[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1776]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 27, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-351-825, A-533-810, A-475-813, A-588-833 and A-469-805]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel
Bar From Brazil, India, Italy, Japan and Spain
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jenkins or Shawn Thompson, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1756, or (202) 482-3965.
INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS:
The Petitions
On December 30, 1993, we received petitions filed in proper form by
five producers of stainless steel bar (AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp.,
Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels
Corporation and Talley Metals Technology, Inc.) and one labor union
(United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC) (collectively,
petitioners). On January 4, 1994, and January 7, 1994, Electralloy
Corp. and the Crucible Specialty Metals Division of the Crucible
Materials Corp., respectively, notified the Department that they are
also petitioners in these investigations. In accordance with 19 CFR
353.12, the petitioners allege that imports of stainless steel bar from
Brazil, India, Italy, Japan and Spain are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of
section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and that
these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to,
a U.S. industry.
The petitioners have stated that they have standing to file the
petitions because they are interested parties, as defined under
sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act, and because the petitions
were filed on behalf of the U.S. industry producing the product subject
to these investigations. If any interested party, as described under
paragraphs (C), (D), (E), or (F) of section 771(9) of the Act, wishes
to register support for, or opposition to, these petitions, it should
file a written notification with the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
Under the Department's regulations, any producer or reseller
seeking exclusion from a potential antidumping duty order must submit
its request for exclusion within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice. The procedures and requirements are contained in 19 CFR
353.14.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is July 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993.
Scope of Investigations
For purposes of these investigations, the term ``stainless steel
bar'' 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. Stainless steel bar includes cold-
finished stainless steel bars 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 stainless steel bar subject to these investigations is
currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.20.00 and
7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
For purposes of these initiations we are considering the subject
merchandise to be one class or kind of merchandise. We invite
interested parties to comment on this issue by March 25, 1994.
United States Price and Foreign Market Value
Brazil
Petitioners based United States price (USP) on January-March 1993
invoices issued by the U.S. subsidiary of Acos Villares SA (Villares),
a Brazilian producer of stainless steel bar, to an unrelated U.S.
customer. Since USP was based on C&F terms of sale, petitioners
deducted from USP amounts for U.S. duty, ocean freight, marine
insurance, and harbor maintenance and U.S. merchandise processing fees.
Petitioners used Villares' delivered home market prices as the
basis for FMV. These prices and related expenses were contained in a
market research report. FMV was based on actual tax-exclusive, May-June
1993 delivered sales prices of Villares to unrelated customers in
Brazil. Petitioners deducted from FMV an amount for inland freight.
Petitioners indicate that the home market price used for FMV was
reported in U.S. dollars, thus taking into account Brazil's
hyperinflationary economy.
Based on a comparison of USP to FMV, the dumping margin alleged by
petitioners for stainless steel bar from Brazil is 19.43 percent.
India
Petitioners calculated USP based on two different methodologies.
First, petitioners obtained a July 1993 U.S. price quote for stainless
steel bar from India to an unrelated U.S. customer. Since the prices
were quoted C&F for delivery to the east or west coast of the United
States, petitioners deducted from USP amounts for import duties, ocean
freight, marine insurance, and harbor maintenance and U.S. merchandise
processing fees.
Petitioners calculated a second weighted-average USP using the
average import values of stainless steel bar from India for August and
September 1993. The unit values were derived from U.S. Department of
Commerce import statistics.
Petitioners used Indian home market prices for stainless steel bar
from Mukand Ltd., the largest stainless steel bar producer in India, as
the basis for FMV. These prices were contained in a market research
report. Petitioners deducted from these prices taxes, insurance,
freight, and a distributor's margin based on information in the market
research report. Because the comparison of USP and FMV involved non-
identical merchandise, petitioners made an adjustment for differences
in merchandise based on information contained in the market research
report.
For purposes of this initiation, we have accepted petitioners'
calculation of USP based on the first methodology. Accordingly, the
range of dumping margins of stainless steel bar from India based on a
comparison of USP to FMV alleged by petitioners under this methodology
is 11.26 to 21.02 percent.
Italy
Petitioners based USP on price quotations for U.S. sales made by
Cogne, an Italian producer of stainless steel bar, to an unrelated U.S.
customer. Since these USPs were quoted FOB duty paid, petitioners
deducted the applicable import duties.
Petitioners calculated FMV using two methodologies. First,
petitioners used Cogne's delivered home market prices as the basis for
FMV. These prices were contained in a market research report.
Petitioners deducted from these prices inland freight and insurance
based on information contained in the same report.
Second, petitioners based FMV on constructed value (CV).
Petitioners used CV because they alleged that Cogne's home market sales
are being made at prices below the cost of production (COP).
Petitioners also allege that another Italian company, Bolzano, is
making home market sales of stainless steel bar at prices below the
COP. These allegations are based on a comparison of home market prices
for Cogne and Bolzano, obtained from the market research report, with
COP. COP was based on the COP of an efficient U.S. producer of
stainless steel bar, adjusted for known differences in costs between
the United States and Italy. Where petitioners calculated CV, they used
the COP derived from this U.S. producer and added the statutory minimum
of eight percent for profit.
The Department is initiating COP investigations for the two
companies where petitioners provided company-specific home market
prices, contingent upon whether these companies become respondents in
this investigation. The Department is not initiating COP investigations
for those companies and exporters where petitioners did not provide
company-specific home market prices.
Petitioners allege a price-to-price dumping margin for stainless
steel bar from Italy of 15.15 percent. Petitioners allege a price-to-CV
dumping margin of 157.03 percent.
Japan
Petitioners based USP on June 1993 sales invoices from Daido Steel
Sheet Corporation (Daido), a Japanese producer of stainless steel bar,
to an unrelated U.S. customer. Since the USPs were quoted ex-dock, duty
paid, Los Angeles, petitioners deducted from USP amounts for U.S. duty,
ocean freight, marine insurance, harbor maintenance and U.S.
merchandise processing fees.
Petitioners used Daido's delivered May-June 1993 home market sales
prices as the basis for FMV. These prices were contained in a market
research report. To calculate an ex-factory price, except for credit,
petitioners used expense information from the market research report.
For credit, petitioners used the rate in effect in Japan for March 1993
as reported in the International Financial Statistics, July 1993.
Petitioners deducted from FMV an amount for inland freight and
insurance, trade discounts, rebates and sales promotion expenses,
advertising and warranties. Petitioners made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments for credit and packing.
Based on a comparison of USP to FMV, the dumping margins alleged by
petitioners for stainless steel bar from Japan range from 48.00 to
61.47 percent.
Spain
Petitioners based USP on a September 1993 price quote for U.S.
sales made by Acenor, a Spanish producer of stainless steel bar, to an
unrelated U.S. company. Since USP was quoted on a direct mill delivery
basis, petitioners deducted the applicable import duties, ocean
freight, marine insurance, harbor maintenance and U.S. merchandise
processing fees.
Petitioners calculated FMV using two methodologies. First,
petitioners used Acenor's delivered home market prices as the basis for
FMV. These prices were contained in a market research report.
Petitioners deducted inland freight from FMV using information
contained in the same report.
Second, petitioners based FMV on CV because they alleged that
Acenor's home market sales are being made at prices below the COP.
Petitioners also allege that another Spanish company, Roldan, is making
home market sales of stainless steel bar at prices below the COP. These
allegations are based on a comparison of home market prices for Acenor
and Roldan, obtained from the market research report, with COP. COP was
based on the COP of an efficient U.S. producer, adjusted for known
differences in costs between the United States and Spain. Where
petitioners calculated CV, they used the COP from this producer and
added the statutory minimum of eight percent for profit.
The Department is initiating COP investigations for the two
companies where petitioners provided company-specific home market
prices, contingent upon whether these companies become respondents in
this investigation. The Department is not initiating COP investigations
for those companies and exporters where petitioners did not provide
company-specific home market prices.
Petitioners allege a price-to-price dumping margin for stainless
steel bar from Spain of 38.82 percent. Petitioners allege a price-to-CV
dumping margin of 144.88 percent.
Initiation of Investigations
We have examined the petitions on stainless steel bar from Brazil,
India, Italy, Japan and Spain, and have found that the petitions meet
the requirements of section 732(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are
initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports
of stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Italy, Japan and Spain are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value.
Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission
The International Trade Commission (ITC) will determine by February
14, 1994, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of
stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Italy, Japan and Spain are
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. A
negative ITC determination on any one of these investigations will
result in that investigation being terminated; otherwise, the
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time
limits.
This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 353.13(b).
Dated: January 19, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-1776 Filed 1-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P