Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or David J.

Goldberger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

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

Washington, DC 20230; telephone, (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4136,

respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are

to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of porcelain-on-steel

cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained

electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of

steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This

merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware

currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not

subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope

of this proceeding is dispositive.

Amendment to Final Results

In accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, on May 18, 1999, the

Department published the final results of the 1996-1997 eleventh

administrative review on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, in

which we determined that sales of porcelain-on-steel cookware from

Mexico were made at less than normal value (64 FR 26934). On May 17,

1999, we received allegations, timely filed pursuant to 19 CFR

351.224(c)(2), from the petitioner Columbian Home Products, LLC that

the Department made two ministerial errors in its final results. We did

not receive ministerial error allegations from Cinsa, S.A. de C.V.

(Cinsa) or Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA).

However, on May 20, 1999, Cinsa and ENASA alleged that the petitioner's

ministerial error allegations exceeded the limited scope of the

corrections authorized by the Department's regulations. Respondents

also claim that the Department is barred from making the suggested

corrections on the grounds that an appeal for review by a NAFTA panel

has now been docketed with respect to this case. We disagree with

respondents. The definition of a ministerial error provides not only

for correction of errors in arithmetic but also for ``any other similar

type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers

ministerial.'' 19 CFR 351.224(f). Furthermore, the Department does not

lose jurisdiction for the purpose of correcting clerical errors with

the filing of a Request for Panel Review.

After analyzing petitioner's submission, we have determined, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that two ministerial errors were made

in our final margin calculations for Cinsa and ENASA. Specifically, we

failed to state our final determination of duty absorption, including

the percentage of U.S. sales on which duty absorption occurred. Because

the Department did not intend to avoid finalizing its statutorily-

required determination with respect to duty absorption, failure to

state our final determination in the Federal Register constitutes a

[[Page 29263]]

ministerial error within the meaning of the Department's regulations.

We also inadvertently failed to deduct inventory carrying costs

incurred in the United States from the total selling expenses used in

the CEP profit calculation. For a detailed discussion of the

ministerial error allegations and the Department's analysis, see the

Memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team, dated May 21, 1999.

Duty Absorption

On February 18, 1998, petitioner requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by Cinsa and

ENASA during the period of review (POR), pursuant to section 751(a)(4)

of the Act. Section 751(a)(4) provides that the Department, if

requested, will 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 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations

provides that, for transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C)

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

Department will make a duty absorption determination upon request in

administrative reviews initiated in 1996 and 1998. See Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27394 (May 19,

1997). This approach ensures that interested parties will have the

opportunity to request a duty absorption determination prior to sunset

reviews for entries for which the second and fourth years following an

order have already passed. Because the order on porcelain-on-steel

cookware from Mexico has been in effect since 1986, this is a

transition order within the meaning of section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.

Thus, as there has been a request for an absorption determination in

this review (initiated in 1998), we are making a duty-absorption

determination.

The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption with

respect to subject merchandise that is sold in the United States

through an affiliated importer. In this case, both Cinsa and ENASA made

all of their sales of subject merchandise to the United States through

an importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 751(a)(4)

of the Act. With respect to Cinsa, we have determined that there is a

dumping margin on 68.03 percent of its U.S. sales during the POR. For

ENASA, we have determined that there is a dumping margin on 98.52

percent of its U.S. sales during the POR. In addition, for Cinsa's and

ENASA's sales of subject merchandise, we cannot conclude from the

record that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay

the ultimately assessed duty. Under these circumstances, therefore, we

find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Cinsa on 68.03

percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise and by ENASA on 98.52

percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise.

CEP Profit Calculation

We also failed to deduct inventory carrying costs incurred in the

United States from the total selling expenses used in the calculation

of CEP profit. The Department's policy is to exclude all imputed

expenses (i.e., credit expenses and inventory carrying costs) from the

calculation of total actual profit for CEP sales of subject merchandise

and sales of the foreign like product. See Policy Bulletin 97.1:

Calculation of Profit for Constructed Export Price Transactions.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.224(e), we are amending the final results of the 1996-1997

antidumping duty administrative review on porcelain-on-steel cookware

from Mexico.

The revised weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

Original Revised

final final

Manufacturer/ exporter margin margin

percentage percentage

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

Cinsa......................................... 25.34 25.42

ENASA......................................... 65.23 65.28

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

This amended 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)),

section 777(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)), and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Dated: May 25, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-13847 Filed 5-28-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P