Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On November 23, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made changes for the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

March 21, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lyn Johnson or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5287 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 23, 2007, the Department published Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 65701 (November 23, 2007) (Preliminary Results), in the Federal Register. The administrative review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.

We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On December 26, 2007, we received a case brief from Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), producer and importer of the subject merchandise. On January 3, 2008, we received a rebuttal brief from Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a domestic producer and interested party. No hearing was requested.

We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) 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 nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular 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. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 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, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.

Rescission of Administrative Review in Part

In the Preliminary Results, we explained that DSEC Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSEC), reported that it had no shipments of subject merchandise subject to this review and that our review of information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) supported DSEC's claim. Additionally, we stated that we would rescind the review with respect to DSEC if we continued to find that DSEC did not have any shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 65702. Because we have not received any information indicating that DSEC had any shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to DSEC.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

We determined in the Preliminary Results that, because TC Steel failed to provide any information to the Department within the meaning of section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we must rely entirely on facts available. We determined further that, because TC Steel failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, in accordance with 776(b) of the Act the use of an adverse inference is warranted. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 65702.

Because we have not received any information since the Preliminary Results which affects our analysis of the use of facts available for TC Steel, we continue to assign the highest product-specific margin, 32.70 percent, which we have calculated in this review based on the data reported by a respondent. As we stated in the Preliminary Results, we selected this rate because we have never reviewed TC Steel in a prior segment of this proceeding and we do not have any additional information about this company. Moreover, this rate is sufficiently high as to reasonably assure that TC Steel does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate. Finally, given that this information was reported to the Department in the instant segment of the proceeding, there is no basis to doubt this information's reliability and relevance as applied in this segment to TC Steel. See generally the SAA at 870 (discussing the need to corroborate information used as facts available when that information was reported to the Department in a prior segment of an AD/CVD proceeding).

Analysis of Comments Received

The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated March 14, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is in the Decision Memorandum and attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit, main Department building, Room 1117 and accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index . html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we revised the product-comparison section of the margin-calculation program for DSM. This revision is discussed in the Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We also corrected a ministerial error involving the currency conversion for inventory carrying costs. Specifically, we converted the variable used for this cost from Korean won to U.S. dollars, but in the Preliminary Results we neglected to use the converted variable in our calculations. The correction of this ministerial error had no impact on the dumping margin. See the Final Analysis Memorandum for DSM dated March 14, 2008, for more detailed information on these changes.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007:

Assessment Rates

Upon issuance of these final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for DSM, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for these final results of review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for the importer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by DSM for which DSM did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of DSM-produced merchandise at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Assessment of Antidumping Duties.

Because we are relying on total adverse facts available to establish TC Steel's dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin of 32.70 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were produced and/or exported by TC Steel.

The Department will issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of these final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of steel plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review; (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 less-than-fair-value 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; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 0.98 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation, adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation.² These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification

This notice serves as a 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled 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 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or 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 final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Appendix

List of Issues Addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1 Product Matching

Comment 2 Offsetting Positive Margins With Negative Margins