[Federal Register: June 27, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 38301-38303]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jn03-46]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-808]
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Notice of Amended Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Amended Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Herzog, Stephen Bailey, or
Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4271, (202) 482-1102, and (202) 482-3434,
respectively.
Amendment of Final Results
On May 8, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published in the Federal Register the final results of its
administrative review of stainless steel wire rods (``SSWR'') from
India for the period December 1, 2000, through November 30, 2001. See
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 26288 (May
15, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (``Final
Results'').
On May 16, 2002, petitioner Carpenter Technology Corporation timely
filed ministerial error allegations, pursuant to section 351.224(c)(2)
of the Department's regulations. Respondent, Mukand, Limited
(``Mukand'') did not file rebuttal comments. Respondent, the Viraj
Group, Limited (``the Viraj Group'') filed ministerial error
allegations on May 27, 2003, and on June 2, 2003, petitioner filed
rebuttal comments.
As a result of our analysis of respondent's and petitioner's
comments, the Department is amending the Final Results in the
antidumping administrative review of stainless steel wire rods from
India covering the period December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001,
for Mukand and the Viraj Group.
Scope of the Review
The merchandise under review is certain stainless steel wire rods,
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
[[Page 38302]]
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.
Ministerial Errors
A ministerial error is defined in Sec. 351.224(f) of the
Department's regulations as ``an error in addition, subtraction, or
other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate
copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of
unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.''
Section 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations provides that we
``will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate * * * correct
any ministerial error by amending the final results of review * * * ''
After reviewing interested parties' allegations, we have determined, in
accordance with Sec. 351.224 of the Department's regulations, that the
Final Results includes the ministerial errors discussed below.
Mukand
Comment 1: Facts Available
Petitioner alleges that the Department understated the United
States weighted-average price and entered value used to calculate the
facts otherwise available rate that was applied to Mukand's constructed
export price (``CEP'') sales. Specifically, petitioner argues that the
Department erroneously derived the U.S. price by dividing quantity by
value. In addition, petitioner states that the Department erroneously
used an amount for the entered value that differs from the weighted-
average entered value calculated for Mukand's EP sales. As a result,
petitioner contends that these errors understate the importer-specific
assessment rate. To correct these errors, petitioner argues that the
Department should use the actual calculated weighted-average U.S. price
and entered value of Mukand's EP sales in determining the facts
available rate applied to Mukand's CEP sales.
Mukand did not file rebuttal comments to this ministerial error.
Department's Position: For the Final Results, the Department
applied facts otherwise available to Mukand's CEP sales in the United
States. See Final Results, at Comment 2 and 3. As facts otherwise
available, the Department calculated a weighted-average U.S. price of
Mukand's reported EP sales and substituted the weighted-average price
for Mukand's reported CEP sales. See Final Results, at Comment 3.
However, as the petitioner correctly contends, in calculating the facts
otherwise available rate, the Department first calculated a weighted-
average U.S. price, but then recalculated the U.S. price by dividing
quantity by value. See Analysis Memorandum for Mukand, Limited, for the
Final Results of the 2000-2001 Adminstrative Review of Stainless Steel
Wire Rods from India, dated May 8, 2003 (``Mukand Final Analysis
Memorandum''), at page 4. In addition, the Department erroneously
calculated the entered value by using the entered value of Mukand's CEP
sales, instead of the weighted-average entered value of Mukand's EP
sales. See Mukand Final Analysis Memorandum. The result of these errors
was to understate the total entered value to which facts otherwise
available were to be applied, thus understating the importer-specific
assessment rate.
To correct these errors, the Department has revised the final
margin calculation program to apply the average net U.S. price of
Mukand's EP sales to the weighted-average entered value of Mukand's EP
sales. See Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of the
2000-2001 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rods from
India: Mukand, Limited, dated June 12, 2003 (``Amended Mukand Final
Analysis Memorandum''), at page 1. Although these changes do not affect
the overall weighted-average margin as published in the Federal
Register notice for Mukand, they do adjust the adverse facts available
applied to Mukand's CEP sales, and thus the importer-specific
assessment rate.
The Viraj Group
Comment 2: Direct Material
The Viraj Group alleges that the Department double-counted sub-
contracting labor in the calculation of the Viraj Group's total cost of
production (``TOTCOM'') and constructed value (``CV'') for United
States sales. The Viraj Group argues that the Department should not
have included sub-contracting labor charges in the build up of TOTCOM
and CV.
Petitioner did not provide rebuttal comments.
Department's Position: We agree with the Viraj Group. Our
examination of the Department's labor calculation reveals that the
programming language is not in error, but reflects the sum of the
subcontracting expenses (DIRLABCV) and the direct labor expenses
(DIRLABCO), as intended by the Department. However, further examination
of our computer program for the Final Results reveals that the
Department overstated the amount of total material cost required to
produce a billet used in products sold in the United States. The
Department inadvertently replaced the transfer price reported in the CV
database with the total cost of manufacturing as reported in the Viraj
Group's section D database. Rather, the Department intended to replace
the transfer price reported by the Viraj Group in the CV database with
the direct material cost of each respective model as it was reported in
the section D database. See Analysis for the Amended Final Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rods
from India--the Viraj Group, Limited (``the Viraj Group'') (``Viraj
Group Final Amended Analysis Memorandum'') from Stephen Bailey to
Robert Bolling dated June 12, 2003, at page 1. Therefore, for these
amended final results of review, we have replaced the inappropriate
value for material cost hard coded into our final model match and
margin programs with the value of the total direct material cost found
on the Viraj Group's section D database.
Comment 3: Interest Expense
The Viraj Group alleges that the Department incorrectly included
interest expenses not related to the Viraj Group's actual interest cost
in calculating the interest expense ratio for COP.
Petitioner argues that the Department correctly added all interest
expenses when it re-calculated the Viraj Group's interest expense
ratio. Petitioner maintains that in the Final Results the Department
determined to include all interest expenses reported in the Viraj
Group's financial statements in the calculation of credit expenses. See
Final Results, at Comment 11. Petitioner further contends that the
decision by the Department to include all interest expenses in
calculating a revised interest expense ratio for the Viraj Group is
methodological and not clerical.
Department's Position: We agree with the Viraj Group. In the Final
Results, the Department inadvertently double-counted the Viraj Group's
interest expenses in the total cost of manufacturing calculation. The
Viraj Group reported on page 4 of its December 2, 2002 section D
supplemental questionnaire response (``section D supplemental
response'')
[[Page 38303]]
that it used two different methodologies to calculate its reported
interest expenses in two separate interest fields, INTEX and INTEX2 for
the cost database and INTEXCV and INTEXCV2 for the CV database. In the
first methodology, the Viraj Group reported a reduced amount of
interest expense based on its claims that it is not required to pay all
of the interest owed on its bank loans due to its alleged bankruptcy
protection and reorganization (``BIFR'') rehabilitation status (INTEX
and INTEXCV). The second methodology reported by the Viraj Group
calculates the total interest expense of the Viraj Group based on all
of the loans owed without regard to the Viraj Group's alleged BIFR
status (INTEX2 and INTEXCV2) as instructed in the Original
Questionnaire, dated January 29, 2002, at page D-17. For the Final
Results, the Department added these two amounts of interest to obtain
the total amount of interest expense reported by the Viraj Group. See
the model match and margin programs for the Final Results at lines 579
and 273, respectively. However, further examination of the record
reveals that this calculation was in error because it added both the
theoretical and actual interest expense amounts for the Viraj Group.
The section D supplemental response demonstrates that the total amount
of interest that the Viraj Group owes its banks, absent its alleged
BIFR status (i.e., the second methodology), is reflected in its
financial statements. Therefore, for these amended final results of
review, we have revised our calculation to take into account all of the
interest expense that the Viraj Group owes its banks, as well as the
adjustment explained in the Preliminary Results. 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'') and accompanying Analysis for the Preliminary
Results of Review for Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India for 2000-
2001: The Viraj Group, Limited, at page 2. Accordingly, we did not take
into account the Viraj Group's alleged BIFR status when calculating the
Viraj Group's revised interest expense ratio. See Viraj Group Final
Amended Analysis Memorandum from Stephen Bailey to Robert Bolling dated
June 12, 2003, at page 2.
Amended Final Results
Pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act and in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(e) of the Department's regulations, we are amending the Final
Results to reflect the correction of the above-cited ministerial
errors. The revised final weighted-average dumping margins are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original
weighted Revised
Exporter/manufacturer average weighted
margin percent average
for final margin percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukand.................................. 26.38 26.38
The Viraj Group......................... 3.25 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revised cash deposit rates for Mukand and the Viraj Group shown
above are effective on all shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication of this notice, and will remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Accordingly, the Department will determine, and the U.S. Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (``BCBP'') will assess, antidumping
duties on all entries of subject merchandise from Mukand and the Viraj
Group during the period December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001, in
accordance with these amended final results.
International Trade Commission Notification
These amended final results and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: June 16, 2003.
Joseph Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-16342 Filed 6-26-03; 8:45 am]