[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67689-67692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27800]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-825]
Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
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, 2009, through January 31, 2010.
The Department has preliminarily determined that VMSA made U.S.
sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results of
[[Page 67690]]
review. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than
120 days from the publication date of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Stewart 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-
0768 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from
Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil,
India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 1, 2010,
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 5037
(February 1, 2010).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on February 26, 2010, the
petitioners \1\ requested that the Department conduct an administrative
review of VMSA's sales and entries of subject merchandise into the
United States during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),
on March 1, 2010, VMSA also requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of its sales. On March 30, 2010, the Department
published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Brazil for the
period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request
for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 15679 (March 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless,
Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.,
Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Outokumpu Stainless
Bar, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Fair-Value Comparison
To determine whether VMSA's sales of the subject merchandise from
Brazil to the United States were at prices below normal value, we
compared the export price (EP) to the normal value as described in the
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the
EP of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average
normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in
the ordinary course of trade.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products covered by the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, produced
and sold by VMSA in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign
like product for the purposes of determining appropriate products to
use in comparison to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically,
in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an
identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to
weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales
which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product
during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-
average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If
there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we
identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the
most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the
physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following
order of importance: general type of finish, grade, remelting process,
type of final finishing operation, shape, and size.
Export Price
The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject
merchandise by VMSA on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act
because the merchandise was sold before importation by the producer or
exporter of the subject merchandise outside the United States to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated EP based on
the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as
appropriate. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made adjustments to
price for billing adjustments, where applicable. We also made
deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Home-Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of SSB in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal
value, we compared the volume of the respondent's home-market sales of
the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. VMSA's quantity of sales in the home market was greater
than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on this
comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in Brazil and to the United
States and absent any information that a particular market situation in
the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we
preliminarily determine that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to
permit a proper comparison with the sales of the
[[Page 67691]]
subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)
of the Act. Thus, we determine that VMSA's home market was viable
during the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on
the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for
consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities
and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.
B. Cost-of-Production Analysis
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in the 2007-2008
antidumping duty administrative review, the most recently completed
review as of the date of the initiation of this review, we found that
VMSA made sales below the COP and we disregarded VMSA's below-cost
sales for the calculation of normal value. See Stainless Steel Bar From
Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 10022 (March 9, 2009).\2\ Thus, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department found reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales by VMSA of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of normal value in this review may
have been made at prices below the COP. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales by VMSA in the
home market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These results were unchanged in the final results of review
(Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 33995 (July 14, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in
producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and
administrative expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to
packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-market
sales and COP information provided by VMSA in its questionnaire
responses. Based on the review of record evidence, VMSA did not appear
to experience significant changes in cost of manufacturing during the
period of review. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of
calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section
773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared the COPs of the models represented by
control numbers to the reported home-market prices less any applicable
movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20
percent of VMSA's sales of a given product were at prices less than the
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because
the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of VMSA's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of
prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that these
sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we only disregarded below-
cost sales that amounted to 20 percent or more of VMSA's sales of a
given product. All other sales that were below cost but did not meet
the 20-percent threshold were included in our calculation of normal
value.
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We based normal value for VMSA on home-market sales to unaffiliated
purchasers. VMSA's home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-
factory, or delivered prices. When applicable, we made adjustments for
differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of
sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. For comparisons to EP sales, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. We also made
adjustments, if applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses
to offset U.S. commissions in EP calculations.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of
trade as the EP. Consistent with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, for
these preliminary results, we did not make a level-of-trade adjustment
in instances when normal value was calculated at a different level of
trade. See ``Level of Trade'' section below.
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at
the same level of trade as EP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at the same level of
trade, we compare EP sales to comparison-market sales at a different
level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of the
starting-price sales in the comparison market.
To determine whether home-market sales were at a different level of
trade than VMSA's U.S. sales during the POR, we examined stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Based on our
analysis, we have preliminarily determined that there is one level of
trade in the United States and two levels of trades in the home market;
we also find that the single U.S. level of trade is at the same level
as one of the levels of trade in the home market and at a less advanced
stage than the second home-market level of trade. Therefore, we have
compared U.S. sales to home-market sales at the same level of trade
and, where there was no home-market sale at the same level of trade, at
a different level of trade.
Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or
downward adjustment to normal value for level of trade if the
difference in level of trade involves the performance of different
selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability,
based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at
different levels of trade in the country in which normal value is
determined. Here, because we have preliminarily determined that a
pattern of consistent price differences is not supported by record
evidence showing higher prices at one level of trade for a
preponderance of models and for a preponderance of quantities sold, we
did not calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on VMSA's home-
market sales of the foreign like product. For a detailed description of
our level-of-trade analysis for VMSA for these preliminary results, see
VMSA Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum, dated October 27, 2010,
on file in the Department's Central Records Unit.
[[Page 67692]]
Currency Conversion
Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we
converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar
amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the
relevant U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
weighted-average dumping margin for merchandise produced and exported
by Villares Metals S.A. is 4.07 percent for the period February 1,
2009, through January 31, 2010.
Disclosure and Public Comment
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a hearing is requested,
the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed
by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested
parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department will consider rebuttal
briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing
case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the
argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that
parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a
diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such
comments.
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results
in the Federal Register.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and 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 preliminary results of review. For sales where VMSA
reported entered value, we divided the total dumping margins
(calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for the
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for
each reported importer or customer. For sales where entered value was
not reported, we divided the total dumping margins for each exporter's
importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to
that importer or customer. We will instruct CBP to assess the resulting
importer/customer-specific ad-valorem rate or per-unit dollar amount,
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 liquidation instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication of the final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the 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 the rate established in the final results of this review; (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, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: October 27, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27800 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P