[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36877-36879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18113]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-401-040]
Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the petitioners, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping 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, 1996 through May 31, 1997. We
preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value
(``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results
of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess
antidumping duties based on the difference between export price
(``EP'') and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties which submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument (no longer than five pages, including
footnotes).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Osborne or John Kugelman,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3019 (Osborne), 482-0649
(Kugelman).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 citations to the Department's regulations are
references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (62 FR 27296,
May 19, 1997).
Background
The Department of the Treasury published an antidumping finding on
stainless steel plate from Sweden on June 8, 1973 (38 FR 15079). The
Department of Commerce published a notice of ``Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping finding for the 1996/1997
review period on June 11, 1997 (62 FR 31786). On June 28, 1997, the
petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., G.O. Carlson, Inc., and
Washington Steel Corporation filed a request for review of Uddeholms AB
(Uddeholm) and Avesta Sheffield AB (Avesta). We initiated the review on
August 1, 1997 (62 FR 41339).
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,
1209.12.00.15, 7219.12.00.45, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70,
7219.12.00.80, 8219.21.00.05, 7219.21.00.50, 7219.22.00.05,
7219.22.00.10, 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 subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
On November 21, 1997, Avesta and Avesta Sheffield NAD, Inc.
requested clarification to determine whether stainless steel slabs that
are manufactured in Great Britain and rolled into hot bands in Sweden
are within the scope of the antidumping finding. On December 22, 1997,
the Department determined that British slabs rolled into hot bands in
Sweden are within the scope of the finding. The review covers the
period June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997. The Department is conducting
this review in accordance within section 751 of the Act, as amended.
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 time limit of 365 days. (See
19 C.F.R. 351.2139(g)(2).) On February 24, 1998, the Department
extended the time limit for these preliminary results to June 30, 1998.
See Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden; Extension of Time Limits for
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (63 FR 10590, March 4, 1998).
United States Price (USP)
In calculating USP, the Department treated sales as constructed
export price (CEP) sales, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act,
because the merchandise was first sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers,
before or after importation, by an affiliated seller in the United
states. There were no export price sales during the period of review.
We based CEP on the delivered price to unaffiliated customers in
the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable, for ocean
freight, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,
U.S. customs duties, early payment discounts, and rebates. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made deductions for
warranty expenses, royalties, slitting and cutting expenses, credit
expenses, and indirect selling expenses associated with economic
activity in the United States.
With respect to merchandise to which value was added in the United
States by Avesta prior to sale to unaffiliated customers, we deducted
the cost of further manufacturing in accordance with section 772(d)(2)
of the Act. To arrive at the CEP, the gross unit price was further
reduced for both Avesta and Uddeholm by an amount for profit pursuant
to section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of
stainless steel plate in the home market (HM) to serve as a viable
basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales
of subject merchandise to the volume of subject merchandise sold in the
United States, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Avesta's aggregate volume of HM sales of the
[[Page 36878]]
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its respective
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore,
for Avesta, we have based NV on HM sales. Uddeholm's aggregate volume
of HM sales, on the other hand, was less than five percent of its U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we did not base NV for
Uddeholm in its HM sales. Rather, because Canada constituted Uddeholm's
largest third-country market, we based NV for Uddeholm on sales to that
market.
Avesta made HM sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated
distributors during the period of review. We included sales to
affiliated distributors when we determined those sales to be at arms-
length (i.e., at average prices that were 99.5 percent of more of
prices to unaffiliated distributors). When prices to an affiliated
distributor were, on average, less than 99.5 percent of the price to
unaffiliated distributors, we excluded those sales to affiliated
distributors from our calculation of NV. The Department's current
policy is to consider transactions between affiliated parties as arm's-
length if the prices to affiliated purchasers are on average at least
99.5 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated purchasers. See
e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (63 FR 30185, June 3, 1998).
For Avesta we made adjustments to NV for HM inland freight,
quantity discounts, distributor discounts, credit expenses, and
warranties.
For Uddeholm we made adjustments to NV for international freight,
third-country inland freight, third-country inland insurance, third-
country customs duties, early payment discounts, warehousing expenses,
and credit expenses.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT
is that of the starting price sales in the comparison market or, when
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling,
general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales,
the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is
usually from exporter to importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of
the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP sales, we examine the stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along with the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales
are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability,
as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination
of sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to Length Carbon Steel
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
We requested information concerning the selling functions
associated with each phase of marketing, or the equivalent, in each of
Uddeholm's and Avesta's markets. For Avesta, we determined that one LOT
existed in the home market. Avesta offered the same selling terms and
conditions, and provided the same level of marketing assistance,
customer service, and technical service to all of its home market
customers. We also determined that one LOT exists for Uddeholm's third-
country sales. Uddeholm offered the same level of inventory
maintenance. technical advice, and after-sale servicing to all of its
Canadian customers.
To determine whether Avesta and Uddeholm's CEP and NV sales were at
the same LOT, we reviewed information submitted in their questionnaire
responses regarding selling functions and marketing processes
associated with both categories of sales.
The U.S. subsidiaries of both Uddeholm and Avesta performed selling
functions such as inventory maintenance, after-sales servicing,
technical advice, advertising, freight and delivery arrangement, and
warranties. Although Avesta's actual sales in the home market and
Uddeholm's actual sales in Canada were made at a marketing stage
similar to that in the United States, and entailed essentially the same
functions as described above, our comparison of LOTs does not include
these selling functions because, as explained above, we are using the
CEP methodology in making price comparisons. Thus, in determining the
LOT for the U.S. sales, we only considered the selling activities
reflected in the price after making the appropriate adjustments under
section 772(d) of the Act. (Sec, e.g., Certain Stainless Wire Rods from
France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR
47874, September 11, 1996.)
Based on a comparison of the home market (or third-country market)
and this CEP LOT, we find significantly different selling functions for
both Avesta and Uddeholm. Avesta's and Uddeholm's CEP sales involve no
sales administration beyond the processing of incoming production
orders, no forward warehousing, no marketing calls to customers, no
advertising or sales promotion, and no technical assistance or after-
sale warranty expenses. We therefore determine that Avesta's and
Uddeholm's CEP sales are at different LOTs than their respective home
market or third-country sales.
As stated above, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act directs us to make
an adjustment for differences in LOTs where such differences affect
price comparability. However, because there is only a single LOT in the
HM or third country market, we were unable to determine from
information on the record whether differences in LOTs affected price
comparability, Therefore, we did not make a LOT adjustment for Avesta
and Uddeholm. Next, we examined whether a CEP offset is warranted in
this case for Avesta and Uddeholm. As indicated above, in accordance
with Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is warranted where
NV is established at a LOT which constitutes a more advanced stage of
distribution (or the equivalent) than the LOT or the CEP sale and the
data available does not provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT
adjustment. We made a CEP offset pursuant to Section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act because (1) we have determined that Avesta's and Uddeholm's
respective home market or third-country LOT is different from the CEP
LOT, but the data necessary to calculate the LOT adjustment is
unavailable, and (2) for each company, NV has been established at a LOT
which constitutes a more advanced state of distribution (or the
equivalent) than its CEP LOT.
Sales Comparisons
To determine whether sales of stainless steel plate in the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared USP to the NV, as
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice. In accordance with section 777(A) of the Act, we
calculated monthly weighted-
[[Page 36879]]
average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S.
transactions.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the
period June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997:
Avesta....................................................21.84 percent
Uddeholm..................................................11.17 percent
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the
date of publication. The Department will publish the final results of
this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing,
within 120 days after the publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the inability to
link sales with specific entries prevents calculation of duties on an
entry-by-entry basis, we have calculated an importer-specific ad
valorem assessment rate for the merchandise based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales
made during the POR to the total entered value of the sales used to
calculate these duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. The final
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews
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 these administrative reviews, 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, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent,
and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.106, in
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (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 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 review or the original fair value investigation, the cash
deposit rate will be 4.46%.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.402(f) 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 determination is issued in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 30, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18113 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M