Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea
Notice Of Final Results Of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews And Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order In Part.
On September 7, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders and intent not to revoke antidumping duty order in part on certain cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. These reviews cover three manufacturers/exporters. The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Reviews.”
Table of Contents Back to Top
- EFFECTIVE DATE:
- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
- Applicable Statute
- Scope of the Reviews
- Analysis of Comments Received
- Use of Facts Available
- Sales Below Cost in the Home Market
- Request for Revocation
- The POSCO Group
- Changes Since the Preliminary Results
- Final Results of the Reviews
- Cash Deposit Requirements
- Issues in Decision Memo
- Comments and Responses
- General Comments
- Company-Specific Comments
- Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (“Dongbu”)
- Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCO”), Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (“POCOS”), and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd. (“PSI”) (collectively, “POSCO Group”)
- Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Union”)
EFFECTIVE DATE: Back to Top
January 16, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Back to Top
Michael Panfeld (the POSCO Group), Marlene Hewitt (Dongbu) and (Union), or James Doyle, Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 202-482-0172 (Panfeld), 202-482-1385 (Hewitt), or 202-482-0159 (Doyle), fax 202-482-1388.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Back to Top
Applicable Statute Back to Top
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“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 Reviews Back to Top
The review of “certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products” covers 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, 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.
The review of “certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products” covers 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 HTS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 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, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 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 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 from this review 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 from this review 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 U.S. Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received Back to Top
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these administrative reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Joseph A.
Secretary for Import Administration to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 5, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Central Records Unit, in room B-099. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo, accessible in B-099 and on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Use of Facts Available Back to Top
In accordance with section 776 of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for certain portions of our analysis of the POSCO Group. For a discussion of our determination with respect to this matter, see comments 1 and 2 of the POSCO Group's company-specific section of the Decision Memo, accessible in B-099 and on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
Sales Below Cost in the Home Market Back to Top
The Department disregarded home market below-cost sales that failed the cost test for Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union in these final results of review.
Request for Revocation Back to Top
The POSCO Group
On August 31, 1999, POSCO submitted a request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the order covering cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from Korea with respect to its sales of this merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), this request was accompanied by certifications from POSCO that it had sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities, at not less than NV for a three-year period, including this review period, and would not sell at less than NV in the future. POSCO also agreed to immediate reinstatement in the relevant antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that, subsequent to revocation, POSCO sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
The Department conducted verifications of POSCO's responses for this period of review. In the two prior reviews of this order we determined that POSCO sold cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from Korea at not less than NV or at de minimis margins. We have determined that POSCO sold cold-rolled carbon steel flat products at not less than NV during the instant review period.
However, in determining whether a requesting party is entitled to a revocation inquiry, the Department must be able to determine that the company has continued to participate meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at issue. See Pure Magnesium from Canada, 63 FR 26147 (May 12, 1998). This practice has been codified by § 351.222(e) where a party requesting a revocation review is required to certify that it has sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities. See also§ 351.222(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, which state that, “before revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five) years, there were exports to the United States in commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or termination will apply.” (emphasis added); See also, the preamble of the Department's latest revision of the revocation regulation stating: “The threshold requirement for revocation continues to be that respondent not sell at less than normal value for at least three consecutive years and that, during those years, respondent exported subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities” (emphasis added). Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 FR 51236, 51237 (September 22, 1999).
For purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to determine that past margins reflect a company's normal commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are an abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to offset dumping. As the Department has previously stated, the commercial quantities requirement is a threshold matter. See e.g., Pure Magnesium from Canada, 64 FR 50489, 50490 (September 17, 1999). Thus, a party must have meaningfully participated in the marketplace in order to substantiate the need for further inquiry regarding whether continued imposition of the order is warranted.
Based on the current record, we find that POSCO did not sell merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities during the fourth administrative review (one of the three consecutive reviews cited by POSCO to support its request for revocation). During the POR covered by that review (August 1996 though July 1997), POSCO appeared to have made only one sale in the United States. Moreover, the total tonnage of this sale was small. See Preliminary Analysis Memo at Appendix II (August 30, 2000) (“Prelim. Analysis Memo”). By contrast, during the period covered by the antidumping investigation, which was only six months long (January 1992 through June 1992), POSCO made several thousand sales whose total quantity is 400 times greater than the quantity for the fourth administrative review period. In other words, POSCO's sales for the entire year covered by the fourth review period were only 0.27% of its sales volume during the six-months covered by the investigation. Similarly, during the current POR, POSCO sold approximately 400 times more subject merchandise in the United States than during the fourth administrative review.
Consequently, although POSCO received a de minimis margin during the fourth administrative review, this margin was not based on commercial quantities within the meaning of the revocation regulation. The number of sales and total sales volume is so small, both in absolute terms, and in comparison with the period of investigation and other review periods (see Prelim. Analysis Memo), that it does not provide any meaningful information of POSCO's normal commercial experience. Therefore, we find that POSCO did not meaningfully participate in the marketplace for purposes of qualifying for a revocation analysis and thus, because it has not sold the subject merchandise for three years in commercial quantities within the meaning of 351.222(e) does not qualify for a revocation analysis. For a full discussion, see Decision Memo at Comment 9.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results Back to Top
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. We have also corrected certain programming and clerical errors in our preliminary results, where applicable. Any alleged programming or clerical errors with which we do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo, accessible in B-099 and on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
Final Results of the Reviews Back to Top
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999:
|Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products:|
|The POSCO Group||0.12|
|Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products:|
|The POSCO Group||2.24|
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. With respect to both export price and constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period.
Cash Deposit Requirements Back to Top
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative reviews for all shipments of cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and therefore de minimis, the Department shall require no deposit of estimated antidumping duties; (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, 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) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 14.44 percent (for certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products) or 17.70 percent (for certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products). These rates are the “all others” rates from the LTFV investigations. See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: January 5, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix Back to Top
Issues in Decision Memo Back to Top
Comments and Responses
General Comments Back to Top
1. The Net Financial Expenses of POSCO, Dongbu and Union's U.S. Selling Affiliates Should Be Included As Part of POSCO, Dongbu and Union's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses.
2. Home Market “credit adjustment''.
Company-Specific Comments Back to Top
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (“Dongbu”)
3. Calculation and Allocation of U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses.
4. Total Entered Value and the Assessment Rate.
5. Weighting Factors for Quality in the Model Match.
Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCO”), Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (“POCOS”), and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd. (“PSI”) (collectively, “POSCO Group”)
6. Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses.
7. Treatment of PSI Rebates.
8. Ministerial Errors.
9. Eligibility for Revocation.
10. Treatment of Sales with Warranty Expenses.
11. Cost Variances.
Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Union”)
12. Value Added Tax (“VAT”).
13. Obsolete Sales in the Home Market.
14. Home Market Weights v. U.S. Weights.
[FR Doc. 01-1223 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P