[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52294-52296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20925]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2008, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India.
This review covers sales of SSB from India with respect to two
producers/exporters: D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd. (``DHE'') and Sunflag Iron
& Steel Co. Ltd. (``Sunflag''), during the period February 1, 2006,
through January 31, 2007.
We have noted the changes made since the preliminary results in the
``Changes Since the Preliminary Results'' section, below. The final
results are listed below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section.
DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or Scott Holland, 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-
3853 and (202) 482-1279, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on SSB from India. See Antidumping
Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR
9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 2, 2007, the Department published
a notice in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for
interested parties to request an administrative review of this order
for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 5007
(February 2, 2007). The Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of this review on March 7, 2008. See Stainless
Steel Bar From India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12382
(March 7, 2008) (``Preliminary Results''). On March 20, 2008, the
Department published a correction notice to the Preliminary Results.
See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
15049 (March 20, 2008).
Following the Preliminary Results, the Department issued two
supplemental questionnaires to both DHE and Sunflag. The Department
received DHE's responses on March 20, 2008, and April 2, 2008. The
Department received Sunflag's responses on April 2, 2008, and July 7,
2008. On June 24, 2008, the Department published a notice extending the
deadline for these final results to September 3, 2008. See Stainless
Steel Bar From India: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
35639 (June 24, 2008).
We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results. On July 16, 2008, the Petitioners \1\ and DHE submitted case
briefs.\2\ In its case brief, DHE requested that the Department
consider the purchase order date as the U.S. date of sale, rather than
the invoice date. To support this request, DHE provided the Department
with unsolicited new information in the form of a revised U.S. sales
database containing purchase order dates for its U.S. sales. On July
17, 2008, the Petitioners filed a rebuttal brief. The Petitioners
requested that the Department reject and return to DHE the new factual
information submitted in its case brief. According to the Petitioners,
the Department did not request this new date of sale information and
the deadline for the submission of new factual information had passed,
as per 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). On July 17, 2008, the Department rejected
DHE's case brief because it contained unsolicited new factual
information. See July 17, 2008, Letter from Brandon Farlander to DHE,
which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room 1117 of
the main Department building. The Department instructed DHE to re-file
its case brief excluding the unsolicited new factual information
relating to purchase order date. DHE submitted its revised case brief,
excluding the unsolicited new factual information, on July 21, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless,
Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.
\2\ DHE incorrectly called this submission its ``rebuttal
brief.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2008, Sunflag filed a rebuttal brief. On August 8,
2008, the Department rejected Sunflag's July 22, 2008 (dated July 19,
2008) rebuttal brief because it contained unsolicited new factual
information relating to certain rent paid to affiliate Ridge Farm
Developers. See August 8, 2008, Letter from Brandon Farlander to
Sunflag, which is on file in the CRU in room 1117 of the main
Department building. The Department instructed Sunflag to re-file its
rebuttal brief excluding the unsolicited new factual information. On
August 18, 2008, the Department received Sunflag's revised rebuttal
brief, excluding the unsolicited new factual information.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of 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
[[Page 52295]]
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 have 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 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 in room 1117 of the main Department building.
See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 2006, through January
31, 2007.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory citations are to the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). In addition, all
references to the Department of Commerce's regulations are to 19 CFR
Part 351.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the September 3, 2008, ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum for 2006-2007 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, which is located in room 1117 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. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made
adjustments to the Preliminary Results calculations for DHE and
Sunflag. Brief descriptions of the company-specific changes are
discussed below.
A. DHE
On March 27, 2008, the Department requested that DHE report the
per-unit entered value of subject merchandise that entered into the
United States during the POR. DHE submitted this information on April
2, 2008. However, DHE calculated the per-unit entered value by dividing
the total entered values for all shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR by the sum of the total quantities entered during the
POR, i.e., a simple average of all shipments.
For the final results, we have re-calculated the per-unit entered
value based upon a ratio of the invoice specific, total entered value,
to the total quantity that is reflected on the U.S. Customs Form 7501
documentation supplied by DHE, rather than an average of all shipments.
See Final Results Calculation Memorandum for D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd.,
dated September 3, 2008.
B. Sunflag
For the final results, we are adjusting Sunflag's general and
administrative expense ratio upward to account for rent paid to
affiliate Ridge Farm Developers for leased office space. See Final
Results Calculation Memorandum for Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., dated
September 3, 2008 (``Sunflag Final Calculation Memorandum''). We have
also increased Sunflag's cost of production by including interest on an
unsecured interest-free loan from an affiliate. See Sunflag Final
Calculation Memorandum.
Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the cost of production (``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 of that model were
made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Because we
compared prices to the POR-average COP, 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. In such cases, for both DHE and Sunflag, we
disregarded these below-cost sales of a given product and used the
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Final Results of Review
As a final result of our review, we find that the following
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period February 1,
2006, through January 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter/Manufacturer average margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd................................... 10.21
Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd............................ 6.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For DHE and Sunflag, the Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of review.
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. We have used Sunflag's reported entered values for the
final results. However, as noted above in the
[[Page 52296]]
``Changes Since the Preliminary Results'' section, we have adjusted
DHE's reported entered values.
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 Sunflag's
entered values and DHE's adjusted entered values. 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).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following antidumping duty deposits are effective for 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 final results of review in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 3, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum
Comments Relating to D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Comment 1: Alleged Missing Attachments
Comment 2: Direct Material Costs--Use of Pre-POR Costs
Comments Relating to Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
Comment 3: Sunflag's Ferrochrome Purchases from Affiliate Navbharat
Ventures
Comment 4: Rent Sunflag Paid to Affiliate, Ridge Farm Developers,
for New Delhi Office
Comment 5: Rent Sunflag Paid to Affiliate, Haryana Television, for
Faridabad Office
Comment 6: Adjustment to Interest on Working Capital Loan
Comment 7: Imputed Interest on Unsecured Interest-Free Loan from
Affiliate Sunflag Ltd. UK
Comment 8: Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses
[FR Doc. E8-20925 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P