[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45998-46000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23235]


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

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: August 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Stephen Jacques, AD/
CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-3434 or (202) 482-1391, 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 June 3, 1998, 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 
(63 FR 30185). 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, 1996, through December 
31, 1996.
    On June 5, 1998, we received a submission from Imphy, S.A. and 
Ugine-Savoie, and their affiliated United States entities, Metalimphy 
Alloys Corp. and Techalloy Company (collectively ``respondents'') 
alleging clerical errors in the final results of this third 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel wire rods from France. On June 8, 1998, 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, and 
AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively ``petitioners'') filed allegations of 
clerical errors. Respondents submitted rebuttal comments on June 15, 
1998. The allegations and rebuttal comments were filed in a timely 
fashion.

[[Page 45999]]

    Comment 1: Respondents allege that the Department committed one 
ministerial error in the final results of administrative review. 
Respondents stated that the Department determined in its final results 
that it agreed with petitioners and corrected its preliminary results 
model match program, which had incorrectly excluded certain U.S. sales 
that entered the United States outside the POR. Respondents note that 
they did not disagree with petitioners' argument concerning the model 
match program. However, respondents argue that the Department's 
correction created a new error by excluding from the model match 
program certain sales that entered during the POR but were sold before 
the POR. Petitioners did not respond to respondents' claim.
    Department's Position: After a review of respondents' allegations, 
we agree with respondents and have corrected our model match program to 
include the missing sales in the model match program. For the computer 
code we used to correct this ministerial error, please see the 
Memorandum from Robert A. Bolling to Edward Yang dated July 1, 1998 
(``Amended Final Calculation Memorandum''), a public version of which 
is available in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department 
of Commerce building, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, N.W., 
Washington, D.C.
    Comment 2: Petitioners allege that the Department made several 
ministerial errors. First, petitioners state that, in the final 
results, the Department attempted to correct calculation errors 
concerning home market credit expenses with missing shipment and 
payment dates. Petitioners argue that the Department's revised 
programming language failed to correct these errors in the 
recalculation of home market credit. Petitioners note that the 
Department's recalculation resulted in abnormally high credit expenses 
and negative net home market prices when home market sales did not have 
a payment date but did have a shipment date. Petitioners argue that the 
inclusion of home market sales with negative net prices understated 
normal value that was compared to U.S. prices and distorted the final 
margin analysis. Petitioners argue that the Department should revise 
its model match program to correct these errors. Petitioners propose 
that the Department rely on information reported by the respondents for 
its home market credit expenses to avoid further confusion related to 
recalculation of these home market credit expenses. Respondents stated 
that they do not object to the correction proposed by petitioners.
    Second, petitioners state that the Department intended to 
recalculate U.S. credit expenses for sales with missing payment dates. 
Petitioners argue that the Department's computer program did not 
include language to recalculate these credit expenses for certain CEP 
and CEP/FM sales through Techalloy. Respondents state that they do not 
object to the correction proposed by petitioners.
    Lastly, petitioners state that the Department calculated total 
selling expenses for respondents' CEP and CEP/FM sales (CEPSELL), and 
then applied the CEP profit ratio (CEPRATIO) to CEPSELL to obtain the 
amount of CEP profit that is deducted from a respondent's reported U.S. 
gross unit price. Petitioners argue that under the Department's normal 
practice, the variable CEPSELL should include all selling expenses, 
direct or indirect, incurred for CEP sales. Petitioners contend that 
the Department's final margin calculation program incorrectly removed 
the variable INDEXUS that contained respondents' reported indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the United States for their CEP and CEP/FM 
sales from the calculation of CEPSELL. Finally, petitioners argue that 
the removal of these indirect selling expenses from CEPSELL understated 
respondents' reported total selling expenses incurred for their U.S. 
CEP and CEP/FM sales which consequently understated the amount of CEP 
profit. Respondents state that they do not object to the correction 
proposed by petitioners.
    Department's Position: With respect to home market credit expenses, 
we disagree with petitioners. In the preliminary results, we attempted 
to calculate home market credit expenses for sales with missing 
shipment and payment dates. Respondents commented that this calculation 
was erroneous because of two programming errors in the calculation. In 
the final results, we corrected these errors through programming 
language different from that suggested by respondents. Petitioners 
allege that these corrections are erroneous because they result in 
abnormally high credit expenses for some sales. Petitioners, however, 
have failed to point to any specific programming language which is in 
error, and the mere allegation that certain calculated expenses are too 
high is insufficient for finding a ministerial error. For a complete 
explanation, please see the Amended Final Calculation Memorandum.
    With respect to U.S. credit expenses, we agree with petitioners and 
have corrected our margin calculation program to recalculate credit 
expenses for certain sales through Techalloy. For the computer code we 
used to correct this ministerial error, please see the Amended Final 
Calculation Memorandum.
    With respect to indirect selling expenses, we agree with 
petitioners and have corrected our margin calculation program to 
include the variable INDEXUS in the calculation of CEPSELL for CEP and 
CEP/FM sales. For the computer code we used to correct this ministerial 
error, please see the Amended Final Calculation Memorandum.

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......................     1/1/96-12/31/96       7.10 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and normal value may vary from 
the percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service. The amended final results 
of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping 
duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review. For duty 
assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to 
each importer and dividing this amount by the total value of subject 
merchandise entered during the POR for each importer.
    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 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

[[Page 46000]]

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 section 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: August 20, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-23235 Filed 8-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P