[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2028]


[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-427-811]


Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Beck, Office of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-3464.

Scope of Order

    For purposes of this investigation, certain stainless steel wire 
rods (SSWR) are products which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed, 
and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in 
coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent 
or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without 
other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling, 
are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The 
majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional 
shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters 
in diameter.
    The SSWR subject to this investigation is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 
7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, 
7221.00.0080 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 this 
investigation is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Determination

    In accordance with section 735 (a) and (d) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), on December 29, 1993, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) published its final determination that 
certain stainless steel wire rods from France were being sold at less 
than fair value (58 FR 68865).
    On January 5, 1994, Imphy S.A. and Ugine-Savoie (respondent) 
alleged that the Department made clerical errors in its final 
calculations. Respondent argued that the Department erroneously applied 
best information available (BIA) to the Metalimphy Alloys Corporation 
(MAC) and Ugine Stainless and Alloys (US&A) (both divisions of MAC, 
which is a subsidiary of Imphy S.A.) further manufactured sales on the 
basis that the cost of further manufacturing data did not include costs 
associated with certain manufactured sales of MAC. Respondent contends 
that the further manufacturing costs were fully provided on the C-1 
U.S. sales database under the field ``FURMANU'', which represented 
processing charges by outside subcontractors or by Techalloy as the 
subcontractor. Respondent further states that the Department accepted 
this submission, used it for the preliminary determination, made no 
request for further information, and appears to have agreed in the 
final determination that the appropriate information regarding these 
sales had been submitted.
    The Department does not agree that this is a clerical error. The 
Department required detailed cost information for further manufacturing 
to be reported on the E-2 further manufacturing cost database. 
Respondent failed to provide this detailed cost information with 
respect to products further manufactured by MAC on the E-2 database, 
even though it indicated it had done so on page 2 of the narrative 
portion of its May 10, 1993, submission. Respondent reported detailed 
costs only for products further manufactured by Techalloy.
    Specifically, in its clerical error allegation, respondent 
indicated that the cost information for products further manufactured 
by MAC was included in the ``FURMANU'' field of the C-1 U.S. sales tape 
and that the Department used this for the preliminary determination. 
First, we agree that the total further manufacturing costs for MAC were 
included on the C-1 U.S. sales tape. However, at the final 
determination, we made adjustments to certain elements of the further 
manufacturing costs. These elements were only included on the E-2 
further manufacturing database. Since respondent failed to provide on 
the E-2 database those cost elements for the products further 
manufactured by MAC, the Department could not adjust the further 
manufacturing costs of the MAC products. Consequently, we also could 
not use the costs reported on the C-1 U.S. sales tape since this tape 
included only total costs and not the individual costs elements that we 
needed to adjust.
    Respondent's argument that the Department used the further 
manufacturing cost totals on the C-1 U.S. sales tape at the preliminary 
determination is unavailing. At the preliminary determination, the 
Department used the further manufacturing totals from the C-1 sales 
tape only because respondent did not provide a means to link the C-1 
and E-2 tapes in time for the preliminary determination. Since there 
was no way to link these tapes (until after the preliminary 
determination, when we received new tapes in response to the 
Department's request), and since the total product further 
manufacturing costs were the same on both the E-2 and C-1 databases, we 
simply used the total cost figures on the C-1 database. This was not 
the case at the final determination, where a way to link these tapes 
was available and where we had to adjust certain cost elements on the 
E-2 database.
    On January 10, 1994, petitioners alleged that the Department made 
three clerical errors in the final determination. First, petitioners 
alleged that the Department miscalculated the test which ensures that 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses are not less than 
ten percent of the cost of manufacture (COM). Specifically, petitioners 
stated that the Department's instructions require COM to be multiplied 
by one percent and not ten percent.
    We agree that this error is a clerical error. In attempting to make 
sure that SG&A expenses were not less than ten percent of the COM, we 
mistakenly multiplied the COM by one percent instead of ten percent. 
Therefore, we corrected this error by multiplying the COM by ten 
percent.
    Secondly, petitioners alleged that the Department failed to include 
United States commissions in the value-added tax (VAT) readjustment 
calculation, pursuant to which we made a deduction from foreign market 
value for purchase price comparisons.
    After a review of petitioners' allegation and the Department's new 
VAT calculation methodology, we have determined that this was a 
clerical error. Therefore, we have included commissions in the VAT 
readjustment calculation.
    Finally, petitioners alleged that the Department double counted 
home market indirect selling expenses when deducting this expense from 
foreign market value during comparisons of constructed value to 
exporter's sales price.
    The Department agrees that the double deduction of indirect selling 
expenses from foreign market value during comparisons of constructed 
value to exporter's sales price was a clerical error. To correct this 
error, the Department eliminated the separate variable for indirect 
selling expenses from the foreign unit price string.
    For further discussion of these clerical errors, see Memorandum 
from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford dated January 25, 1994.

Antidumping Duty Order

    In accordance with section 736 of the Act, the Department will 
direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the 
administering authority pursuant to section 736(a)(1) of the Act, 
antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the foreign market 
value of the merchandise exceeds the United States price for all 
entries of certain stainless steel wire rods from France. These 
antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of 
certain stainless steel wire rods from France entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 5, 1993, the date on 
which the Department published its preliminary determination notice in 
the Federal Register (58 FR 41726). On or after the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register, U.S. Custom officers must 
require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated 
duties, the following cash deposits for the subject merchandise: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
              Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                    margin  
                                                             percentage 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imphy......................................................        24.51
Ugine-Savoie...............................................        24.51
All Others.................................................       24.51 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order and amended 
final determination with respect to certain stainless steel wire rods 
from France, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties 
may contact the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Main Commerce 
Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders 
currently in effect.
    This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.21.

    Dated: January 25, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-2028 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P