[Federal Register: July 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 40318-40320]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jy05-46]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-533-808
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from India. The review
covers three companies for the period December 1, 2002, through
November 30, 2003. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we have made changes, including correction of a clerical
error, in the margin calculations. The final weighted-average margins
are listed below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case at (202) 482-3174 or
Minoo Hatten at (202) 482-1690, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 7, 2005, we published the preliminary results of review,
extended the time limit for these final results, and invited parties to
comment. Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent To Revoke Order In Part,
and Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Review, 70 FR 1413
(January 7, 2005) (Preliminary Results). We received case briefs from
the petitioner,\1\ Chandan Steel, Ltd. (Chandan), and Viraj Alloys,
Ltd., and VSL Wires, Ltd. (collectively Viraj). We received rebuttal
briefs from Chandan, Viraj, and Isibars.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is Carpenter Technology Corp.
\2\ Isibars is comprised of the following entities: Isibars
Limited, Zenstar Impex, and Shaktiman Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Department determined that several case and rebuttal briefs
contained new factual information. In a separate memorandum, the
Department outlined its rationale for either accepting or rejecting
such information. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled
Submissions of Untimely New Factual Information in the
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless
Steel Wire Rod from India, dated June 8, 2005. The Department
requested that parties redact the new information rejected by the
Department and any references to the information in the submissions
and resubmit the documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40319]]
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has 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 this order are certain SSWRs, which are
hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares,
octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. SSWRs 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, are normally sold in
coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of SSWRs sold
in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and
pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
The products 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, our written description of the scope of this
proceeding remains dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs in the
context of this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'' from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 6, 2005
(Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached
to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues that the parties
have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum.
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public 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 Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Sales Below Cost in the Home Market
As discussed in detail in the preliminary results, the Department
disregarded certain home-market sales that Viraj sold at prices below
the cost of production. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR 1422. For these
final results, the Department disregarded home-market sales made by
Viraj and Isibars at below-cost prices.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes to our calculations that have changed the results for certain
companies. Further, although we used total adverse facts available to
establish a dumping margin for Isibars in the Preliminary Results, we
explained in that notice that we would allow Isibars an opportunity to
correct certain deficiencies in its cost data for the final results.
Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, we issued Isibars an additional
cost-of-production supplemental questionnaire. Isibars corrected its
prior deficiencies, and we conducted a cost verification. We calculated
a dumping margin for Isibars and released those calculations to the
parties for comment on May 13, 2005. See Post-Preliminary Draft
Analysis Memorandum of Isibars Limited for Stainless Steel Wire Rod
from India Adm. Rev. 12/1/02 - 11/30/03, dated May 13, 2005.
Revocation of Order in Part
On December 31, 2003, Viraj requested revocation of the antidumping
duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). With its request for revocation, Viraj
provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e).
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation
requires that a company requesting revocation must submit the
following: (1) a certification that the company has sold the subject
merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current review
period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less
than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold
commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States
in each of the three consecutive years forming the basis of the
request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order
if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, the
company sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will
consider the following: (1) whether the company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three
consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its
immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at
less than NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the
antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19
CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
In the Preliminary Results, we found that the request from Viraj
met all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We continue to find that
this is the case for Viraj. With regard to the criteria of subsection
19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show that Viraj
sold SSWR at not less than NV during the current review period. In
addition, Viraj sold SSWR at not less than NV in the two previous
administrative reviews in which it was involved. See Stainless Steel
Wire Rods From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 29923 (May 26, 2004)
(covering the period from December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2002),
and Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Notice of Amended Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 38301 (June 27, 2003) (covering the period from December
1, 2000, through November 30, 2001).
Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we
determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States in
commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by Viraj
to support its request for revocation. Thus, we find that Viraj had
zero or de minimis dumping margins for its last three administrative
reviews and sold in commercial quantities in each of these years.
Additionally, we find that the continued application of the antidumping
duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we
determine that Viraj qualifies for revocation of the order on SSWR
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to
merchandise produced and exported by
[[Page 40320]]
Viraj should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we
are terminating the suspension of liquidation for any of the
merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after December 1, 2003, and will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund any cash deposits for
such entries.
Although the petitioner has requested that the Department not
revoke the order with respect to Viraj pending the resolution of
outstanding litigation, the evidence currently before the Department
shows that Viraj has met each of the criteria set forth in 19 CFR
351.222. See the Decision Memorandum at comment 8 for further
discussion of this issue.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period December 1,
2002, through November 30, 2003:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer or Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel, Ltd............................................. 2.10%
Isibars Limited, Zenstar Impex, and Shaktiman Steel Casting 27.20%
Pvt. Ltd......................................................
The Viraj Group (Viraj Alloys, Ltd. and VSL Wires, Ltd.)....... 0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer- or customer-specific
assessment rates or amounts, as appropriate, for merchandise subject to
this review. We will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly
to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of administrative review for all
shipments of SSWR from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates
for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for
merchandise exported by other producers or exporters that were reviewed
or investigated previously, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be
the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the producer or exporter received an individual rate;
(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 subject
merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash-deposit rate
shall be 48.80 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 54110
(October 20, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect
until the publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice 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 the 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 double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely
written 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
These final results of administrative review and notice are issued
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX [hzbar] Issues in the Decision Memorandum
A. Issue with regard to Chandan
Comment 1: Constructed-Value Profit Rate
B. Issues with regard to Isibars
Comment 2: U.S. Movement Expenses
Comment 3: Unreconciled Cost Difference
C. Issues with regard to Viraj
Comment 4: Debt-Restructuring
Comment 5: Review of Tax Returns at Verification
Comment 6: Collapsing of VAL and VSL
Comment 7: Request for Additional Sales and Cost Data
Comment 8: Revocation
Comment 9: Credit Expenses
Comment 10: Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in the Country of
Manufacture
Comment 11: Direct Material Costs
Comment 12: Costs of Affiliated Power Company
Comment 13: VAL's Fixed Overhead Costs
Comment 14: Interest Expenses
Comment 15: G&A Expenses
Comment 16: Duty Drawback
Comment 17: Constructed-Value Profit Rate
Comment 18: Clerical Error in the CEP-Profit Calculation
[FR Doc. E5-3713 Filed 7-12-05; 8:45 am]