[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47198-47201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22069]
[[Page 47198]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 6, 2009, 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 one
producer/exporter: Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus'') during
the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008.
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 15, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erika McDonald 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) 482-5761
and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 6, 2009, the Department published Stainless Steel Bar From
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 9787 (March 6, 2009) (``Preliminary Results'') in the Federal
Register.
Following the Preliminary Results, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to Venus in March and April 2009. The
Department received Venus' responses in March, April and May 2009. On
April 27, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the
deadline for these final results to September 2, 2009. See Stainless
Steel Bar From India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of
the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 19048
(April 27, 2009).
Department officials met with counsel to Petitioners \1\ to discuss
issues pertaining to Venus' relationship with AMS Specialty Steel
(``AMS'') on May 20, 2009. See Memorandum from Erika McDonald, ``Ex-
Parte Meeting with Counsel to Petitioners,'' dated May 20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carpenter Technology Corp.; Crucible Specialty Metals, a
division of Crucible Materials Corp.; Electralloy Co., a G.O.
Carlson, Inc. company; and Valbruna Slater Stainless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined to treat
Venus and its affiliate Sieves Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (``Sieves'') as
a single entity for this review.\2\ We further announced our intention
to seek additional information regarding the relationship of these
companies and the types of merchandise sold by Sieves to use in the
final results. On July 17, 2009, we issued our post-preliminary results
calculation memorandum regarding Sieves based on the totality of
information submitted by interested parties. See Memorandum to File,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled ``Post-
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries
Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated July 17, 2009, which is on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU'') in room 1117 of the main Department building. On
July 23, 2009, the Department amended its post-preliminary results. See
Memorandum to the File from Erika McDonald, ``Correction to the Post-
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries
Pvt. Ltd.'' dated July 23, 2009, which is on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Preliminary Results, 74 FR 9788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We met with counsel to Petitioners regarding Venus' affilation with
Hindustan Stainless (``Hindustan'') and Sieves on July 20, 2009. See
Memorandum from Erika McDonald, ``Ex-Parte Meeting with Counsel to
Petitioners,'' dated July 20, 2009.
We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results. On July 31, 2009, Venus filed its case brief which contained
business proprietary information under the one-day lag rule. On August
3, 2009, Venus filed attachments to its case brief that were omitted
from its original case brief submitted on July 31, 2009. On August 5,
2009, the Department notified Venus that it was rejecting its case
brief because the copy of the case brief filed on July 31, 2009, was
not identical to the business proprietary copy filed on August 3, 2009,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(c)(2).
The Department permitted Venus to resubmit its case brief with
bracketing corrections to its July 31, 2009 submission, but excluding
the attachments because the attachments were determined to contain new
factual information. See Letter from Brandon Farlander to Venus, dated
August 5, 2009, and Letter from Brandon Farlander to Venus, dated
August 6, 2009. Venus resubmitted its case brief on August 6, 2009. On
August 3, 2009, Petitioners filed a case brief. On August 11, 2009,
Petitioners and Venus filed rebuttal briefs. We held a hearing on
August 13, 2009.
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 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 this review 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 the order. See
Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, ``Antidumping
[[Page 47199]]
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 CRU. See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110
(September 20, 2005).
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 2007, through January
31, 2008.
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 2, 2009, ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum for 2007-2008 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.
Affiliation
Precision Metals
Consistent with the Preliminary Results, we find that, based on
Venus' representations that its corporate affiliation relationship with
Precision Metals remained the same during the POR as during the 2005-
2006 administrative review, Venus and Precision Metals should be
treated as a single entity in the current proceeding. See Memorandum
from Brandon Farlander to the File, ``Relationship of Venus Wire
Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,'' dated January 9, 2009,
which is on file in the CRU.
Sieves
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily found that
Venus and its affiliate Sieves met the criteria set forth under 19 CFR
351.401(f) and, therefore, preliminarily determined that Venus and
Sieves should be treated as a single entity in this review. See
Memorandum from Scott Holland to Susan Kuhbach, Office Director,
``Whether to Treat Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves
Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as a Single Entity,'' dated March 2, 2009,
which is on file in the CRU. We requested, and Sieves provided,
additional information regarding the relationship of these companies
and the types of merchandise sold by Sieves.
After considering all of the information submitted by interested
parties in this proceeding, we continue to find that Venus and Sieves
meet the criteria established under 19 CFR 351.401(f) and should be
treated as a single entity in this review for the final results. A full
discussion of this issue is presented in the Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
AMS Specialty Steel
Venus reported that AMS was an unaffiliated U.S. customer and that
Venus did not pay commissions to AMS, nor was AMS a sales agent for
Venus during the POR. Petitioners claim that these statements by Venus
are false and that Venus does have a relationship with AMS, including
that of commissioned agent. In addition, Petitioners contend that Venus
incorrectly reported sales to AMS, as the U.S. customer, when it should
have reported the first U.S. sale to AMS' unaffiliated U.S. customer.
Because of this error, according to Petitioners, Venus has reported
wrong sales data to the Department for Venus' sales through AMS. See
Petitioners' January 21, 2009, submission at 2-4.
In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that AMS was not
Venus' agent. Petitioners submitted a letter on May 20, 2009,
reiterating their arguments on the relationship between Venus and AMS.
Because of the proprietary nature of the information submitted by
Petitioners in their allegation, a full discussion of these issues is
presented in the final results calculation memorandum. See Memorandum
from the Team to the File ``Final Results Calculation Memorandum for
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated September 2, 2009 (``Venus
Final Results Calculation Memorandum'').
After considering all of the information submitted by interested
parties in this proceeding, we continue to find that AMS was not Venus'
agent during the POR. A full discussion of this issue is presented in
the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made
adjustments to the Preliminary Results calculations for Venus and the
post-preliminary results regarding Sieves. Brief descriptions of the
company-specific changes are provided below.
A. Cost of Production
For the final results, we are relying on Venus' March 16, 2009,
cost database and Sieves's July 8, 2009, cost database except for the
following: (1) We adjusted Sieves's submitted interest expenses ratio
to reflect market interest rates on its loans from affiliated parties;
(2) we adjusted Sieves' cost database to reflect market prices for its
purchases from an affiliate; in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of
the Act; (3) as noted above, we are collapsing Venus and Sieves.
Accordingly, we are treating them as one respondent and, therefore, we
have weight-averaged the adjusted costs of Venus and Sieves for the
final results. See Memorandum to Neal Harper, Director, Office of
Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for
the Final Results'' dated September 2, 2009.
B. Billing Adjustments
On March 24, 2009, Venus requested it be allowed to revise its U.S.
sales database to reflect billing adjustments due to an inadvertent
accounting error. In that submission, Venus supplied documentation to
support its claim. Petitioners submitted comments on Venus' request on
April 3, 2009. The Department requested additional information from
Venus regarding the billing adjustment on April 23, 2009. Venus
submitted the requested information on May 8, 2009.
After reviewing the information submitted by Venus, we determine
that Venus has sufficiently supported its claim. Therefore, consistent
with Timken \3\ and the Department's past practice, we are making the
changes to Venus' U.S. sales database to reflect the billing
adjustments on the relevant sales for the final results. A full
discussion of this issue is presented in the Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5 and Venus
[[Page 47200]]
Final Results Calculation Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1345 (Federal
Circuit 2006) (``Timken''). See also, Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Determination to
Revoke the Order In Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries
from Chile, 72 FR 6524 (February 12, 2007) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15 (where the Department accepted
a correction to a respondent's sales database seventy days before
the final results affording petitioners sufficient time to comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, because the billing adjustments affect the gross unit
prices for these sales, we are adjusting the reported credit expenses
and indirect selling expenses for these sales for the final results.
See Venus Final Results Calculation Memorandum at 5.
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 Venus, we disregarded these
below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the
basis for determining normal value, 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,
2007, through January 31, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd./ 0.09 (de minimis).
Precision Metals/Sieves
Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For Venus, the Department intends to 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 Venus' reported entered values for the final
results.
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 Venus' 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.
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 further notice.
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.
[[Page 47201]]
Dated: September 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Whether to Collapse Venus and Affiliated Producer Sieves
Comment 2: Whether Certain U.S. Sales by Venus are Constructed
Export Price (``CEP'') or Export Price (``EP'') Sales and Whether A
Principal-Agent Relationship Exists
Comment 3: Alleged Reporting Deficiencies for Venus and Sieves
3a: Bahubali's and Venus Metal's Involvement in the Production/
Sale of Stainless Steel Bar
3b: Hindustan's Involvement in the Production/Sale of Stainless
Steel Bar
3c: Hitech's Involvement in the Production/Sale of Stainless
Steel Bar
3d: Affiliated Party Loans
3e: Affiliated Party Transactions
Comment 4: Whether Respondents Failed to Follow the Procedural
Requirements of the Department's Regulations
Comment 5: Venus' Request to Revise Its U.S. Sales Database to
Reflect a Billing Adjustment
Comment 6: Comparison of Certain Similar Merchandise Sold in the
Home Market
Comment 7: Whether Certain Home Market Sales are Outside the
Ordinary Course of Trade and Whether the Department Should Make a
Level of Trade Adjustment
Comment 8: Offsetting Negative Margins
Comment 9: Whether to Rely on Double-Bracketed Information
[FR Doc. E9-22069 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P