[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