[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12514-12518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5710]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2008, through January 31, 2009.
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 review. We intend to issue the
final results of review no later than 120 days from the publication
date of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 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 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 4, 2009,
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, 74 FR 6013
(February 4, 2009).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on March 2, 2009, VMSA
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its
sales and
[[Page 12515]]
entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR;
the Department initiated a review on March 24, 2009. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 12310 (March 24, 2009). On October 29,
2009, we extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results
of the review by 90 days until January 29, 2010. See Stainless Steel
Bar From Brazil: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 55812 (October 29, 2009).
On January 26, 2010, we extended the time period for issuing the
preliminary results of the review by 30 additional days until March 1,
2010. See Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
4044 (January 26, 2010).
As explained in the February 12, 2010, memorandum from the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the Department has
exercised its discretion to toll Import Administration deadlines for
the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from February 5
through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the
proceeding have been extended by seven days. The revised deadline for
the preliminary results of this review is now March 8, 2010. See
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated
February 12, 2010.
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) or constructed export price (CEP) to the
normal value as described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. Therefore,
pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP or CEP 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 as discussed in the ``Cost-of-Production
Analysis'' section of this notice.
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, size.
Export Price
The Department based the price of certain 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 F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated
purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States, as
appropriate. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made adjustments to
price for billing adjustments and discounts, where applicable. We also
made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Constructed Export Price
In addition to EP sales, the Department based the price of certain
U.S. sales of subject merchandise by VMSA on CEP as defined in section
772(b) of the Act because the merchandise was sold, before importation,
by a U.S.-based seller affiliated with the producer to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We calculated the CEP based on the
packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in
the United States, as appropriate. In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, we calculated the CEP by deducting direct selling expenses
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States,
indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring
in the United States, and the profit allocated to expenses deducted
under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we
computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both
the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses associated with
those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect
to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to
total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets.
[[Page 12516]]
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 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
On September 9, 2009, the petitioners\1\ filed a timely below-cost
allegation based on the revised home-market database that VMSA
submitted with its September 1, 2009, response to our supplemental
questionnaire. The petitioners based their cost allegation on VMSA's
own cost information, i.e., VMSA's reported sales data and the total
COP for models represented by specific control numbers. The petitioners
defined the total COP as the sum of the total cost of manufacturing,
general and administrative expenses, and interest expenses which they
then compared to the net price. The petitioners incorporated all of the
respondent's claims regarding deductions from gross price as well as
its reported cost data in their calculations. We adjusted the
petitioners' calculation of the total COP by using the lowest absolute
fixed-overhead cost from VMSA's U.S. sales database. We determined that
the methodology employed by the petitioners, as we adjusted it, was
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are Carpenter Technology Corporation,
Valbruna Slater, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O.
Carlson, Inc., and Universal Stainless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2009, we initiated a cost investigation because we
had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that VMSA's sales of the
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of
normal value may have been made at prices below COP as provided by
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of VMSA's sales in the
home market. On January 12, 2010, and January 19, 2010, we requested
supplemental cost information from VMSA. On February 2, 2010, VMSA
supplied the supplemental cost information.
The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual
weighted-average cost for the entire POR. See, e.g., Certain Pasta From
Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR
77852 (December 13, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 18, and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 (explaining the Department's practice
of computing a single weighted-average cost for the entire period in
order to even out slight fluctuations in production costs experienced
by respondents during the POR). The Department recognizes, however,
that distortions to the weighted-average cost may result if it uses its
normal annual-average cost method for a POR in which significant cost
changes occurred. Accordingly, the Department may elect to deviate from
its normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost
by using quarterly indexed weighted-average costs instead. See
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399 (December
11, 2008) (SSPC from Belgium), and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009) (SSSC from Mexico). The
Department determines whether to use this methodology by evaluating the
case-specific record evidence using the following two primary factors:
(1) the change in the cost of manufacturing (COM) recognized by the
respondent during the POR must be deemed significant; (2) the record
evidence must indicate that sales during the shorter averaging periods
could be reasonably linked with the COP or constructed value (CV)
during the same shorter averaging periods. See SSPC from Belgium and
SSSC from Mexico.
In this case, we have determined that the record evidence suggests
it was necessary to request additional cost information which would
enable us to determine whether we should calculate COP on a shorter
cost period (i.e., quarterly basis). We issued a supplemental
questionnaire on February 24, 2010. The due date for the response to
the supplemental questionnaire is March 10, 2010, which is later than
the deadline for these preliminary results. Upon receipt of a response
from VMSA, we will analyze this additional information. If we find that
it is appropriate to use our alternative cost-calculation methodology
(i.e., quarterly COPs), we will provide a memorandum discussing the
results of our analysis to the respondent and the petitioners, and we
will give the parties an opportunity to comment prior to the final
results. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Glycine From India, 72 FR 62827, 62832 (November 7, 2007);
see also SSPC from Belgium, 73 FR at 75398.
For these preliminary results we have followed our normal practice
and used an annual weighted-average cost for the entire POR. 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.
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
[[Page 12517]]
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.
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. For comparisons to CEP
sales, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-
market direct selling expenses from normal value.
We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP 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 or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different
level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate, in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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 or CEP 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 and CEP 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 trade 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.
Because there are two levels of trade in the home market, we were
able to 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 March 8, 2010.
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 0.00 percent for the period February 1,
2008, through January 31, 2009.
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 notify the interested
parties on the time limit for filing case briefs. See 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. 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 intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the
publication of the final results of review.
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) (Assessment
of Antidumping Duties). 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
[[Page 12518]]
clarification, see Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
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: March 8, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-5710 Filed 3-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S