Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

[A-570-849]

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of

China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Baranowski, Doreen Chen, or

Stephen Jacques, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th

[[Page 1822]]

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

(202) 482-1385, (202) 482-0413 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this investigation are hot-rolled iron and

non-alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products

rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150

mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm,

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 iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, 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 mm or more in thickness and of a

width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness.

Included as subject merchandise in this petition 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

bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently

classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (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, 7212.50.0000. Although the

HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Determination

On November 20, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the final determination of the less than fair value

(``LTFV'') investigation on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate

from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from the People's Republic of China (``Final Determination''), 62

FR 61964 (November 20, 1997). This investigation covered the following

PRC firms unless otherwise indicated:

(1) China Metallurgical Import & Export Liaoning Company

(``Liaoning''), an exporter of subject merchandise; Wuyang Iron and

Steel Company (``Wuyang''), which produced the merchandise sold by

Liaoning;

(2) Anshan Iron and Steel Complex (``AISCO''), a producer of

subject merchandise; Angang International Trade Corporation (``Anshan

International''), a wholly-owned AISCO subsidiary in China which

exported subject merchandise made by AISCO, and Sincerely Asia, Limited

(``SAL''), a partially-owned Hong Kong affiliate of AISCO involved in

sales of subject merchandise to the United States (collectively,

``Anshan'');

(3) Baoshan Iron & Steel Corporation (``Bao''), a producer of

subject merchandise; Bao Steel International Trade Corporation (``Bao

Steel ITC''), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bao responsible for selling

Bao material domestically and abroad; and Bao Steel Metals Trading

Corporation (``B.M. International''), a partially-owned U.S. subsidiary

involved in U.S. sales (collectively, ``Baoshan'');

(4) Wuhan Iron & Steel Company (``Wuhan''), a producer of subject

merchandise; International Economic and Trading Corporation (``IETC''),

a wholly-owned subsidiary responsible for exporting Wuhan merchandise;

Cheerwu Trader Ltd. (``Cheerwu''), a partially-owned Hong Kong

affiliate of Wuhan involved in sales of subject merchandise to the

United States (collectively, ``WISCO'');

(5) Shanghai Pudong Iron and Steel Company (``Shanghai Pudong''), a

producer and exporter of subject merchandise. During the investigation,

we also requested information from and conducted verification of

Shanghai No. 1, a non-exporting producer of subject merchandise which

Shanghai Pudong had earlier indicated shared a common trustee, Shanghai

Metallurgical Holding (Group) Co. (``Shanghai Metallurgical'').

We consider Liaoning, Anshan, Baoshan, WISCO and Shanghai Pudong to

be sellers of the subject merchandise during the period of

investigation (POI). The POI is April 1, 1996, through September 30,

1996.

On November 7, 1997, we received a submission from Anshan, Baoshan,

Shanghai Pudong, and WISCO (``respondents'') alleging clerical errors

with regard to the final determination in the LTFV investigation of

certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the PRC. On November 19,

1997, counsel for the petitioning companies, Geneva Steel Company and

Gulf States Steel Company (``petitioners'') submitted rebuttal

comments. The allegations and rebuttal comments of both parties were

filed in a timely fashion.

Respondents allege that the Department made eleven ministerial

errors in the final results. First, respondents contend that the

Department did not value silicon sand in the same manner for all

companies. In particular, the Department, they allege, valued silicon

sand based on ``stones, sand, and gravel'' from the UN Trade Commodity

Statistics for one company and based on pure silicon for another

company. To avoid asymmetrical treatment of respondents, they argue

that, in an amended final determination, the Department should value

silicon sand using the value for ``stones, sand, and gravel'' for both

companies using this input. Petitioners did not comment on this issue.

We agree with respondents that this error was clerical in nature

and have made the suggested correction for the amended final

determination.

Second, respondents additionally contend that the Department erred

in assigning consumption factor information field names for two inputs

for WISCO. Petitioners did not comment on this issue.

We agree with respondents that this error was clerical in nature

and have made the suggested correction for the amended final

determination. Because this issue involves business proprietary

information, please see the Concurrence Memorandum which corresponds to

this Amended Final Determination for more information.

Third, respondents allege that the Department incorrectly increased

a certain factor for each of WISCO's control numbers, citing a clerical

error in the spreadsheets for the iron-making stage of production.

Respondents state that there does not appear to be any error in the

calculation of this factor and the Department should use the original

factor. Petitioners maintain that the Department was clear that it was

correcting an error made by respondents, and thus the correction is not

a ministerial error.

We have determined that the correction at issue was not an error

but an appropriate correction made as a result of the Department's

identification of an error made by respondents in the spreadsheets.

Because this information involves business proprietary information,

please see the Concurrence Memorandum corresponding to this Amended

Final Determination for a further explanation of this issue.

Fourth, respondents argue that Department erred in assigning

adverse

[[Page 1823]]

facts available to certain of WISCO's inputs which were not reported

prior to verification. Instead, because the Department verified the

actual consumption information, they argue that the Department should

use the verified information as facts available. In addition,

respondents state that it is the Department's practice, under Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the PRC, 59 FR 22585, 22591 (May 2, 1994) and Porcelain-on-Steel

Cooking Ware from the PRC: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 32757, 32760 (June 17, 1997), to use

verified information in the final determination. Petitioners disagree

with respondents and state that this decision was clearly

methodological in nature.

We agree with petitioners that this decision was methodological in

nature; see WISCO's Calculation Memorandum dated October 24, 1997 at 3

and the Concurrence Memorandum dated October 24, 1997 (``Final

Determination Concurrence Memorandum'') at 25-26. As much of this

information is business proprietary, please see the Final Determination

Concurrence Memorandum that corresponds to this Amended Final

Determination for a more detailed explanation of this issue.

Fifth, respondents allege that the Department erroneously used

incorrect factor information for three of Anshan's factors. Petitioners

argue that the Department's treatment of these factors is the result of

a substantive methodological choice.

We have determined that we did use the correct factor information

for these factors in our margin calculation for Anshan. For a further

explanation of this issue, please see the Concurrence Memorandum which

corresponds to this Amended Final Determination.

Sixth, respondents contend that the Department erroneously used

incorrect factor information for one of Baoshan's factors. Petitioners

argue that the Department should reject this allegation since Baoshan

failed to state what the correct value should be for this input.

The Department has determined that it used the correct consumption

factor in its calculations. See Baoshan's Calculation Memorandum at 5

and in Baoshan's Margin Calculation program at line 654 and 662. See

the Concurrence Memorandum which corresponds to this Amended Final

Determination for more information.

Seventh, respondents argue that the Department incorrectly rejected

gas factors for both Baoshan and WISCO. For Baoshan, respondents assert

that the three justifications that the Department gives for not using

the reported factors are factually incorrect; they claim that Baoshan

submitted complete information within the deadline set for the

supplemental questionnaire response, and that this information was

verified by the Department. For WISCO, respondents contend that gas

information was submitted within the deadline set by the Department's

regulations, and thus rejection of this information constitutes a

``manifest legal error.'' Petitioners contend that the record shows

that the Department carefully considered Baoshan's and WISCO's claims

that they had submitted complete, accurate, and timely information on

factors of production for gases. Thus, the decision to reject

information for both Baoshan and WISCO was clearly methodological in

nature and involves the Department's rejection of information based on

the fact that respondents failed to provide complete and timely

information in a useable form.

We agree with petitioners that the Department's decision with

respect to the gas factors of both companies was clearly

methodological. See Final Determination at 61976-61977 and Final

Determination Concurrence Memorandum at 20-21 and 28-29. As much of

this information is business proprietary, please refer to the

Concurrence Memorandum that corresponds to this Amended Final

Determination for a more detailed explanation of this issue.

Eighth, respondents contend that the Department erred in applying

adverse facts available to surrogate values for certain inputs and

freight charges for WISCO and that the Department was, in fact, able to

verify the terms of sale for these market economy purchases.

Petitioners argue that the Department is clear that it was not able to

verify all the terms of sale, and thus these items could not be

considered ``verified.'' Because the Department is required to base its

final determination on verified information, petitioners claim that the

Department was correct in applying facts available to this input.

We have determined that this decision was clearly methodological in

nature. See Final Determination at 61997 and Final Determination

Concurrence Memorandum at 27. As much of this information is business

proprietary, please see the Concurrence Memorandum corresponding to

this Amended Final Determination for a complete explanation of this

issue.

Ninth, respondents argue that the Department erred, in two

respects, in its implementation of the decision of Sigma v. United

States, 117 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (``Sigma''). First, respondents

allege the Department misapplied the Sigma decision for all of WISCO's

inputs valued using CIF surrogate data by adding freight charges to

WISCO's inputs valued using CIF surrogate data when instead, the

Department should not have added any freight cost to these inputs since

WISCO is located on a port. Second, respondents allege that the

Department misapplied the Sigma decision when determining the ``highest

calculated freight rate'' as best information available for Anshan,

Baoshan and WISCO. Respondents argue that the Department erred by using

as the ``highest calculated freight rate'' the highest freight charge

for any input based on a weighted average freight calculation of all

suppliers of that input. Respondents maintain that based on the Sigma

decision, the highest calculated freight rate for inputs valued using

freight-inclusive surrogate values should be, instead, the highest of

freight charges calculated for any input based on either (1) the

shortest distance from the respondents to the closest port; or (2) the

shortest distance from the respondent to the closest supplier.

Petitioners argue that the Department's methodology conforms to the

Sigma decision. Petitioners argue that the Department's choice of

freight methodology is not a ministerial error, and the court in Sigma

did not dictate what the Department's freight methodology should be.

We agree that this decision was clearly methodological in nature.

See Final Determination at 61977. See the Concurrence Memorandum which

corresponds to this Amended Final Determination for a more detailed

explanation.

Tenth, respondents suggest that the Department committed a clerical

error by averaging the river freight rates from two sources in the

final determination. Petitioners state that the decision to average the

two rates is a deliberate methodological choice, based on the

Department's reservations about using either set of rates exclusively.

We agree that the decision was clearly methodological in nature.

See Final Determination at 61983-61984 and Final Determination

Concurrence Memorandum at 13-14.

Eleventh, respondents allege that the Department erred in its

calculation of overhead, SG&A and profit rates because the Department

based its calculations on only two Indian companies' annual reports

used instead of using six submitted annual reports for Indian companies

and the industry financial information from the Reserve

[[Page 1824]]

Bank of India Bulletin, all of which were also on the record.

Respondents argue that one of the two Indian companies whose reports

were used by the Department did not produce subject merchandise as of

1993. Therefore respondents argue that the Department was not justified

in rejecting the financial statements of the other four companies for

not being ``actual producers of subject merchandise in the surrogate

country.'' Petitioners argue that the Department's decision to use

financial data from only two Indian companies, SAIL and TATA, was

correct and consistent with Department's practice in other

investigations. Petitioners point out that the Department stated that

its decision to include TATA's annual reports in their calculations was

based on the statement that TATA is a significant producer of steel and

hot rolled coils and TATA may also produce products that the Department

considers to be plate, but which may be incorporated into TATA's annual

report in the category ``sheets.'' See Final Determination at 61970.

We agree with petitioners this decision was clearly methodological

in nature. See Final Determination at 61969-70. Although one sentence

in TATA's annual report indicates that TATA has not produced any

``plate'' since 1993, another section of the same annual report lists

plate as a product produced by TATA. In addition, Iron and Steel Works

of the World, 12th Edition lists both companies as producers of plate.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our review of the errors alleged and the correction

of the two ministerial errors described above, we have determined that

the following margins exist:

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

Margin

Weighted-average manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Anshan (AISCO/Anshan International/Sincerely Asia Ltd)..... 30.68

Baoshan (Bao/Baoshan International Trade Corp/Bao Steel

Metals Trading Corp)...................................... 30.51

Liaoning................................................... 17.33

Shanghai Pudong............................................ 38.16

WISCO (Wuhan/International Economic and Trading Corp/

Cheerwu Trader Ltd)....................................... 128.59

China-wide Rate............................................ 128.59

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

China-wide Rate

The China-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject

merchandise except for entries from exporters that are identified

individually above.

On October 24, 1997, the Department entered into an Agreement with

the Government of the PRC suspending this investigation. Pursuant to

Section 734(g) of the Act, petitioners, Liaoning and Wuyang requested

that this investigation be continued. Because the International Trade

Commission's determination was affirmative, the Agreement shall remain

in force but the Department shall not issue an Antidumping duty order

so long as (1) the Agreement remains in force, (2) the Agreement

continues to meet the requirements of subsection (d) and (l) of the

Act, and the parties to the Agreement carry out their obligations under

the Agreement in accordance with its terms. See Section 734(f)(3)(B) of

the Act.

This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the

Act.

Dated: December 22, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-609 Filed 1-9-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P