[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25915-25917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[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: May 12, 1997.

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, NW., 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 February 18, 1997, 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 
(62 FR 7206). 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 January 1, 1995, through December 
31, 1995.
    On February 19, 1997, we received submissions from Imphy, S.A. and 
Ugine-Savoie, and their affiliated United States entities, Metalimphy 
Alloys Corp. and Techalloy Company (``respondents'') alleging 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. On February 25, 1997, counsel 
for the petitioning companies, Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Armco 
Stainless & 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. Respondents submitted rebuttal comments on March 4, 1997 and 
petitioners submitted their rebuttal comments on February 26, 1997. The 
allegations and rebuttal comments of both parties were filed in a 
timely fashion.
    Respondents allege that the Department made four ministerial errors 
in the final results. First, respondents contend that the Department 
neglected to use the revised general and administrative expense (GNA) 
and interest expense (INTEX) in the calculation of CEP profit. Second, 
respondents allege that in calculating the CEP profit rate, the 
Department's margin calculation program failed to include foreign 
indirect selling expenses in total expenses, as required by section 
772(f)(2) of the antidumping law. Third, respondents allege that the 
Department omitted to correct a typographical error in the product code 
for a home market control number. Fourth, respondents assert that the 
Department did not correctly revise respondents' cost of manufacture 
(COM) for constructed value (CV) for certain remelting services.
    Petitioners agree with respondents concerning errors 1, 3 and 4. 
However, concerning the issue of failing to include foreign indirect 
selling expenses in total expenses for the calculation of CEP profit, 
petitioners disagree that the Department erred in this respect. 
Petitioners contend that respondents' allegation does not constitute a 
ministerial issue. Petitioners note that the only revisions to the 
final calculations that the Department may make after issuance of a 
final results are ``ministerial error'' corrections (see 19 CFR 
353.28). Petitioners note that the question of which types of expenses 
are proper deductions from CEP profit is a substantive question that 
respondents failed to address in their case brief or otherwise prior to 
issuance of these final results. Consequently, petitioners argue that 
it would be inappropriate for the Department to consider as a 
ministerial error the substantive merits of the CEP profit calculation.
    After a review of respondents' allegations, we agree with 
respondents and have corrected these errors for the amended final 
results. For the computer code we used to correct these ministerial 
errors, please see the Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. 
LaRussa dated May 5, 1997 (``Memorandum''), a public version of which 
is in the file in Central Records, Room B-099 of the Department of 
Commerce building, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, 
DC. We disagree with petitioners that respondents' error allegation 
regarding the calculation of CEP profit is not a ministerial error. The 
Department includes foreign indirect expenses in total expenses for 
purposes of

[[Page 25916]]

calculating CEP profit and did not do so in this case. Consequently, we 
have corrected it for the amended final.
    Petitioners also alleged that the Department made several 
ministerial errors. First, petitioners alleged that the Department's 
programming language for the final results incorrectly revised the 
computer language concerning payment dates. Petitioners contend that 
the Department's original computer language in the preliminary results 
correctly set the date of the final results. However, petitioners 
contend that the computer programming revised the methodology used by 
the Department despite the statement in the Department's final results 
notice that it made no changes to the computer program.
    Respondents contend that petitioners are wrong and are confusing 
two different issues raised in briefing with respect to the calculation 
of U.S. credit expense. Respondents note that the Department disagreed 
with respondents' claim that the Department incorrectly set the payment 
date for every U.S. sale to the projected final results date and the 
Department stated in the final results that it did not change the 
computer program (see Comment 1 of Final Results). However, respondents 
note that the Department agreed with respondents that the formula used 
to calculate U.S. credit expense contained two errors. The Department 
corrected the error in the Final Results (see Comment 2 of Final 
Results). Consequently, respondents contend that petitioners are 
misreading the Department's statement in Comment 1 that it made no 
changes to the computer program to correct the error in the credit 
calculation. Respondents contend that the Department made the necessary 
corrections for the final results and there are no ministerial errors 
to correct.
    We agree with respondents. The Department stated in Comment 1 of 
the final results that it disagreed with respondents' argument that we 
incorrectly set the payment date for all sales to the date of the final 
results. Consequently, for that comment, we stated we did not change 
the computer program. However, we agreed with respondents in Comment 2 
of the final results that the Department incorrectly calculated 
respondents' credit expense. Consequently, we changed the computer 
coding in the margin calculation program to reflect the corrected 
credit expense. Since the calculation of credit expense was corrected 
for the final results, there is no ministerial error.
    Second, petitioners also contend that the Department failed to 
exclude home market sales that failed the arm's length test from the CV 
profit calculation. Respondents did not submit a rebuttal argument 
concerning this issue. We agree with petitioners that this is a 
clerical error and have corrected the error for the amended final 
results.
    Third, petitioners assert that the Department failed to adjust COM 
for CV for remelting services. Respondents did not object to 
petitioners' ministerial allegations but argued that certain computer 
coding suggested by petitioners was incorrect. We agree that this is a 
clerical error and have corrected the error for the amended final 
results using respondents' computer code. Petitioners also requested 
that the Department correct a certain typographical error by inserting 
a comma between two control numbers. We also agree that this is a 
clerical error and have corrected the error for the amended final 
results.
    Fourth, petitioners allege that the Department erroneously deducted 
the same indirect home market expenses from normal value twice, once in 
the form of a commission offset and then again in the form of a CEP 
offset for sales where commissions were paid on respondents' CEP sales, 
but no commissions were paid for the comparison home market sales.
    Respondents contend that this is a methodological issue and not a 
ministerial error. Respondents note that petitioners failed to address 
this matter in their case brief or otherwise prior to issuance of the 
final results. Furthermore, respondents note that petitioners stated in 
their rebuttal comments for the amended final that a substantive 
question embodied in the preliminary results but not raised in briefing 
is not a ministerial error following the final results. Respondents 
state that applying petitioners' own principle, consideration of this 
methodological matter is untimely and the Department should dismiss 
petitioners' comment.
    We agree with petitioners that the Department's computer program 
incorrectly double deducted the same indirect home market expenses from 
normal value twice. It was not the Department's intention to deduct 
these expenses twice. Consequently, we consider this to be a 
ministerial error and have corrected it for the amended final.
    Last, petitioners contend that the Department should deduct 
inventory carrying costs incurred after exportation in calculating CEP. 
Petitioners note that the Department stated in the final results that 
it agreed with petitioners that inventory carrying costs incurred after 
import relate to respondents' economic activity in the United States 
and are properly deducted as indirect selling expenses. Consequently, 
petitioners argue that if the Department agreed with petitioners' 
argument regarding the deduction of post-exportation inventory carrying 
costs, the Department's failure to deduct such expenses constitutes a 
ministerial error.
    Respondents note that in the final results, the Department 
disagreed with petitioners, stating that ``the Department does not 
deduct indirect expenses incurred in selling to the affiliated U.S. 
importer under section 772(d) of the Act.'' Respondents assert that 
petitioners misconstrued the Department's position in the final 
results. Respondents contend that inventory carrying costs incurred 
from the date of exportation from France to the date the affiliate MAC 
received the subject merchandise in the United States relate to selling 
to MAC (respondents' U.S. affiliate), not to selling to an unaffiliated 
U.S. customer. Consequently, respondents argue that these expenses were 
properly not deducted in the calculation of CEP and there is no 
ministerial error to correct.
    We agree with respondents. The inventory carrying costs relate to 
selling to MAC respondents' U.S. subsidiary, and not to the final 
unaffiliated customer. Thus these costs should not be deducted from 
CEP.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review and the correction of the ministerial 
errors described above, we have determined that the following margins 
exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imphy/Ugine-Savoie........................    1/1/95-12/31/95      7.29 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 25917]]

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 Sec. 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: May 5, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-12389 Filed 5-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P