[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1824-1827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-611]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-401-040]
Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 8, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the review of the antidumping duty
finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden. The review covers two
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States
and the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Linda Ludwig,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
[[Page 1825]]
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475/3833.
APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the
provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).
In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the
Department's regulations are to Part 353 of 19 CFR (1997).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department of the Treasury published an antidumping finding on
stainless steel plate from Sweden on June 8, 1973 (38 FR 15079). On
July 8, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review of this
antidumping finding (62 FR 36495). Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an
administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to
complete the review within the statutory 365 days. On August 27, 1997,
the Department extended the time limits for these final results in this
case: See Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden: Extension of Time Limit
for Antidumping Administrative Review (62 FR 45397). The Department has
now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751
of the Tariff Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel
plate which is commonly used in scientific and industrial equipment
because of its resistance to staining, rusting and pitting. Stainless
steel plate is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7219.11.00.00, 7219.12.00.05,
7209.12.00.15, 7219.12.00.45, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70,
7219.12.00.80, 7219.21.00.05, 7219.21.00.50, 7219.22.00.05,
7219.23.00.10, 7219.22.00.30, 7219.22.00.60, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.31.00.50, 7220.11.00.00, 7222.30.00.00, and 7228.40.00.00.
Although the subheading is provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise under
investigation is dispositive.
On July 11, 1995, the Department determined that Stavax ESR
(Stavax), UHB Ramax (Ramax), and UHB 904L (904L) when flat-rolled are
within the scope of antidumping finding.
On November 3, 1995, the Department determined that stainless steel
plate products Stavax, Ramax, and 904L when forged, are within the
scope of the antidumping finding.
On December 30, 1997 the Department determined that merchandise
rolled into hot bands in Sweden from British slabs is subject to the
finding.
The review covers the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996. The
Department has now completed this review in accordance with section 751
of the Act, as amended.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, from August 10
through August 15, 1997, we verified information submitted by Avesta.
We used standard verification procedures including on-site inspection
of respondent's production facilities and examination of relevant sales
and financial records. The results of this verification are outlined in
the public version of the verification report dated September 8, 1997.
On August 11, 1997, Avesta submitted corrections regarding its
claims for the following home market charges: inland freight, warranty
expenses, indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs. We
verified Avesta's revised claim for these charges, and have included
the verified amount for these charges in these final results.
During the verification, we determined that more similar matches
existed in the home market for three U.S. models. We revised Avesta's
April 24, 1997 concordance to reflect those more similar matches, and
have adjusted our calculations accordingly.
Additionally, based upon verified data provided by Avesta, we
converted three sales denominated in Finnish Marks into Swedish Kronor
before including those sales in our calculation of normal value.
We determined during the verification that Avesta could not
substantiate, and we could not verify the inland freight charges
reported by its hot rolled products (HRP) division. Section 776(a)(2)
of the Act provides that ``if an interested party or any other person *
* * provides such information but the information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject
to section 782(d) use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this title.''
Because Avesta could not substantiate the home market inland
freight incurred on its HRP sales, we calculated this adjustment based
upon facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776. (See memo
concerning revision to verification report dated December 9, 1996 and
verification report at 12). As facts available, we used in these final
results the average inland freight charges incurred by the HRP division
on the pre-selected and surprise sales examined during the
verification. (See Avesta Final Results Analysis Memorandum of January
5, 1998.)
Analysis of Comments Received
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results
of this administrative review. We received timely comments from
Uddeholm and Avesta. We received timely rebuttal comments from the
petitioners.
Comment 1
Uddeholm and Avesta note that in its preliminary calculations, the
Department incorrectly matched U.S. sales to non-contemporaneous home
market sales. Uddeholm and Avesta contend that in the final results,
the Department should match U.S. sales with contemporaneous home market
sales occurring within the 90/60 day window.
Department's Position
We agree with Avesta and Uddeholm. We have corrected this
programming error in our final results, and matched U.S. sales with
contemporaneous home market sales occurring within the 90/60 day
window.
Comment 2
Uddeholm contends that the Department incorrectly calculated the
CEP offset in its preliminary results. Uddeholm contends that the
Department should base its calculation of the CEP offset on indirect
selling expenses incurred during the month of the contemporaneous home
market sale.
Department's Response
We agree with Uddeholm. In these final results we have corrected
this error, and based our calculation of the CEP offset on indirect
selling expenses incurred during the month of the contemporaneous home
market sale.
Comment 3
Uddeholm argues that the Department should make no distinction in
its model-match program for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax
and Ramax. Uddeholm contends that both versions of these products are
identical.
Uddeholm asserts that the Department concluded in its October 10,
1997 scope determination that the method of manufacture (forging or
flat-rolling) did
[[Page 1826]]
not result in physical differences in the product. Uddeholm, therefore,
contends that the Department should not differentiate between forged
and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax in its margin
calculations.
Petitioners note that the Department based its preliminary
calculations on the classifications and product codes provided by
Uddeholm. Petitioners additionally assert that the Department did not
find in its October 10, 1997 scope redetermination on remand that
forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax are
``indistinguishable on any other basis'' such as price or cost of
manufacture.
Department's Response
We disagree with Uddeholm, and agree with petitioners. In its
October 26, 1996 questionnaire response. Uddeholm provided separate
product codes for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax.
We based our model match selections upon the product codes provided by
Uddeholm.
The proper method for making sales comparisons is not addressed in
our October 10, 1997 scope determination. In that scope
redetermination, we applied the ``totality of circumstances'' test
outlined in United States v. Carborundum Co (Carborundum) 536 F. 2d
373.337 (C.C.P.A.) 1976). In making this scope redetermination, we
adhered to the instructions of the Court of International Trade which
was to limit the analysis to record evidence before the Treasury
Department in 1976. In considering that 1976 record evidence, we noted
that Uddeholm made ``no distinction between Stavax and Ramax when flat-
rolled, and Stavax and Ramax when forced * * *.''
While we determined in our October 10, 1997 scope redetermination
that both forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax are
subject to the scope of the finding, it does not follow from that
analysis that these two versions of the product are identical to each
other, or that no price differences exist between forged and flat-
rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax. Because Uddeholm listed separate
product codes for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax,
and because there is no evidence in the record indicating that forged
and flat-rolled versions of the product are identical within the
meaning of section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we have continued in
these final results to make separate comparisons for forged and flat-
rolled versions of these products.
Comment 4
Avesta contends that the Department should make a deduction from
the home market selling price for pre-sale warehousing expenses.
Department's Position
We agree. In these final results we have made an adjustment for
pre-sale warehousing expenses incurred after the merchandise left the
original place of shipment.
Comment 5
Avesta contends that the Department should recalculate the CEP
profit ratio by applying the CEP ratio only to U.S. selling expenses
related to individual U.S. sales transactions. Avesta contends that
discounts, rebates and movement charges should be excluded from this
calculation because they are not ``selling expenses'' as the Department
defines and interprets the term for purposes of determining the CEP
profit ratio.
Department's Position
We agree with Avesta. Consistent with our normal practice, we have
not applied the CEP ratio to discounts, rebates, and movement charges.
Comment 6
Avesta contends that in the final results, the Department
occasionally used an incorrect amount for difmer. Avesta contends that
this error arose because the Department sometimes matched the U.S.
model to a different home market model and month than that listed in
the Department's product concordance. Avesta argues that in its final
results, the Department should either (1) utilize a revised concordance
submitted by Avesta in its affirmative comments (this concordance
incorporates the matching scheme used by the Department in its
preliminary results) or (2) recalculate difmer by utilizing the
variable cost of manufacture information provided on Avesta's home
market and U.S. sales listing.
Petitioners contend that Avesta has already submitted several
product concordances some of which petitioners have found to be
defective. Petitioners also observe that Avesta submitted this revised
concordance after the deadline for submitting new information.
Accordingly, petitioners argue that the Department should either
disregard Avesta's recalculation of difmer, or ``make its own
calculations rather than relying on the data submitted out of time by
Avesta.''
Department's Position
In these final results, we have recalculated difmer to correspond
with the model match selections made in our margin calculations. We
based our calculation of difmer upon the verified variable cost of
manufacture data provided by Avesta in its home market and U.S. sales
listings. Finally, because the concordance provided by Avesta in its
affirmative comments summarizes cost information previously analyzed
and verified by the Department, we do not consider that concordance to
be new information. The Department's practice is to reject untimely
filings to the extent they contain new information. See Sebacic Acid
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674, December 15, 1997 (where the
Department rejected by striking from the record certain untimely new
information contained in a party's case brief). We, thus, have
maintained that concordance on the record of this proceeding.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we determine that the following margins
exist for the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Company (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avesta...................................................... 29.36
Uddeholm.................................................... 2.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and
normal value may vary from the percentages stated above. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs
Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of stainless steel plate from Sweden entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for reviewed
firms will be the rate established in the final results of
administrative review, (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or
exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash
deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter
received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter
[[Page 1827]]
is not a firm covered in this review, or the original investigation,
but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established
for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these
reviews, or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or
the original fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be
4.46%.
We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit
value per pound basis. To calculate the per pound unit value for
assessment, we summed the margins on U.S. sales with positive margins,
and then divided this sum by the entered pounds of all U.S. sales.
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during these review periods. 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). 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
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: January 5, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-611 Filed 1-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M