[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