[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 222 (Friday, November 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58523-58525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29241]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-427-811]


Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Jacques or Jean Kemp, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3434 or (202) 482-4037, respectively.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are certain 
stainless steel wire rods (SSWR), 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 review 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, and 
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 the order 
is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

    On September 11, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire rods from France 
(61 FR 47874). This review covered Imphy S.A., and Ugine-Savoie, two 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. The period of review (POR) is August 5, 1993, through December 
31, 1994.
    On September 17, 1996, counsel for the petitioning companies Al 
Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Armco Stainless &

[[Page 58524]]

Alloy Products, Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, 
Talley Metals Technology, Inc., United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO/CLC (``petitioners'') filed allegations of clerical errors with 
regard to the final results in the first administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order of certain stainless steel wire rods from France 
manufactured by Imphy and Ugine-Savoie (``respondents''). We also 
received allegations from respondents on September 18, 1996. 
Respondents submitted rebuttal comments on September 20, 1996 and 
petitioners submitted their rebuttal comments on September 25, 1996. 
The allegations and rebuttal comments of both parties were filed in a 
timely fashion.
    Petitioners alleged that the Department made four ministerial 
errors in the final results.
    First, petitioners contend that the Department inputted an 
incorrect date for the calculation of credit expenses for U.S. sales 
with missing pay date information. Second, petitioners contend that the 
Department incorrectly applied an exchange rate to respondents' 
reported marine insurance expenses that were already denominated in 
U.S. dollars. Third, petitioners argued that the Department failed to 
include repacking expenses in its calculation of total expenses 
incurred by respondents in the United States which was subsequently 
used by the margin calculation program to calculate CEP profit. Fourth, 
petitioners alleged that the Department failed to use the correct 
computer code to cap the CEP offset by the amount of indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the United States.
    Respondents did not object to petitioners' ministerial allegations 
but argued that certain computer coding suggested by petitioners was 
incorrect (For further discussion of respondents' arguments concerning 
the computer code to correct these clerical errors, please see 
Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa dated November 
6, 1996 (``Memorandum'')). Although respondents did not object to 
petitioners' ministerial error allegation regarding repacking expenses, 
they argued that to assure consistent treatment, the Department should 
also include repacking as an expense which is deducted from U.S. 
revenue, in calculating total actual profit.
    After a review of petitioners' allegations, we agree with 
petitioners' allegations and have corrected these errors for the 
amended final results. We also agree with respondents' argument and 
will include repacking expenses in the calculation of the U.S. selling 
expense (``SELLEXPU'') variable to ensure consistent treatment in the 
calculation of total actual profit. For the computer code we used to 
correct these ministerial errors, please see the Memorandum.
    Respondents alleged that the Department's margin calculation 
program failed to match sales without regard to level of trade when a 
control number (CONNUM) was sold in the U.S. at both the end user level 
of trade and the distributor level of trade. Respondents alleged that 
in these instances, all constructed export price (CEP) and constructed 
export price/further manufactured (CEP/FM) sales of the CONNUM were 
compared to constructed value, rather than to home market sales of 
comparable merchandise.
    We agree that this is a clerical error and have corrected it for 
the amended final results.
    Second, respondents alleged that in determining CEP profit, the 
Department neglected to include expenses and profit on those sales in 
France that failed the arm's-length test. Respondents contend that the 
Department should amend the margin calculation program by including the 
arm's-length dataset.
    Petitioners contend that respondents are not making a ministerial 
error allegation but challenging the Department's decision to exclude 
sales that failed the arm's-length test from the calculation of CEP 
profit. Petitioners also note that the Department employed the same 
methodology in the preliminary results and that respondents did not 
dispute the methodology in their case briefs. Petitioners argue that 
since the Department must disregard a respondents' sales to its 
affiliated parties as a basis for normal value if such sales are not 
arm's-length transactions, the expenses associated with such sales 
should also be disregarded in the CEP profit calculation. Petitioners 
contend that respondents' allegation of a clerical error is misplaced 
and should be rejected.
    We disagree with respondents that this is a ministerial error. The 
exclusion of related party sales from the calculation of CEP profit is 
a methodological issue. Consequently, it is inappropriate to change the 
CEP profit methodology at this time as a ministerial error. Moreover, 
the Department used the same methodology in the preliminary results and 
the respondents did not address this issue in their case briefs for the 
preliminary results.
    Third, respondents alleged that the Department inadvertently 
overstated CV profit on the sales used in its computation of CV, by 
failing to take packing expense into account.
    We agree that this is a clerical error and have corrected the error 
for the amended final results.
    Fourth, respondents alleged that we failed to make a circumstance 
of sale adjustment for credit expense in constructed value comparisons.
    Petitioners objected to this ministerial error allegation and 
contend that respondents have raised a challenge to a methodological 
decision by the Department that was included in the preliminary results 
but was never challenged by respondents. Petitioners argue that having 
failed to question this methodology in the preliminary results, it is 
improper for respondents to make a ministerial error allegation.
    We disagree that this is a ministerial error. A circumstance of 
sale adjustment for credit expense in constructed value comparisons is 
a methodological issue. It is not the Department's policy to make a 
circumstance of sale adjustment for credit expense in constructed value 
comparisons (see, e.g. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30360 (June 14, 
1996). Thus, it is inappropriate to alter the constructed value 
comparison as a ministerial error. Moreover, the Department used this 
methodology in the preliminary results and the respondents did not 
address this issue in their case briefs.
    Fifth, respondents alleged that the Department's margin calculation 
program erroneously multiplied the aggregate amount of the margin 
calculated by product, sale type and importer by the quantity sold. 
Also, respondents stated that there is no need for separate 
calculations by importer and that the Department should compute a 
uniform duty assessment amount or rate.
    Petitioners agree with respondents that the Department's 
calculations inadvertently multiplied the aggregate amount of the 
margin found for each category (which already reflected the quantity) 
by the quantity sold resulting in a clerical error. However, 
petitioners state that respondents' argument concerning assessment 
instructions were considered and rejected by the Department in the 
final results of the first administrative review. Consequently, 
petitioners state that it is inappropriate for respondents to raise 
this issue again in the context of ministerial error allegations.
    We agree that the Department's calculations inadvertently 
multiplied the aggregate amount of the margin found for each category 
by the quantity

[[Page 58525]]

sold resulting in a clerical error. We disagree with respondents' 
assertion that the issue of separate calculations by importer versus a 
uniform duty assessment rate is a ministerial error; it is a 
methodological issue.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imphy/Ugine-Savoie........................    8/5/93-12/31/94      14.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and foreign market value may 
vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective, 
upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review for 
all shipments of certain stainless steel wire rods from France entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates for 
those firms as stated above; (2) for previously 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, or the original 
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; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 24.51 percent for 
stainless steel wire rods, the all others rate established in the LTFV 
investigations. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France, (59 FR 4022, 
January 28, 1994).
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double 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 section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/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.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: November 7, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-29241 Filed 11-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P