[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39663-39664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16912]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-825]
Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 16, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from Brazil. The
review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise,
Villares Metals S.A. (VMSA). The period of review (POR) is February 1,
2008, through January 31, 2009. We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received one
comment. The final weighted-average dumping margin for VMSA is listed
below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
1757 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 16, 2010, the Department published the preliminary results
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
stainless steel bar from Brazil. See Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
12514 (March 16, 2010) (Preliminary Results). We invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On May 5, 2010, we
released a post-preliminary analysis in which we altered the cost-of-
production methodology from that which we applied for the Preliminary
Results. See discussion below. On May 13, 2010, we received a case
brief from the petitioners (Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna
Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O.
Carlson, Inc., and Universal Stainless). We did not receive a request
for a hearing from any interested party.
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order covers stainless steel bar (SSB). The term
SSB with respect to the order 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-length flat-rolled products (i.e., cut-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 the order is currently classifiable
under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005,
7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Alternative Cost Methodology
In our Preliminary Results we relied on our standard methodology of
comparing U.S. prices to monthly home-market prices (see Preliminary
Results, 75 FR at 12516), and we compared the home-market prices to POR
costs for the cost-of-production test under section 773(b)(1) of the
Act. We indicated in the Preliminary Results that we would consider
applying an alternative cost methodology after analyzing product-
specific quarterly cost information. We announced in the Preliminary
Results that we would release revised analysis if we found it
appropriate to use quarterly costs, based on VMSA's supplemental cost
data, and that we would give the parties an opportunity to comment on
any revised analysis prior to the final results. See Preliminary
Results, 75 FR at 12516.
Subsequent to our Preliminary Results, we analyzed VMSA's quarterly
cost data and determined that the use of the alternative cost
methodology is appropriate in this case because the changes in the
quarterly cost of manufacture were significant and we can reasonably
link the prices of sales made during the quarters with the production
costs during the same quarters. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399 (December 11, 2008), and Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009). Accordingly, we
applied the cost test using quarterly average costs and home-market
transaction prices. Further, consistent with our practice in reviews,
we continued to compare monthly average home-market prices to
individual U.S. prices in the calculation of the margin but confined
those comparisons to the same quarter. See Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils From Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR
39622, 39629 (August 7, 2009) (unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 (February 10, 2010)). A detailed
explanation of our analysis can be found in the May 5, 2010, memorandum
entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Post-Preliminary Analysis'' and the May 5, 2010,
memorandum entitled ``Post Preliminary Calculations Analysis
Memorandum''
[[Page 39664]]
which were released to interested parties for comment.
Based on our cost-of-production analysis, we disregarded below-cost
sales by VMSA in the home market.
Analysis of Comments Received
In their case brief, the petitioners claim that the Department made
a ministerial error by neglecting to reduce the U.S. gross unit price
for movement expenses VMSA reported under the computer variable for
U.S. duties in calculating the net U.S. price for constructed export-
price transactions, thereby resulting in an understatement of VMSA's
dumping margin. The petitioners request that the Department correct
this ministerial error for the final results of the review.
We reviewed the petitioners' allegation and agree that correction
of the error is appropriate. Accordingly, for the final results we have
recalculated the net U.S. price for constructed export-price
transactions by reducing the U.S. gross unit price for these movement
expenses. See Final Analysis Memorandum, dated concurrently with this
notice, for detailed information on this change.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the weighted-average
dumping margin for VMSA is 3.70 percent for the period February 1,
2008, through January 31, 2009.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated
importer/customer-specific assessment rates for these final results of
review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by
the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each reported
importer or customer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importer/
customer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of
subject merchandise made by the relevant importer or customer during
the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by VMSA for which VMSA did not know
its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of VMSA-produced
merchandise 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).
The Department intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after
the publication of these final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review
for all shipments of SSB from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit rate
for VMSA will be 3.70 percent; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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; (4) if
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the all-others rate for this proceeding, 19.43
percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, 59 FR 66914 (December 28,
1994). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Parties
This notice serves as a 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 this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: July 1, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-16912 Filed 7-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S