Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-421-804]

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands;

Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 18, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the final results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from

the Netherlands (63 FR 13204). The period of review is August 1, 1995

through July 31, 1996. On March 18, 1998, the sole respondent,

Hoogovens Staal BV, and its U.S. subsidiary, Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc.

(collectively, Hoogovens) filed a timely request that the Department

correct certain clerical errors in these final results. On March 25,

1998, the 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) filed a response claiming that none of the errors

alleged by Hoogovens appeared to be ministerial in nature, inasmuch as

the Department followed the allocation methodology described in the

final analysis memorandum. We are publishing this amendment to the

final results of review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Linda Ludwig, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International

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

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

0405 or (202) 482-3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 19 CFR Part 353

(1997).

Scope of this Review

The products covered by this review include cold-rolled (cold-

reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled products, of rectangular shape,

neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers

7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030,

7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550,

7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000,

7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000,

7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085,

7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015,

7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000,

7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060,

and 7217.90.5090. Included in this review 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 from this review is certain

shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil that

is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 0.002 percent,

is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in width, and

has an ultra flat, isotropic surface. These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

The POR is August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. This review

covers entries of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat

[[Page 20575]]

products from the Netherlands by Hoogovens Staal B.V. (Hoogovens).

Analysis of Comments Received

Hoogovens argues that the Department inadvertently used the wrong

denominator to arrive at the per ton factor in reclassifying Hoogovens'

warranty expenses as direct, rather than indirect expenses. The

Department divided the total warranty expenses incurred during the

period of March 1994-July 1996 (``window period'') by the total sales

entered into the United States during the period of review of August

1995-July 1996, instead of the total shipments during the window

period. According to Hoogovens, this resulted in a considerable

overstatement of U.S. warranty expenses. For the home market warranty

expenses, the Department used as the denominator the home market sales

during the window period rather than the shipments, resulting in a

slight overstatement of per ton expenses. Finally, after deducting

warranty expenses from the reported home market indirect selling

expenses (ISE), the Department allocated the remaining ISE on the basis

of the quantity sold. Hoogovens alleges that the Department's practice

is to require that ISE be reported as a percentage of sales value

rather than on the basis of quantity.

Petitioners argue that the Department allocated the expenses

exactly as described in its analysis memorandum. Moreover, petitioners

point out, the Department found in its final results that Hoogovens had

improperly failed to report its warranty expenses as direct selling

expenses based on the tonnages sold. While petitioners argued in their

case brief that the Department should deny any adjustment for the

reported expense in the home market, in petitioners' view the

Department's decision to allocate these expenses based on the tonnages

in Hoogovens' reported data is consistent with the Department's stated

intention and cannot be said to be a ministerial error. Finally,

petitioners argue that Hoogovens' questioning of the Department's

allocation of ISE raises a policy issue, not a ministerial error.

We agree in part with Hoogovens. For these amended final results we

have corrected the denominators to correspond to the same period as the

numerators. We disagree with the petitioners' claim that these were not

ministerial errors. We did not intend to calculate a ratio in which the

denominator and numerator were based on data covering different

periods. Accordingly, we find this error to be ministerial within the

meaning of 19 CFR 353.28(d).

In regard to the allocation of ISE, we agree with petitioners that

this raises a methodological issue, not a ministerial error. We believe

that the Department's allocation based on quantity rather than value is

reasonable, and have adjusted the denominator to correspond to the

quantities shipped in the home market during the extended window

period.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of ministerial errors, we have

determined the margin to be:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)

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

Hoogovens Staal B.V....................... 8/1/95-7/31/96 4.32

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

Further, as a result of these corrections, we find that there are

dumping margins on 84.3 percent of Hoogovens' U.S. sales by quantity.

In the absence of any information on the record that the unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States will pay the ultimately assessed

duties, the Department finds that respondent has absorbed antidumping

duties on 84.3 percent of its U.S. sales.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment

purposes, the duty assessment rate will be a specific amount per metric

ton. 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 cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the

Netherlands 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 that firm as stated above; (2) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this 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 (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer

is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 19.32

percent. This is the ``all others'' rate from the amended final

determination in the LTFV investigation. See Amended Final

Determination Pursuant to CIT Decision: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 61 FR 47871. 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 section 353.26 of the Department's regulations 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.

These amended final results of 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 353.28(c).

Dated: April 17, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-11000 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P