[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9542-9544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-822]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Notice of
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards, Brian Davis, or
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-8029, (202) 482-7924, and (202) 482-3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Amendment to the Final Results
In accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, (the Act), on January 5, 2011, the Department
issued its final results in the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (S4
in coils) from Mexico, covering the period July 1, 2008, to June 30,
2009. The final results were subsequently released to all parties in
the proceeding, and published in the Federal Register on January 13,
2011. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 2332 (January
13, 2011) (S4 from Mexico 2008-2009 Final Results). On January 14,
2011, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), we received a timely-filed
allegation from the respondent in this administrative review,
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox SA) and Mexinox USA, Inc.
(Mexinox USA) (collectively referred to as Mexinox), that the
Department made ministerial errors with respect to several aspects of
Mexinox's margin calculation. See Letter from Mexinox to the Department
of Commerce, titled ``Ministerial Error Comments,'' dated January 14,
2011 (Mexinox Ministerial Letter). On January 20, 2011, we received
comments from Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, and
North American Stainless (collectively referred to as petitioners)
regarding the ministerial errors alleged by Mexinox. See Letter from
petitioners to the Department of Commerce, regarding ``Response to
Mexinox's Ministerial Error Allegations,'' dated January 20, 2011
(Petitioners' Response Letter). For a discussion of the Department's
analysis of the allegations in the Mexinox Ministerial Letter and
rebuttal comments in the Petitioners' Response Letter, see Memorandum
from Patrick Edwards and Brian Davis, Case Analysts, through Angelica
Mendoza, Program Manager, to Richard Weible, Office Director, entitled,
``Ministerial Errors Allegation in the Final Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Mexico: ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.,'' dated February 14,
2011 (Ministerial Error Allegation Memo).
A ministerial error, as defined at section 751(h) of the Act,
includes ``errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic
function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error
which {the Department{time} considers ministerial.'' See also 19 CFR
351.224(f). In its Ministerial Letter, Mexinox alleges that the
Department made five ministerial errors in calculating Mexinox's
antidumping duty margin. First, Mexinox alleges that the Department
made a ministerial error by incorrectly placing a parenthesis in its
calculation of cost of goods sold to
[[Page 9543]]
derive constructed export price profit, effectively failing to extend
the per-unit cost of production and per-unit packing expenses by the
quantity sold. See Mexinox Ministerial Letter at 2. Second, Mexinox
alleges that the Department incorrectly derived quarterly cost data by
assigning a production quantity to those products which were sold, but
not produced in certain quarters, thus overstating Mexinox's production
quantities and miscalculating the indexed quarterly costs. Id. at 3.
Third, Mexinox alleges several errors with regard to the Department's
calculation of its U.S. indirect selling expenses. Specifically,
Mexinox contends that the Department a) failed to include ``other
income/expenses'' specific to Mexinox USA, b) double-counted certain
service fee expenses incurred by Mexinox's affiliates in the United
States, and c) applied the wrong raw material service fee in its
calculation of Mexinox's total indirect selling expenses. Id. at 6.
Fourth, Mexinox contends that the Department incorrectly accounted for
employee profit sharing in its calculation of Mexinox's general and
administrative (G&A) ratio. Id. at 9. Fifth, and finally, Mexinox
alleges that the Department's margin calculation programs caused
certain variables to be overwritten when comparison market sales were
merged with Mexinox's reported costs. Id. at 10.
In their rebuttal letter, petitioners commented on only two of
Mexinox's alleged errors. First, petitioners argue that Mexinox's
allegation with regard to the inclusion of ``other income/expenses''
specific to Mexinox USA is methodological in nature and, therefore,
does not constitute a ministerial error. See Petitioners' Response
Letter at 2-3. Petitioners further argue that the Department did use
the correct raw material services fee in its calculation of Mexinox's
U.S. indirect selling expenses and, therefore, Mexinox's alleged error
is incorrect. Id. at 4. Second, petitioners allege that, should the
Department agree with Mexinox's allegation that the Department
inadvertently overstated production quantities and consequently
calculated incorrect quarterly cost indices, Mexinox's suggested
programming changes would cause several errors in the Department's
margin calculation programs and would continue to calculate incorrect
quarterly cost indices. Id. at 6.
After analyzing Mexinox's ministerial error comments and
petitioners' rebuttal comments, we have determined, in accordance with
section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made
ministerial errors with respect to our calculation for cost of goods
sold and our quarterly costs indices, as well as certain aspects of
Mexinox's indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States, and
Mexinox's G&A ratio calculation.\1\ See Mexinox's Ministerial Letter;
see also Memorandum to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico--Amended
Final Results Analysis Memorandum for ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de
C.V.,'' dated February 14, 2011 (2008-2009 S4 from Mexico Amended Final
Results Analysis Memorandum), for a further discussion. Therefore, the
Department has corrected both the Comparison Market Program and the
U.S. Margin Program and, where appropriate, the relevant Macros Program
to reflect the correction of these errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ With regard to Mexinox's error allegation involving U.S.
indirect selling expenses, we note that Mexinox raised four separate
issues concerning our calculation. Three of these we are correcting
as ministerial errors. However, the fourth issue, pertaining to
offsetting Mexinox's indirect selling expenses for service revenue
received from its U.S. affiliates, is methodological in nature and
the Department's intent to deny Mexinox's requested offset is
reflected in the final results. Therefore, we are not adjusting for
this allegation (i.e., we are continuing to deny Mexinox's requested
offset).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending
the final results in this antidumping duty administrative review of S4
in coils from Mexico. After correcting for the noted ministerial errors
with respect to cost of goods sold, quarterly costs, U.S. indirect
selling expenses, and G&A expenses, the amended final weighted-average
dumping margin has changed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final results Amended final
Manufacturer/exporter weighted- average weighted- average
margin percentage margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V 21.14 12.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.212(b). Where entered values are missing for some sales and
reported for others, the Department calculates a per-unit assessment
rate on an importer-specific basis. The Department calculated an
importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rate by aggregating the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales
and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. Where
the duty assessment rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer in
accordance with the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
After issuance of the amended final results of this review, for any
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the amended final
results that are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), we
will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the per-unit
dollar amount against each unit of merchandise on each of that
importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these
amended final results of review.
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). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by Mexinox for which Mexinox did not know the merchandise
was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct
CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 30.69 percent all others
rate if there is no company-specific rate for an intermediary involved
in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements continue to be effective on any
entries made on or after February 14, 2011, the date of publication of
these amended final results, for all shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn
[[Page 9544]]
from warehouse, for consumption as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of
the Act: (1) For Mexinox, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the company-specific rate shown above; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash
deposit rate for all other Mexican exporters will be 30.69 percent, the
all others rate from the less-than-fair-value investigation; and (4)
the cash deposit rate for all non-Mexican exporters will be the rate
applicable to the Mexican exporter that supplied that exporter. These
cash deposit requirements continue to remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. 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 that is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these amended final results of review
and notice in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: February 14, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-3750 Filed 2-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P