[Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 51595-51598]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10se07-16]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-533-810)
Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The period of review is
February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. This review covers sales of
stainless steel bar from India with respect to eight producers/
exporters. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results of this review. We have noted the
changes made since the preliminary results below in the ``Changes Since
the Preliminary Results'' section, below. The final results are listed
below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1279
and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
72 FR 10151 (March 7, 2007) (``Preliminary Results'') in the Federal
Register.
On March 14, 2007, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to
respondent Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd (``Bhansali'') to correct
information contained in the initial questionnaire responses. On March
28, 2007, we received a timely response to this questionnaire from
Bhansali. On April 5, 2007, we met with counsel for Carpenter
Technology Corporation, Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of
Crucible Materials Corporation, Electralloy Company, North American
Stainless, Universal Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless
(collectively, the ``petitioners'') to discuss the review-specific
average rate applied at the Preliminary Results to the respondents that
were not selected for individual examination in the review by the
Department.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the Preliminary Results, the Department applied the
review-specific, average rate to the following respondents: Isibars
Limited, Grand Foundry, Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited, Snowdrop
Trading Pvt. Ltd., Facor Steels, Ltd., and Mukand Ltd. See the
Preliminary Results at 10157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2007, Bhansali submitted a listing of pre-verification
corrections to its home market sales listing. On July 5, 2007, the
Department published in the Federal Register an extension of the time
limit for the final results in the antidumping duty administrative
review to no later than September 4, 2007, in accordance with
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 36668
(July 5, 2007).
On July 24, 2007, we notified interested parties that comments on
the Preliminary Results were due on July 31, 2007, and rebuttal
comments were due on August 10, 2007. See Memorandum to the File,
``Briefing Schedule for Comments on the Preliminary Results in the
2005/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar
from India,'' dated July 24, 2007. On July 25, 2007, we requested that
Bhansali and Venus submit revised sales and cost listings to the
Department. We received revised home market sales listings from Venus,
and revised sales and cost listings from Bhansali in August 2007.
On July 31, 2007, we received case briefs from the petitioners and
Bhansali. On August 2, 2007, we rejected Bhansali's case brief, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d)(i) of the Department's regulations,
because it contained new and untimely filed information. On August 4,
2007, we received a revised case brief from Bhansali. On August 6,
2007, we received a rebuttal brief from Bhansali. On August 10, 2007,
the petitioners and interested parties Facor Steels, Ltd. (``Facor'')
and Mukand Ltd. (``Mukand'') filed rebuttal briefs. We did not receive
comments from Venus. The Department did not receive a request for a
public hearing from interested parties.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of stainless steel bar
(``SSB''). SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths
that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-
rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid
cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles,
segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire,
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other
deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and
angles, shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 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 the order is
dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of
[[Page 51596]]
this order. See Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman,
``Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India and
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final Scope Ruling,'' dated May
23, 2005, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'')
located in room B-099 of the main Department building. See also Notice
of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification
of the sales information contained in the questionnaire responses
submitted by respondent Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus'') in
Mumbai, India, in May 2007. The Department reported its findings on
July 24, 2007. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales
Responses of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. in the 2005/2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from
India,'' (``Verification Report--Venus'') dated July 24, 2007.
We also conducted verification of the sales and cost information
contained in the questionnaire responses submitted by Bhansali in May
2007. The Department reported its findings on July 24, 2007. See
Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales and Cost Responses
of Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. in the 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India,''
(``Verification Report--Bhansali'') dated July 24, 2007. These reports
are on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main
Department building (``CRU'').
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 2005, through January
31, 2006.
Partial Rescission of Review
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded
this review with respect to Akai Asian (``Akai''), Atlas Stainless
(``Atlas'') and Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (``Meltroll'') pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department confirmed that Akai, Atlas, and
Meltroll did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during
the POR using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data. We did
not receive comments on this issue. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Preliminary Results, we are
rescinding this review with respect to Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll.
Affiliation
As explained in the Preliminary Results, we have determined that
Venus and its exporter Precision Metals are affiliated within the
meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, and also that the two companies
should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this
administrative review. Therefore, we find that Venus and Precision
Metals should receive a single antidumping duty rate. See Memorandum
from Scott Holland to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director,
``Relationship of Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Precision
Metals,'' dated February 28, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room
B-099 of the main Department building.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the September 4, 2007, Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Stainless Steel Bar from India (``Decision Memorandum''), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix
is a list of the issues which 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
Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments
received, we have made adjustments to the preliminary results
calculations for Bhansali and Venus. Brief descriptions of the company-
specific changes are discussed below.
Bhansali
Based upon the information obtained at verification, we are
deducting billing adjustments from the gross unit price on certain home
market sales. We are also reducing billing adjustments for the portion
attributable to taxes included in the invoice price. We are deducting
from U.S. gross unit price the per-unit certificate of origin expenses
incurred on export sales. We are using the cost information provided by
Bhansali in its March 28, 2007, submission for certain products that
did not have cost data in the Preliminary Results.
Venus
We are using Venus' revised home market sales listing submitted on
August 13, 2007, which included the verified recalculated credit
expenses.
Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.''
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an
extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the
Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire
POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we
also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
For Bhansali and Venus, we found that, for certain products, more
than 20 percent of comparison market sales were at prices less than the
COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period
of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made
at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through
January 31, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd............. 2.01
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd............ 0.03 (de minimis)
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to
the Following Companies:\2\
[[Page 51597]]
Isibars Limited...................
Grand Foundry, Ltd................
Sindia Steels Limited.............
Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd.........
Facor Steels, Ltd.................
Mukand Ltd........................ 2.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated
for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de
minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
for all sales made by respondents for which they have reported the
importer of record and the entered value of the U.S. sales, we have
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to
the total entered value of those sales.
Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S.
sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the
merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the
total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment
rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem rates
based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries
of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
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 applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR
produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise
was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct
CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries 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 Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping
duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i).
For the companies requesting a review, but not selected for
examination and calculation of individual rates, we calculated a
weighted-average assessment rate based on all importer-specific
assessment rates excluding any which are zero, de minimis or determined
entirely on adverse facts available. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada, 70 FR 73437, 73440 (December 12, 2005). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Rates
The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all
shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, effective on or after the publication date of these final
results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed company will be
the rate listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a
company's weighted-average margin is de minimis; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a
previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review,
or the original 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 this or any previous
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the ``all
others'' rate established in the less than fair value investigation.
See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These cash
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders
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 these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 51598]]
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum
General Comments
Comment 1: Application of Review-Specific Rate to Non-Reviewed
Companies
Comment 2: Treatment of Sales Made Above Normal Value
Comments Relating to Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.
Comment 3: Treatment of DEPB Application Charges
Comment 4: Comment on Verification: Correct Payment Date
Comment 5: Comment on Verification: Correct Gross Unit Price
Comment 6: Inclusion of Implied Interest on Non-Interest Bearing Loans
Comment 7: Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses
Comment 8: Treatment of Billing Adjustments
Comments Relating to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Comment 9: Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses
[FR Doc. E7-17749 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S