[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37030-37031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18113]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review: Stainless Steel Bar from India.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Yeske or Zak Smith, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or 482-1279, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to those 
published in the Code of Federal Regulations, April 1997, as amended by 
the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11, 
1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 7, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India (61 FR 54774). 
The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise 
for the period August 4, 1994 through January 31, 1996. The 
manufacturer/exporter is Isibars Limited (``Isibars'' or 
``respondent''). The Department gave interested parties an opportunity 
to comment on our preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received, we have found no basis to modify our preliminary 
results. Therefore, we have adopted the preliminary results of this 
review as the final results.
    On May 1 and May 28, 1997, Isibars submitted untimely arguments and 
new factual information. We rejected these submissions on May 1, 1997, 
and June 4, 1997, respectively. On May 20, 1997, and June 9, 1997, 
respondent filed its objection to the Department's rejection of its 
submissions.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this administrative review, 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 have 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 this administrative review is 
currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.0005, 7222.11.0050, 
7222.19.0005, 7222.19.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, 
and 7222.30.0000 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 order is dispositive.

Interested Party Comments

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment. We received written comments from petitioners 
(Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible 
Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., 
Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels Corp., Talley Metals 
Technology, Inc. and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC)) 
and the respondent.
    Comment 1: Petitioners claim the Department used the wrong date of 
sale for the reported U.S. sales. They believe the material terms of 
sale changed significantly enough to warrant using the invoice date, 
instead of the purchase order date, as the date of sale. Petitioners 
allege that because the quantity shipped was different than the 
quantity ordered, the terms of sale changed and thus the invoice date 
should be viewed as the date of sale. According to petitioners, this 
change in quantity falls outside the delivery

[[Page 37031]]

allowance stipulated in the purchase order.
    Isibars disagrees with petitioners' interpretation of the purchase 
order. Isibars asserts that this sale adhered to the essential terms 
set by the purchase order. Isibars says that price and quantity were 
set with the purchase order, the quantity ordered was delivered within 
the delivery allowance range and the customer paid for the order. 
Therefore, Isibars argues that the date of sale should be based on the 
purchase order date.
    DOC Position: We agree with respondent. We have no basis for 
rejecting Isibars' characterization of this transaction, and we are 
using the purchase order date as the date of sale. The Department 
instructed Isibars to report date of sale as when the basic terms of 
sale are set. In this instance, the purchase order fulfills that 
criterion. We found no evidence in the course of this review suggesting 
that the essential terms of sale changed between the purchase order 
date and delivery. While the quantity specified in the purchase order 
differed from the quantity delivered to the customer, this variance was 
permitted in the terms of the purchase order. For further discussion of 
the Department's position, see the Memorandum from Team to Richard 
Moreland dated June 26, 1997.
    Comment 2: Based on their claim that the appropriate date of sale 
is invoice date, petitioners argue that the Department did not use 
contemporaneous sales in the home market to calculate normal value. If 
the Department agrees that the date of sale should be based on the 
invoice date, the Department must use ``facts available'' for 
determining the extent of dumping because the invoice date falls 
outside the period for the information provided by respondent about the 
comparison market.
    DOC Position: As discussed in response to Comment 1, above, we have 
determined that the purchase order date is the appropriate date of 
sale. Therefore, there is no need to resort to facts available.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 1, 1994 
through January 1, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Manufacturer/exporter                        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isibars........................................................     0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review and 
for future deposits of estimated duties for the manufacturer/exporter 
subject to this review. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
company will be that established in the final results of this 
administrative review; (2) for companies not covered in this review, 
but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value 
investigation, 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, a prior review, or the original 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the most recent rate established for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 
firm covered in this or any previous review or the original 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of 
12.45 percent established in the final determination of sales at less 
than fair value. (59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994).
    These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also 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 orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification 
of the 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)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 
19 CFR 353.22(h), and this notice is published in accordance with 
section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: July 2, 1997.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-18113 Filed 7-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P