 FR 40396) the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on

calcium aluminate flux from France (59 FR 30337). The Department has

now completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

We received a case brief from the sole respondent, Lafarge, on

September 3, 1996. The petitioners did not file a case brief.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the Tariff Act are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff 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).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of CA Flux, other than

white, high purity CA flux. This product contains by weight more than

32 percent but less than 65 percent alumina and more than one percent

each of iron and silica.

CA flux is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2523.10.000. The HTSUS

is provided for convenience and U.S. Customs' purposes only. The

written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

This review covers the period June 15, 1994 through May 31, 1995.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Lafarge states that the Department in its computer

program failed to convert two home market variables from metric tons to

short tons to ensure accurate comparisons to the U.S. sales amounts in

short tons. In addition, two variables expressed as amounts per short

ton were incorrectly multiplied by the quantity expressed in metric

tons.

Department's Position: As stated in our calculation memorandum,

dated August 16, 1996, we intended to convert all home market sales

variables from metric tons to short tons and have done so for these

final results.

Comment 2: Lafarge contends that we used an incorrect variable when

calculating total movement expenses.

[[Page 5201]]

Department's Position: We agree with Lafarge and have made the

necessary changes in the computer program.

Comment 3: Lafarge maintains that the Department erred in its

calculation of profit in the computer program when it failed to use the

information submitted by Lafarge on the total cost of manufacturing

(COM). In addition, Lafarge points out that the computer program does

not reflect the Department's intent, as stated in its notice of

preliminary results, to deduct the cost of goods sold, along with

selling and movement expenses, from total revenue in its calculation of

profit.

Department's Position: We did use the COM information as submitted

by Lafarge in short tons, not metric tons. To calculate profit for

these final results we converted the total home market costs to total

cost in short tons before adding it to the U.S. total cost which

Lafarge reported in short tons.

We agree with Lafarge that the cost of goods sold, along with

selling and movement expenses, should be deducted from total revenue to

calculate constructed export price profit. We have made this correction

in our final results.

Comment 4: Lafarge states that the Department should continue to

remove two zero quantity U.S. sales from the data base because these

observations represent billing corrections and not actual sales.

Department's Position: We agree with Lafarge and have not used

these two zero quantity U.S. sales in these final results.

Final Results of Review

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

weighted-average margin exists:

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

Period of Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter review (percent)

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

Lafarge Fondu Inter'l Inc................... 06/15/94-05/

31/95 31.04

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

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 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 calcium aluminate flux from France within the scope of the

order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff

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 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

of 37.93 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation, 59 FR 5994, (February 9, 1994) 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 of 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. Timely

written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

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

353.22.

Dated: January 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-2714 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]1q01

BILLING CODE 3510-25-M