[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63706-63709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-30566]


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

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, 1998, the Department of Commerce (The Department) 
published the preliminary results of review in the antidumping duty 
administrative review on stainless steel plate from Sweden. (63 FR 
36877). The review covers two manufacturers/ exporters (Avesta 
Sheffield AB (Avesta) and Uddeholm Tooling AB, Bohler-Uddeholm 
Corporation and Uddeholm Limited (collectively Uddeholm)) of the 
subject merchandise to the United States and the period June 1, 1996 
through May 31, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Totaro or Nithya Nagarajan, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3793.

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 (1998).

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, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register the 
preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review of this 
antidumping finding (63 FR 36877) for the period June 1, 1996 through 
May 31, 1997. The Department has now completed this review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the 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, 
7219.22.00.10, 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results 
of

[[Page 63707]]

this administrative review. We received timely comments from Uddeholm 
and Avesta. We received timely rebuttal comments from petitioners, 
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., G.O. Carlson, Inc., and Lukens, Inc.

Avesta

    Comment 1: Avesta argues that the Department should establish the 
CEP profit ratio based on Avesta's consolidated annual financial 
statement. Respondent argues that the Department based the CEP profit 
ratio on the financial statements of Avesta Sheffield, NAD, Inc. (the 
North American Division) rather than the consolidated financial 
statements of the whole company. Avesta argues that section 772(d)(3) 
requires the Department to adjust CEP for an amount of profit allocable 
to U.S. sales and that the Department's practice has been to base this 
calculated profit on revenues and expenses associated with total sales 
of subject merchandise (both in the home market and in the United 
States). In addition, Avesta argues that under section 772(f)(2)(C), 
the Department has three alternatives for calculating CEP profit 
including relying on the respondent company's financial reports 
covering the production and sales of merchandise in all countries, and 
that in this case the only information available to the Department is 
the financial report for the consolidated company which indicates that 
Avesta incurred a loss during the period of review (POR). Therefore, 
respondent urges the Department to set the CEP profit ratio to zero.
    Petitioners did not object to Avesta's comment.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with Avesta. 
Consistent with the provisions of sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f)(2)(C) 
of the Act, as amended, the Department is applying a CEP profit ratio 
of zero on all sales made in the United States due to the fact that 
Avesta incurred a loss during the POR.
    Comment 2: Avesta argues that the Department should recalculate CEP 
profit applying the profit ratio only to U.S. selling expenses related 
to economic activities in the United States, excluding foreign and U.S. 
movement charges as well as indirect selling expenses and inventory 
carrying costs incurred in Sweden. Respondent argues that the 
Department incorrectly applied the profit ratio to foreign movement 
charges, U.S. movement charges, indirect selling expenses incurred in 
Sweden, and imputed inventory carrying costs incurred in Sweden prior 
to export to the U.S. Respondent argues that movement expenses are not 
classified as selling expenses within the meaning of section 772(d) of 
the Act, and therefore should not be included in the CEP profit 
calculation. In addition, Avesta argues that the expenses associated 
with economic activity in the U.S. do not include those indirect 
selling expenses and inventory costs incurred in the home market prior 
to exportation, and therefore the CEP profit ratio should not be 
applied to the expenses in calculating total CEP profit.
    Petitioners offered no objections to respondent's comments.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees in part with 
respondent. Both the SAA, at 823, and the Department's regulations, at 
19 CFR 351.402(b), explain that, under section 772(d) of the Act, we 
only deduct from CEP the expenses associated with commercial activity 
in the United States which relate to the resale to an unaffiliated 
purchaser. See also, Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320, 33344 (June 18, 
1998). The movement expenses and imputed expenses at issue are, by 
definition, not associated with economic activities in the United 
States, movement expenses have been deducted from CEP and, therefore, 
should not be included in ``total United States expenses'' for purposes 
of calculating the CEP profit ratio. These expenses are associated with 
the sale of the merchandise to the affiliated reseller. However, 
``total United States expenses'' includes all selling expenses (direct 
and indirect) associated with the unaffiliated sale in the United 
States. Therefore, consistent with the Department's methodology, we 
have calculated total actual profit using total U.S. selling expenses, 
deducted from the U.S. starting price as directed by Section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act. See, e.g., Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and 
Alloy Steel Standard Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 13217 (March 18, 
1998). For purposes of these final results of review, we have not 
included inventory carrying costs (DINVCARU) or U.S. movement expenses 
in total U.S. expenses as these expenses were not deducted from CEP. 
However, we have included in total U.S. expenses all selling expenses 
incurred in making the sale to the U.S. unaffiliated customer.
    Comment 3: Avesta states that the Department erred by deducting the 
cost of brokerage and handling at the U.S. port of entry (USOTRE1U) 
twice in the calculation of net price. Petitioners have not objected to 
Avesta's requested correction.
    Department's Position: We agree with Avesta and have adjusted the 
final margin calculation program to adjust for USOTRE1U only once.
    Comment 4: Avesta contends that the Department erred in the 
preliminary results of review by matching U.S. sales of CONNUMU 
2422151, 2423121, and 2423151 with home market sales of CONNUMH 2323152 
rather than CONNUMH 2623152. Respondent states that CONNUMU 2422151, 
2423121, and 2423151 are all heat resistant steels. Similarly, 
respondent argues that CONNUMH 2623152 and 2622152 are also a heat 
resistant steels whereas CONNUMH 2323152 is a ``general service and wet 
corrosion'' steel that has a different purpose and use than heat 
resistance steels and is therefore not comparable to the U.S. CONNUMs. 
Based on the chemical differences and uses of the home market CONNUMs, 
respondent urges the Department to compare CONNUMU 2422151, 2423121 to 
home market CONNUM 2622152, and U.S. CONNUM 2423151 to home market 
CONNUM 2623152.
    Petitioner objected to the information in Avesta's case brief 
discussing the chemical and physical specifications of the home market 
and U.S. CONNUMs as new factual information. However, petitioner did 
not offer any objection to the proposed changes in the matching 
methodology utilized in the preliminary results of review.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The Department 
incorrectly matched CONNUMU 2422151, 2423121, and 2423151 with CONNUMH 
2323152. For purposes of the final results of review, the Department 
has compared U.S. CONNUMs 2422151, 2423121 to home market CONNUM 
2622152, and U.S. CONNUM 2423151 to home market CONNUM 2623152 due to 
the fact that these are the most similar products based on product 
specifications. In response to petitioner's comment, the Department has 
determined that Avesta's submission in its case brief does not 
constitute new factual information under Sec. 351.301 of the 
Department's regulations. Consistent with the Department's request in 
the original questionnaire, Avesta provided detailed product 
specification and concordance information in its October 8, 1997, 
section A response in Exhibits A-36 and A-37. In conclusion, the 
Department is comparing the above

[[Page 63708]]

mentioned U.S. CONNUMs to home market CONNUMs 2622152 and 2623152.

Uddeholm

    Comment 5: Uddeholm contends that the Department did not deduct 
further manufacturing expenses in its calculation of CEP and normal 
value. Uddeholm argues that it reported cutting and grinding expenses 
incurred in connection with its sales in the United States and Canada 
as further manufacturing expenses, but inconsistent with section 
772(d)(2) of the Act, the Department did not adjust for these expenses 
in calculating CEP. Uddeholm also points out that the Department did 
adjust for further manufacturing expenses reported by the other 
respondent in the case, Avesta, but failed to make the same adjustment 
on Uddeholm sales. Further, Uddeholm contends that the Department 
should make a similar adjustment to normal value as a circumstance of 
sale adjustment as instructed by the statute.
    Petitioners argue that the expenses Uddeholm reported as ``cutting 
and grinding expenses'' in fact included expenses both for cutting and 
grinding and for two other processing operations, milling and slitting. 
As such, petitioners allege that the ``cutting and grinding expenses'' 
reported by respondent are overly broad for purposes of utilizing these 
expenses as adjustments to U.S. price and normal value. In addition, 
petitioners argue that Uddeholm's Canadian customers were charged 
separately for cutting and grinding expenses, whereas only 50 percent 
of U.S. customers were charged separately for these same expenses. 
Petitioners therefore contend that Uddeholm's difference in pricing 
methodology is an indication that cutting and grinding costs were 
``bundled'' with the end price and are distortive of actual U.S. price 
as these expenses were not recovered. Petitioners argue that the only 
accurate means of determining the true further manufacturing cost of 
cutting and grinding would be to create two sets of sales one where the 
customer was charged separately for these expenses and one where no 
charges were assessed. Absent this separation, petitioners argue that 
there is insufficient record evidence to warrant allowing adjustments 
for further manufacturing from U.S. price and normal value.
    Department's Position: Pursuant to Sec. 351.402 of its regulations, 
the Department adjusts U.S. price for expenses associated with 
commercial activities in the United States that relate to the sale to 
an unaffiliated purchaser. The Department will not make an adjustment 
for expenses related solely to the sale to an affiliated importer. 
Similarly, under Sec. 351.410 of the Department's regulations, the 
Department is authorized to make circumstance of sale adjustments to 
normal value for differences in direct selling expenses. Direct selling 
expenses are defined as expenses such as commissions, credit expenses, 
guarantees, and warranties, that result from and bear a direct 
relationship to the particular sale in question. In the instant review, 
the cutting and grinding expenses incurred by Uddeholm in the U.S. 
market are expenses associated with economic activity in the United 
States and are properly deducted from CEP. However, the cutting and 
grinding expenses incurred in the comparison market are not direct 
selling expenses as defined in Sec. 351.410 and have therefore not been 
deducted from normal value.
    In response to petitioner's concern, the Department has reviewed 
the record to determine the manner in which cutting and grinding 
expenses are incurred and/or charged to the unaffiliated customer in 
both the U.S. and comparison markets. Upon review of the record the 
Department has determined that there is no evidence to indicate that 
Uddeholm's U.S. cutting and grinding costs are bundled with the U.S. 
end price, nor is there evidence to indicate that there is a dual 
pricing structure where cutting and grinding expenses are charged to 
customers in the comparison market and only charged 50 percent of the 
time to U.S. customers. The evidence on the record merely indicates 
that cutting and grinding expenses are incurred in both the U.S. market 
and the comparison market on sales to unaffiliated customers and these 
expenses are reported as a price adjustment. Therefore, for purposes of 
these final results of review, the Department is adjusting Uddeholm's 
U.S. price for the reported cutting and grinding expenses but is not 
applying a circumstance of sale adjustment to normal value for similar 
expenses incurred in the comparison market. This is consistent with the 
Department's treatment of Avesta's reported cutting and grinding 
expenses in both the preliminary and final results of review.
    Comment 6: Uddeholm states that the Department did not compare U.S. 
sales to the weighted-average normal values for the calendar month in 
which the U.S. sale occurred. Respondent contends that the Department 
should have matched sales within the most contemporaneous month (e.g., 
June 1996 to June 1996). However, the margin program has compared all 
U.S. sales to the weighted average normal value for June 1996 which is 
an error which should be corrected. Petitioners offered no objections 
to respondent's argument.
    Department's Position: The Department has reviewed the margin 
program and has corrected this error for the final results of review.
    Comment 7: Uddeholm states that the Department did not use 
contemporaneous weighted-average third country indirect expenses to 
calculate the CEP offset. Based upon an analysis of the margin program 
discussed in Comment 6, above, respondent argues that the CEP offset 
calculated for June 1996 was used for all CEP sales during the POR. 
Petitioners did not rebut respondent's argument.
    Department's Position: The Department has reviewed the margin 
program and has corrected this error for the final results of review.
    Comment 8: Uddeholm notes that the Department used the incorrect 
profit ratio to calculate CEP profit. The Department's analysis memo 
indicates that the calculated CEP profit ratio was the result of total 
operating profit divided by total actual expenses. However, in 
transcribing the result to the margin calculation program the 
Department used the incorrect number. Petitioners did not rebut 
respondent's requested change.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent and 
has corrected the final margin calculation program consistent with 
respondent's comment.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist for the period June 1, 1996, through May 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                           Company                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avesta Sheffield AB.........................................       25.05
Uddeholm Corporation........................................        9.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department shall determine, and the U. S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
For assessment purposes, we have calculated importer-specific duty 
assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total 
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales during 
the POR to the total entered value of sales examined during the POR. 
Individual differences between U.S.

[[Page 63709]]

price and normal value may vary from the percentages stated above.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of stainless steel plate from Sweden 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 stated above; (2) for 
previously investigated or reviewed 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 these reviews, or the original LTFV investigations, 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) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these 
reviews, the cash deposit rate for this case will continue to be 4.46 
percent, which was the ``all others'' rate in the LTFV investigation. 
The 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 Sec. 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 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 
1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: November 5, 1998.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-30566 Filed 11-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P