Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-822, A-122-823]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada: Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482-3818.

Scope of This Review

The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two

separate ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: (1) Certain corrosion-

resistant steel and (2) certain cut-to-length plate.

The first class or kind, certain corrosion-resistant steel,

includes 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

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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7210.31.0000,

7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000,

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,

7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 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, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000,

7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000,

7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and

7217.39.5000. Included are 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 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 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 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.

These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

The second class or kind, certain cut-to-length plate, includes

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, of 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 HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000,

7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000,

7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000,

7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are 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 is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1995, through July 31,

1996.

Amendment of Final Results

On March 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')

published the final results of administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products and certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Canada (63

FR 12725) (``Final Results''). These reviews cover five manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States during the

period August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. We received comments on

the final results from Algoma, Inc. (``Algoma''), Stelco Inc.

(``Stelco''), and from the petitioners.

[[Page 27259]]

Interested Party Comments

Algoma

Comment 1: Algoma alleges that the Department made a ministerial

error in its adjustment of certain U.S. commission amounts.

Specifically, Algoma contends that the Department should not have

applied a ``facts available'' methodology for certain U.S. commissions

calculated on a semi-annual basis for several reasons. First, Algoma

argues that this methodology was accepted in prior segments of this

proceeding. Second, Algoma argues that it received no opportunity from

the Department to clarify the record or change its existing reporting

methodology.

Petitioners did not comment on this issue.

Department's Position: We disagree with Algoma that the Department

made a ministerial error in its calculation of certain U.S. commission

amounts. The purpose of this amended final is solely to correct

ministerial errors, and not to re-consider other decisions. A

ministerial error is defined in 19 C.F.R. section 353.28(d) as ``an

error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical

error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and

any other type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers

ministerial.'' (Designated in the Department's new regulations as 19

C.F.R. 351.224(f).) As the Department noted in Comment 4 of the Final

Results notice, while ``it was appropriate for Algoma to report

commissions on a customer-specific basis over a period of

time....(however), it is also clear that commissions were paid by

Algoma based on monthly shipments, and not semi-annually. Therefore,

Algoma should have reported its U.S. commissions on a monthly basis

instead of a semi-annual basis.'' See Final Results at 12728. Algoma

does not dispute the mathematical application of the Department's

decision but instead has expressed its disagreement with the

Department's decision in this instance. Therefore, we reject Algoma's

allegation because it does not address an alleged error which is

ministerial in nature.

Stelco

Comment 2: In a letter to the Department dated March 27, 1998,

Stelco alleges that the Department failed to apply the Baycoat, Z-Line,

and iron ore supplier adjustment to home market VCOMs (variable cost of

manufacture) in its model-match computer program for corrosion-

resistant steel. Stelco argues that based on the Department's statement

in the footnote of the final analysis memorandum (See Stelco Final

Results Analysis Memorandum for Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at

page 3), the Department clearly intended to apply these supplier

adjustments to TCOM and VCOM.

Petitioners did not comment on this issue.

Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department

erroneously compared adjusted U.S. VCOMS to unadjusted home market

VCOMS. To ensure accurate product comparisons, we have recalculated

VCOMH in the model match program for corrosion-resistant steel so that

adjusted figures are used on both sides of the comparison. See Analysis

of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-Resistant Products at page

1.

Comment 3: Stelco argues that in its final margin calculation

program for corrosion-resistant products, the Department incorrectly

calculated GNACV and INTEXCV using the variable TOTCOM rather than the

revised variable TCOM in its computer programs for corrosion-resistant

steel.

Petitioners allege that the Department inadvertently used the

variable TOTCOM in its model match program for plate rather than the

correct term TCOM.

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

have corrected the final margin program for corrosion-resistant steel

to calculate GNACV and INTEXCV using the revised variable TCOM. See Id.

at page 2. Additionally, we have corrected the model match program for

plate to use the variable TCOM. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial

Errors for Plate at page 2.

Comment 4: Stelco alleges that, for corrosion-resistant steel, the

Department applied cost adjustments intended for only those orders

processed by Baycoat to orders which had not been serviced by Baycoat.

Stelco argues that the computer programming language used by the

Department to apply these Baycoat adjustments to unpainted, code 4

control numbers resulted in non-Baycoat serviced merchandise being

incorrectly adjusted for Baycoat services.

Petitioners did not comment on this issue.

Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department

erroneously applied the Baycoat adjustment to sales of class 4

merchandise that were not serviced by Baycoat. The Department has

amended the programming language in its model match and margin

calculation programs for corrosion-resistant steel to remedy this

error. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-

Resistant Steel Products at page 2.

Comment 5: Stelco alleges that for corrosion-resistant steel the

Department inappropriately recalculated the credit expense for all U.S.

sales using a U.S. short-term borrowing rate though the Canadian dollar

was the currency of certain U.S. sales. Similarly, Stelco alleges that

the Department overlooked the fact that certain home market sales were

incurred in U.S. dollars. Stelco argues that the Department should

recalculate the credit expense for those home market sales for which

the currency of the transaction was U.S. dollars using the U.S. short-

term borrowing rate.

Petitioners did not comment on this issue.

Department's Position: We agree with Stelco. The Department's

policy bulletin 98.2 states that the short term interest rate should be

tied to the currency in which the sales are denominated. We have

inserted language into the final programs for corrosion-resistant steel

which ties the short-term interest rate to the currency in which the

sale is denominated. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products at pages 3 and 4.

Comment 6: Stelco argues that the Department's use of the date of

the final results as the pay date for those U.S. sales that had not yet

been paid by the time of Stelco's submission was a ministerial error.

Stelco maintains that it is generally the Department's policy to

substitute the date of the last submission or the date on which the

respondent had an opportunity to provide updated information as the pay

date.

Petitioners argue that the Department's use of the date of the

final results as the surrogate pay date does not constitute a

ministerial error. Citing to the Department's final analysis

memorandum, petitioners note that the Department stated that it ``used

the date of the final determination of March 9, 1998 as the pay date''

for those sales for which Stelco had not yet been paid. See Stelco

Final Results Analysis Memorandum for Corrosion-Resistant Steel

Products at page 16. Petitioners argue that the Department must reject

Stelco's allegation of ministerial error as the Department clearly

intended to use the date of the final results in its credit

calculation.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. The error Stelco

alleges does not meet the Department's criteria of a ministerial error

within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. section 353.28(d) as cited in the

recommendation to Comment 1

[[Page 27260]]

above. Stelco does not dispute the mathematical application of the

Department's decision but instead has expressed its disagreement with

the Department's decision in this instance. The Department explicitly

intended to use the date of the final results in its credit

calculation. Therefore, we reject Stelco's allegation of ministerial

error.

Comment 7: Petitioners allege that the Department inadvertently

used an incorrect dataset for the concordance data in the margin

calculation program for plate. The model match program creates a

concordance dataset named CONCORD; however, the margin calculation

program uses the term CONCORDP. Petitioners argue that the Department

should use the dataset name CONCORD in its margin calculation program.

Stelco did not comment on this issue.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Because this

error is typographical in nature, it falls within the Department's

definition of ministerial error. We have corrected the margin

calculation program for plate to use the proper concordance dataset.

See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 2.

Comment 8: Petitioners allege that the Department failed to exclude

general sales tax (``GST'') and provincial sales tax (``PST'') from

home market credit expenses in its final programs for both corrosion-

resistant steel and plate. They note that the Department stated in its

Final Results notice that it ``corrected Stelco's home market credit

expenses to exclude both GST and PST'' (see Final Results at 12742).

Stelco did not comment on this issue.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. We have amended

the final programs for both corrosion-resistant steel and plate to

exclude GST and PST from the calculation of home market credit

expenses. See Analysis of Alleged Ministerial Errors for Corrosion-

Resistant Steel Products at pages 3 and 4. See also Analysis of Alleged

Ministerial Errors for Plate at page 3.

Amended Final Results of Review

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

margins exist:

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

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

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

Corrosion--Resistant Steel:

Dofasco............................. 0.72.

CCC................................. 0.54.

Stelco.............................. 1.55.

Cut-to-Length Plate:

Algoma.............................. 0.44 (de minimis).

MRM................................. 0.00.

Stelco.............................. 0.35 (de minimis).

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

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 the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

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

provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates for those firms as

stated above, except if the rate is less than .5 percent and therefore

de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed

or 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 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)

if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this

review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate made

effective by the final results of the 1993-1994 administrative review

of these orders (see Certain Corrosion-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 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: May 11, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-13138 Filed 5-15-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P