[Federal Register: May 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 26288-26291]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15my03-43]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-808]
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results and partial rescission of antidumping
duty administrative review of stainless steel wire rods from India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 8, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary results
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel wire rods from India. See Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 1040 (January 8, 2003) (``Preliminary
Results''). This review covers the Viraj Group Ltd., (``Viraj Group''),
Panchmahal Steel Limited (``Panchmahal''), and Mukand Limited
(``Mukand''), manufacturers and exporters of subject merchandise to the
United States. Isibars Limited (``Isibars'') was originally a
respondent in this review, but the Department rescinded the review of
Isibars when petitioner, being the only party to request the review of
Isibars, withdrew its request for review. See Preliminary Results. The
[[Page 26289]]
period of review is December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes from the preliminary results of review. Therefore, the final
results differ from the Preliminary Results of review with respect to
the weighted-average dumping margin for the Viraj Group and Mukand. The
final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firms is listed
below in the section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey (Viraj Group, Isibars,
and Panchmahal) and Jonathan Herzog (Mukand), Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: 202-
482-1102, or 202-482-4271, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 8, 2003, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results and partial rescission of its
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
wire rods from India. See Preliminary Results. We invited parties to
comment on our preliminary results of review. We received case briefs
from Panchmahal on February 14, 2003, referencing arguments made in its
submissions to the Department dated January 6, 2003 and January 13,
2003. On February 11, 2003, Kurt Orban Partners LLC (``Kurt Orban''),
an interested party, submitted a case brief. Pursuant to a request from
the Department to redact new information, Kurt Orban resubmitted its
case brief on March 13, 2003. We received Mukand's case briefs on
January 13, 2003, and February 14, 2003. We received the Viraj Group's
case brief on February 14, 2003. We received petitioner's case briefs
addressing Mukand and the Viraj Group on February 14, 2003. On February
24, 2003, we received rebuttal briefs from the Viraj Group and from
petitioner addressing the arguments presented by Panchmahal, Mukand,
and the Viraj Group. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), the Department
directed the Viraj Group to resubmit their brief and omit certain
arguments that were not raised in a timely manner. See the Department's
letter dated March 26, 2003 rejecting the Viraj Group's case brief. The
Viraj Group resubmitted their case brief on March 31, 2003. On April
15, 2003, Kurt Orban met with the Department to discuss Panchmahal's
cost reconciliation. See the Department's memorandum to the file dated
April 16, 2003. We have now completed the administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act'').
Scope of Review
The merchandise under review is certain stainless steel wire rods
(``SSWR''), which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled
rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. SSWR are
made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of
carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other
elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling and are
normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The
majority of SSWR sold in the United States are round in cross-section
shape, annealed and pickled. The most common size 5.5 millimeters in
diameter.
The SSWR subject to this review are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes (as of March 1, 2003, renamed the U.S. Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection), the written description of the
merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the
merchandise is covered by the review.
Rescission of Review
In our preliminary results, we stated we are rescinding the review
with respect to Isibars because petitioner, the only party to request a
review for Isibars, withdrew its request for review. See Preliminary
Results. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and
consistent with the Department's practice, we preliminarily rescinded
our review with respect to Isibars. Since we have received no new
information since the preliminary results that contradicts the decision
made in the preliminary results of review, we are rescinding the
administrative review with respect to Isibars.
Facts Available
In the instant review, for the preliminary results, the Department
applied adverse facts available in accordance with section 776(a) of
the Act to Panchmahal because Panchmahal failed to provide or withheld
information the Department requested. See Preliminary Results. The
Department received inadequate responses to the questionnaire and
multiple supplemental questionnaires from Panchmahal and could not
verify the incomplete information that Panchmahal did provide, which is
necessary for the margin analysis. See Preliminary Results. However, in
the preliminary results, the Department inadvertently failed to
corroborate the ``all others'' rate it applied to Panchmahal. We are
correcting this oversight with the following.
Corroboration of the ``All Others'' Rate
Section 776(b) of the Act states that an adverse inference may
include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also 19
CFR 351.308(c); Uruguay Round Agreement Act, Statement of
Administrative Action (``SAA'') at 829-831. Section 776(c) of the Act
provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information
(such as the petition rates) as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate''
means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
used. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996); Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Barium
Carbonate From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 12664 (March 17,
2003). The Department's regulations state that independent sources used
to corroborate may include, but are not limited to, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular review. See 19
CFR 351.308(d); SAA at 870. Further, in accordance with F. LII De Cecco
Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1034
(Fed. Cir. 2000), we examine whether information on the record
supporting the selected adverse facts available is reasonable and has
some basis in reality.
To assess the reliability of the petition margins for purposes of
this review, in
[[Page 26290]]
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we examined the key elements
of the calculations of export price and normal value upon which the
petitioner based its margins for the petition, to the extent
practicable. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 84
(January 4, 1999) (``CTL Plate from Mexico'').
The ``all others'' rate from the investigation, which we are using
in this review as adverse facts available, is the average of the rates
applied to each original respondent in the investigation. In the
investigation, the Department applied the highest rate obtained from
the petition margins to each respondent based upon a determination by
the Department to use the best information available. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel
Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 54110, 54111 (October 20, 1993). In this
case, the U.S. prices in the petition were based on quotes to U.S.
customers which were obtained through market research. See Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, December 29, 1993. We were able
to corroborate the U.S. prices in the petition, which were used as the
basis of the 48.80 percent rate, by comparing these prices to publicly
available information based on IM-145 import statistics from the U.S.
International Trade Commission's web-site for HTS numbers 7221.00.0005,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075. We noted
that the average reported customs unit value for these products for the
period of December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001 was lower than all
of the U.S. prices cited in the petition, which ranged from $1.92 per
kilogram to $2.51 per kilogram (Quoted Price) or $1.73 per kilogram to
$2.36 per kilogram (Adjusted Price), thus corroborating the petition's
U.S. price.
The normal values used in the petition were based on actual price
quotations obtained through market research. The Department examined
the normal values from the petition and attempted to corroborate the
normal values used in the petition, which were based on actual price
quotations obtained through market research. For a complete discussion
of the Department's corroboration analysis for normal value, see
Corroboration Memorandum for Panchmahal Steel Limited, for the final
results of the 2000-2001 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire
Rods from India, from Stephen Bailey to The File, dated May 8, 2003.
The parties did not present information during the course of this
administrative review and the Department is not aware of other
independent sources of information that would enable it to further
examine the NV calculations in the petition.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render data used as facts
available not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected
data are not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department
will disregard the data and use alternate data as facts available. See
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Preliminary Results and Termination in
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 49577, 49579
(September 26, 1995), (where the Department disregarded the highest
dumping margin as best information available because the margin was
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting
in an unusually high margin).
Furthermore, in corroborating the petition rate, in this review, we
found that certain individual transactions from a particular company
had margins higher than the petition rate.
Thus, we find that the 48.80 percent rate that the Department is
using for this review does have probative value. This rate is relevant
for Panchmahal because we are not aware of any circumstances that would
render this rate inappropriate and there is nothing on the record of
the petition or this administrative review which calls into question
the validity of this rate.
The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, codified at
19 CFR 351.308(d), states, ``(t)he fact that corroboration may not be
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from
applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary
information in question.'' Additionally, the SAA at 870 states
specifically that, where ``corroboration may not be practicable in a
given circumstance,'' the Department may nevertheless apply an adverse
inference. The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the Department need not prove
that the facts available are the best alternative information.
Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate
information contained in the petition and in accordance with 776(c) of
the Act, we consider the margins in the petition to be corroborated to
the extent practicable for purposes of this final determination. See
CTL Plate from Mexico (regarding the normal values contained in the
petition, although the Department was provided no useful information by
the parties and was unaware of other independent sources of information
that would permit further corroboration of the margin calculation in
the petition, the Department found that their efforts corroborated
information contained in the petition to the extent practicable).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision
Memorandum'' (``Decision Memorandum'') from Barbara Tillman, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Joseph A.
Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated
May 8, 2003, 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 Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised
in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision
Memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of
the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 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.
Sales Below Cost
We disregarded sales that failed the cost test for Mukand and the
Viraj Group during the course of the review. We initiated a sales below
the cost of production investigation with respect to Panchmahal. See
the Department's June 11, 2002 letter to Panchmahal initiating sales
below cost of production investigation; Preliminary Results. However,
because Panchmahal was unable to provide the Department with a complete
cost database, the Department could not conduct the dumping analysis,
including the sales below cost investigation. For a complete discussion
of Panchmahal's incomplete cost information see Comment 1 of the
Decision Memorandum.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in
the margin calculations for the Viraj Group and Mukand. The changes to
the margin calculations are listed below:
The Viraj Group
[sbull] The Department has revised the Viraj Group's total cost of
manufacturing to reflect the actual direct material cost
[[Page 26291]]
incurred for purchasing billets. See Comment 12.
Mukand
[sbull] The Department reclassified some of Mukand's sales as agency
sales. See Comment 2.
[sbull] The Department revised Mukand's interest expense ratio to
exclude certain capitalized expenses related to the construction of a
non-subject merchandise producing plant. See Comment 4.
[sbull] The Department revised Mukand's general and administrative
expenses (``G&A'') ratio to exclude certain indirect selling expenses.
As a result, the Department also recalculated Mukand's indirect selling
expenses to account for the reclassification. See Comment 5.
[sbull] The Department revised Mukand's U.S. direct expenses to exclude
certain taxes already reported as part of its direct material costs.
See Comment 6.
[sbull] The Department revised Mukand's packing costs in order to
account for an improper currency conversion in the preliminary margin
calculation program. See Comment 8.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the
period December 1, 2000, through November 30, 2001:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter [chyph]Average
Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Viraj Group...................................... 3.25%
Mukand............................................... 26.38%
Panchamahl........................................... 48.80%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (``BCBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the BCBP within 15 days of
publication of these final results of review. We will direct the BCBP
to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs
values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries
under the relevant order during the review period. For customer's duty-
assessment purposes, we will calculate importer-specific assessment
rates by dividing the dumping margins calculated for each importer by
the total entered value of sales for each importer during the period 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 stainless steel wire rods from India 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 Viraj Group, Mukand, and Panchmahal will be the
rates shown above; (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)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these
or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash deposit
rate will be the ``all others'' rate, which is 48.80 percent.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
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 which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 8, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix 1
Issues in the Decision Memorandum
A. Issues with regard to Panchmahal
Comment 1: Facts Available
B. Issues with regard to Mukand
Comment 2: Agency Sales
Comment 3: Use of Facts Available
Comment 4: Interest Expense
Comment 5: Sales Overhead Expense
Comment 6: Treatment of Unrefunded Taxes
Comment 7: Import Duties
Comment 8: Packing Costs
C. Issues with regard to the Viraj Group
Comment 9: The Viraj Group's Cost Data
Comment 10: Collapsing the Viraj Group
Comment 11: Financial Expenses of the Viraj Group
Comment 12: Raw Material Cost
Comment 13: Non-Dumped Sales
Comment 14: Ministerial Errors
[FR Doc. 03-12186 Filed 5-14-03; 8:45 am]