[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63288-63291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-30280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 1997-1998 antidumping duty 
administrative review and new shipper review of stainless steel bar 
from India.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. 
and Venus Wire Industries Limited, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel bar from India. In response to requests from Sindia 
Steels Limited, Chandan Steel Limited, and Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel 
Company, the Department of Commerce is conducting a new shipper review 
of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. These 
reviews cover sales of stainless steel bar to the United States during 
the period February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998.

[[Page 63289]]

    We have preliminarily determined that, during the period of review, 
Venus Wire Industries Limited, Sindia Steels Limited, and Madhya 
Pradesh Iron & Steel Company made sales below normal value and that 
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. and Chandan Steel Limited did not make 
sales below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of administrative review and new shipper review, we 
will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to 
the difference between the export price and the normal value.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or James Breeden, Office 1, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 
or (202) 482-1174, respectively.

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, 
all references to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') 
regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).

Background

    On February 23 and February 25, 1998, the Department received 
requests from Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (``Bhansali'') and Venus 
Wire Industries Limited (``Venus'') to conduct an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The 
Department published in the Federal Register, on March 23, 1998, a 
notice of initiation of an administrative review of Bhansali and Venus 
covering the period February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998 (63 FR 
13837).
    On February 19, 1998, Sindia Steels Limited (``Sindia'') requested 
that we conduct a new shipper review. Sindia's request was followed by 
similar requests from Chandan Steel Limited (``Chandan'') and Madhya 
Pradesh Iron and Steel Company (``Madhya'') on February 27, 1998. We 
published the notice of initiation for this new shipper review on April 
7, 1997 (63 FR 16972). This new shipper review covers the same period 
as the administrative review and, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), is being conducted concurrently with the 
administrative review.
    On August 14 and October 30, 1998, the Department initiated sales 
below cost investigations of Madhya and Bhansali, respectively. A sales 
below cost analysis of Bhansali is not included in this notice because 
the sales below cost investigation was initiated shortly before 
issuance of these preliminary results. A sales below cost analysis of 
Madhya is not included in this notice because Madhya did not submit the 
requested cost information in a timely manner (see, Facts Available, 
below).

Scope of Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of stainless steel 
bar (``SSB''). SSB 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. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs 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 having 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 SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 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.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested 
party and that is necessary to the determination but which does not 
meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department if--
    (1) The information is submitted by the deadline established for 
its submission,
    (2) The information can be verified,
    (3) The information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination,
    (4) The interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best 
of its ability in providing the information and meeting the 
requirements established by the Department with respect to the 
information, and
    (5) The information can be used without undue difficulties.
    On September 3, 1998, Madhya requested a one week extension in 
which to submit its responses to Section D (Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value) of the original questionnaire and to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire. In support of its request, 
Madhya stated that it needed additional time because it was having 
difficulty responding to both questionnaires at the same time. We 
granted its request. On the date the responses were due, we received an 
additional request for an extension from Madhya's counsel. Counsel 
explained that, as of this date, it had not received the questionnaire 
responses from Madhya; in fact, counsel had ``not heard from them.'' We 
granted the request. Finally, on September 14, 1998, the date the 
questionnaire responses were due, we received a request for a third 
extension. The only reasoning supplied to the Department was that the 
responses from India had not yet been provided to counsel. Because we 
did not receive an adequate explanation or reasoning as to why the 
extension was needed, we did not grant the request. Nonetheless, Madhya 
submitted its responses on September 17, 1998. However, because Madhya 
failed to meet an already extended deadline and provided no explanation 
as to why it did not meet the extended deadline, we rejected its 
response as untimely.
    We must therefore consider whether the submitted information 
already on the record is usable under section 782(e) of the Act. The 
information that Madhya failed to provide would have been the first 
comprehensive cost information to be used in the Department's cost

[[Page 63290]]

investigation. Thus, the information currently on the record is so 
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
preliminary results (see, Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (January 
7, 1997). Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.308(a), we must use facts otherwise available.
    In determining the appropriate facts available to apply to Madhya's 
sales, we have preliminarily determined that Madhya failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information under section 776(b) of the Act. Specifically, as described 
above, Madhya failed to submit its questionnaire responses on time and 
failed to provide adequate reasons for the delays, despite having been 
advised by its counsel of the importance of meeting the Department's 
deadlines. Therefore, we have applied adverse facts available to 
calculate Madhya's margin.
    As adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned a margin 
of 12.45 percent to Madhya's sales of the subject merchandise. This 
margin is the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-
value (``LTFV'') investigation. Information from prior segments of the 
proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the 
Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that secondary information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action 
(``SAA'') provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value (see, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d 
Sess. 870 (1994)).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a 
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is 
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is 
not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).
    As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability 
of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, 
there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate 
as facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 12.45 
percent rate is corroborated.

United States Price

    In calculating the price to the United States, we used export price 
(``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States and use of constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP based on either the CIF or C&F price to the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, as appropriate, for foreign inland freight, international 
freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling, and clearing and 
forwarding.
    All five respondents claimed an upward adjustment to EP for a 
``duty drawback'' program. In the preliminary results of the first 
administrative review of this order, we analyzed the functioning of 
this duty drawback program and found that it did not meet the 
Department's criteria for an upward adjustment to EP (see, 62 FR 10540 
at 10541, March 7, 1997). We maintained our position in the final 
results (see, 62 FR 37030, July 10, 1997). We have reexamined the 
program in regard to the five respondents, and have found no reason to 
deviate from our previous decision. As stated in Certain Welded Carbon 
Standard Steel Pipes and Tubes from India (62 FR 47632 at 47635, 
September 10, 1997), ``we determine whether an adjustment to U.S. price 
for a respondent's claimed duty drawback is appropriate when the 
respondent can demonstrate that it meets both parts of our two-part 
test. There must be: (1) A sufficient link between the import duty and 
the rebate, and (2) a sufficient amount of raw materials imported and 
used in the production of the final exported product.'' Because the 
respondents did not demonstrate a sufficient link between the import 
duty and the rebate, we have not made an adjustment to EP.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a basis for calculating normal 
value (``NV''), we compared the respondents' volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. When 
home market sales were determined to be insufficient in quantity to 
permit a proper comparison with sales to the United States, we compared 
the respondents' volume of third country sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    For Bhansali and Chandan, because the aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating 
NV. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, 
we based NV for these companies on the prices at which the foreign like 
product was first sold to unaffiliated customers for consumption in the 
exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.
    For Venus and Sindia, because the aggregate volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product was not greater than five percent of 
the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market was not appropriate for calculating NV. 
Therefore, we examined these companies' sales to third country markets. 
Both Venus and Sindia had more than one third country market that 
satisfied the criteria of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. To 
select among these markets, we considered the criteria outlined in 19 
CFR 351.404(e): The similarity of the foreign like product exported to 
each third country versus subject merchandise exported to the United 
States; the volume of sales to the third countries; and other factors 
that we considered appropriate. For Venus, we chose Belgium as the 
third country market. Although it was not the largest third country 
market, the merchandise sold to Belgium was more similar to the 
merchandise sold by Venus to the United States. In the case

[[Page 63291]]

of Sindia, we selected Canada. Again, Canada was not the largest third 
country market, but the merchandise sold there was more similar to the 
merchandise sold to the United States and the Canadian sales were 
contemporaneous with U.S. sales, while sales to the largest third 
country were not. Both Venus' aggregate sales of the foreign like 
product to its second largest third country market and Sindia's 
aggregate sales of the foreign like product to Canada were greater than 
five percent of their sales, by volume, of the subject merchandise to 
the United States (see the Memoranda to Richard Moreland dated October 
2, 1998, ``Selection of Third Country Comparison Market,'' which are 
available in the public records of the Department's Central Records 
Unit, Room B-099.).

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) 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 transaction. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP, the 
U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually 
from exporter to importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along 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. 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).
    In implementing these principles in these reviews, we reviewed 
information from each respondent regarding the marketing stage involved 
in the reported home market or third country and U.S. sales, including 
a description of the selling activities performed by the respondents 
for each channel of distribution. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 
of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action at 827, in 
identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales, we considered 
the selling functions reflected in the starting prices before any 
adjustments. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, 
the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. 
Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for 
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be dissimilar.
    Based on an analysis of the selling functions, class of customers, 
and level of selling expenses, we found that the marketing processes in 
both the home market or third country and the United States were not 
substantially dissimilar for Bhansali, Chandan, Venus, or Sindia. 
Therefore, we have preliminarily found that sales in both markets for 
each respondent are at the same LOT and consequently, no LOT adjustment 
is warranted.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    As a result of our comparison of EP and NV, we preliminarily 
determine the following weighted-average dumping margins:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
          Manufacturer/Exporter                 Period        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhansali................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.00
Venus...................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.23
Sindia..................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.19
Chandan.................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.00
Madhya..................................     2/1/96-1/31/97        12.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results 
of these administrative and new shipper reviews, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 
120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of these administrative and new shipper reviews, 
the Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between EP and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. We have 
calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio 
of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales made during the period of review (``POR'') to the total value of 
subject merchandise entered during the POR. In order to estimate the 
entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses (e.g., 
international freight) from the gross sales value. This rate will be 
assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    The following deposit requirement will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these administrative and new 
shipper reviews for all shipments of stainless steel bar from India 
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 rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates 
established in the final results of these reviews; (2) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in these reviews, but was covered in a previous 
review or the original LTFV 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 these reviews, a 
previous review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit 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 and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, shall be 12.45 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994).
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 administrative review, new shipper review, and notice are in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 
19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

    Dated: November 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-30280 Filed 11-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P