[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12209-12214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5649]


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

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 and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 1998-1999 administrative 
review and new shipper review and partial rescission of administrative 
review of stainless steel bar from India.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India with respect 
to the following companies: Chandan Steel Ltd., Ferro Alloys 
Corporation Limited, Isibars Limited, Panchmahal Steel Limited, Sindia 
Steels Limited, Venus Wire Industries Limited, and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. 
In response to a request from Meltroll Engineering Pvt., Ltd., 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, 1998, through January 31, 1999.
    We have preliminarily determined that, during the period of review, 
Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited, Isibars Limited, Panchmahal Steel 
Limited, Sindia Steels Limited, and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. made sales 
below normal value and that Chandan Steel Ltd., and Meltroll 
Engineering Pvt., Ltd., and Venus Wire Industries 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 also requested to submit (1) a 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith, James Breeden, or Melani 
Miller, Office 1, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0189, (202) 482-1174, and (202) 482-0116, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTAL 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 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 9661) the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar 
from India. The Department notified interested parties of the 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order on 
February 11, 1999 (64 FR 6878). On February 26, 1999, the Department 
received requests from the petitioners \1\ and five respondents to 
conduct an administrative review. Thus, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(1), we published (64 FR 14860) a notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review on March 29, 1999, with 
respect to Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (``Bhansali''), Chandan Steel 
Ltd. (``Chandan''), Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (``Facor''), 
Isibars Limited (``Isibars''), Jyoti Steel Industries (``Jyoti''), 
Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Company (``Madhya Pradesh''), Panchmahal 
Steel Limited (``Panchmahal''), Parekh Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. 
(``Parekh''), Shah Alloys Ltd. (``Shah''), Sindia Steel Limited 
(``Sindia''), Venus Wire Industries Ltd. (``Venus''), and Viraj 
Impoexpo Ltd. (``Viraj''). The review covers the period February 1, 
1998, through January 31, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp., 
Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels Corp., and Talley Metals 
Technology, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 26, 1999, Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (``Meltroll'') 
requested that we conduct a new shipper review. We published the notice 
of initiation for this new shipper review on April 15, 1999 (64 FR 
18601). 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.
    During May and June, 1999, Bhansali, Jyoti, and Shah reported no 
shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
period of review (``POR'') that were not already covered by a previous 
segment of this proceeding. We independently confirmed with the Customs 
Service that there were no entries from these companies. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding 
the review with respect to these companies. Furthermore, on June 7, 
1999, Madhya Pradesh withdrew its request for review. Madhya Pradesh's 
request was timely and no other interested party requested a review of 
the company. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are 
rescinding the review of Madhya Pradesh.
    On August 17, 1999, the Department initiated sales below cost 
investigations of Isibars and Panchmahal. On January 18, 2000, the 
Department initiated a sales below cost investigation of Venus. On 
February 14, 2000, the Department initiated a sales below cost 
investigation of Sindia. Sales below cost analyses of

[[Page 12210]]

Sindia and Venus are not included in this notice because, in the case 
of Sindia, the investigation was initiated shortly before issuance of 
these preliminary results and, in the case of Venus, we intend to ask 
the company to provide further information and clarification with 
respect to its cost reporting.

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 these reviews 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 these reviews is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a) provided that the Department shall apply ``facts 
otherwise available'' if, inter alia, a respondent:
    (1) Withholds information that has been requested;
    (2) Fails to provide information within the deadlines established, 
or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of Section 782;
    (3) Significantly impedes a proceeding; or
    (4) Provides information that cannot be verified.
    Section 782(e) of the Act provides further that the Department 
shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an 
interested party and that is necessary to the determination but 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.
    We have preliminarily determined that the use of facts available in 
certain circumstances is necessary. The discussion below details the 
particular circumstances of each company for which we are applying 
facts available.

Viraj

    In its June 3, 1999, submission, Viraj reported that it had no home 
market sales of the merchandise under review. On August 17, 1999, we 
sent Viraj a supplemental questionnaire asking it to confirm that it 
had reported the total value and volume of sales of all merchandise 
described in Appendix III of the questionnaire in its home market, and 
to its three largest third country markets during the POR. In its 
September 23, 1999, submission, Viraj confirmed that it properly 
reported all sales of the merchandise under review to the United 
States, the home market, and third country markets. In a January 18, 
2000, supplemental questionnaire, we again asked Viraj to clarify 
whether it was reporting all sales of stainless steel bars in any form 
in the home market. We also instructed Viraj to update its database and 
entire response in the event that it did have home market sales.
    On February 9, 2000, Viraj responded by submitting a database of 
previously unreported home market sales made during the POR. On 
February 14, 2000, Viraj submitted a narrative response corresponding 
to the February 9th submission. Because the deadline for submitting 
factual information had passed, we rejected Viraj's February 14th 
submission on February 17, 2000 (see the Letter to Viraj ``Rejection of 
Submission,'' which is available in the public records of the 
Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099).
    Because the home market sales information provided by Viraj through 
February 9 was incomplete, we have preliminarily determined that Viraj 
failed to provide information in the manner requested by the Department 
within our deadline. In particular, lacking a narrative description of 
the home market sales reported on February 9, we do not believe that 
the information submitted by Viraj serves as a reliable basis for 
calculating normal value (``NV''). Therefore, pursuant to section 
776(a) of the Act, we must use facts otherwise available.
    In determining the appropriate facts available to apply to Viraj, 
we have preliminarily determined that an adverse inference is warranted 
because Viraj failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability in complying with a request for information (see section 776(b) 
of the Act). Specifically, as described above, Viraj was requested by 
the Department to report its home market sales on three separate 
occasions. Only on the third occasion did Viraj admit to having sales 
of the foreign like product in the home market, and in making this 
admission, Viraj failed to provide a comprehensive response for these 
sales. Viraj has argued that it did not intentionally omit its home 
market sales because it did not realize that the merchandise in 
question had to be reported, we note that the original questionnaire 
includes as Appendix III a full description of the scope of these 
reviews. Furthermore, we note that if Viraj had any questions as to 
what merchandise should be reported, our questionnaires are clear in 
stating that interested parties should contact the Department with such 
queries. This is not the first review in which Viraj has been involved. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that by not providing necessary 
information specifically requested by the Department, Viraj failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability (for a further discussion see the 
Memorandum to Richard Moreland dated February 28, 2000, ``Facts 
Otherwise Available for Viraj Impoexpo Ltd.,'' which is available in 
the public records of the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-
099). Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that an adverse 
inference is warranted in selecting facts available.
    As adverse facts available, we have assigned a margin of 21.02 
percent to Viraj. This margin was calculated for

[[Page 12211]]

sales by Mukand Limited during the original less-than-fair-value 
(``LTFV'') investigation and represents the highest weighted-average 
margin determined for any firm during any segment of this proceeding. 
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 that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value (see H.R. Doc. 
103-316, Vol. 1, 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)). In this 
review, there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is 
inappropriate as facts available. Therefore, we find that the 21.02 
percent rate is corroborated.

Panchmahal

    While Panchmahal did respond to our original questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaires, it refused our request to revise its 
variable cost of manufacture data (``VCOM'') or total cost of 
manufacture data (``TCOM'') relevant to the POR. This information is 
necessary to calculate the appropriate margins in all instances because 
Panchmahal does not have comparison market sales of merchandise which 
is identical to the merchandise it sells in the United States. 
Furthermore, Panchmahal did not make the revisions we requested with 
respect to its reporting of constructed value (``CV''). The CV 
information is necessary to calculate the appropriate margins in those 
instances where Panchmahal's home market data cannot be used to 
calculate a dumping margin. Thus, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(a), we are using facts otherwise available 
because Panchmahal did not submit information in the manner or form 
requested by the Department. Moreover, pursuant to section 782(e)(3) of 
the Act, we find the information on the record so incomplete that it 
cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching an appropriate dumping 
margin for these preliminary results.
    In determining the appropriate facts available to apply to 
Panchmahal, we have preliminarily determined that Panchmahal 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, 
on December 13, 1999, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
Panchmahal which instructed the company to recalculate its VCOM and 
TCOM figures to reflect the differences in labor and overhead costs 
incurred to produce stainless steel bar of different finish and size. 
We made the same instruction with respect to Panchamahal's CV 
information. In its supplemental questionnaire response, Panchmahal 
demonstrated that it is able to calculate different costs for different 
size-ranges. However, it elected not to revise its VCOM or TCOM data 
and, instead, continued to rely on average cost figures for purposes of 
calculating VCOM and TCOM. With respect to its reporting of CV, 
Panchmahal did not demonstrate that it incorporated size-specific 
costs. Therefore, in selecting facts available, we have preliminarily 
determined that an adverse inference is warranted. As adverse facts 
available, we have assigned a margin of 21.02 percent to Panchmahal.
    As noted above, this margin was calculated for sales by Mukand 
Limited during the original LTFV investigation and represents the 
highest weighted-average margin determined for any firm during any 
segment of this proceeding. 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 find that the 
21.02 percent rate is corroborated.

Parekh

    Parekh did not respond to our May 6, 1999, questionnaire, nor did 
it indicate that it was experiencing difficulties responding to the 
questionnaire or meeting the deadline for submission. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we must use facts otherwise 
available because Parekh withheld information requested by the 
Department.
    In determining the appropriate facts available to apply to Parekh, 
we have preliminarily determined that Parekh 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, Parekh's 
failed to communicate in any way with the Department. Therefore, in 
selecting facts available, we have preliminarily determined that an 
adverse inference is warranted. As adverse facts available we have 
assigned a margin of 21.02 percent to Parekh. As noted above, this 
margin was calculated for sales by Mukand Limited during the original 
LTFV investigation and represents the highest weighted-average margin 
determined for any firm during any segment of this proceeding. 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 find that the 21.02 percent rate is corroborated.

Chandan

    Chandan submitted CV information for those U.S. sales that did not 
have any contemporaneous home market sales for matching purposes. After 
reviewing the information that was timely provided by Chandan, we find 
that the information is incomplete and will require further revisions 
and clarifications. Specifically, we will be seeking clarification from 
Chandan with respect to reported further manufacturing and conversion 
by an unaffiliated party. While we have asked Chandan to provide 
further information and clarification on this issue, we did not request 
the information in time for its use in the preliminary results. 
Moreover, pursuant to section 782(e)(3) of the Act, we find the 
information on the record so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for reaching an appropriate dumping margin for these 
preliminary results. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act, we are using facts otherwise available.

[[Page 12212]]

    In determining the appropriate facts available to apply to Chandan, 
we have preliminarily assigned a margin of 0.00 percent to Chandan's 
sales of the subject merchandise that do not have a contemporaneous 
home market sale for matching purposes. This margin is the rate 
calculated for Chandan's sales that do have contemporaneous matches.
    We note that Chandan submitted additional CV information on 
February 14, 2000. Because we did not request the additional 
information provided and the deadline for submitting factual 
information had passed, we rejected Chandan's February 14th submission 
on February 17, 2000 (see the Letter to Chandan ``Rejection of 
Submission,'' which is available in the public records of the 
Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099).

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from India to the 
United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price 
(``EP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated EPs for comparison to weighted-
average NVs.

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 an 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 SAA 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/third country and the United States were not 
substantially dissimilar for Chandan, Facor, Isibars, Meltroll, Sindia, 
or Venus. 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.

Export 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, C&F, or CFR price to the 
United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, as appropriate, for rebates, foreign inland freight, 
international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling, 
clearing and forwarding, and customs duty. Furthermore, we made 
additions, as appropriate, for interest revenue.
    Many respondents claimed an upward adjustment to EP for a ``duty 
drawback'' program. 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 (see Certain 
Welded Carbon Standard Steel Pipes and Tubes from India, 62 FR 47632, 
47635 (September 10, 1997)). Because the respondents did not 
demonstrate a sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, 
we have not made an adjustment to EP. Specifically, the respondents did 
not demonstrate that the rebate received upon exportation directly 
related to specific import duties paid on materials used in the 
production of the subject merchandise.

Normal Value

1. Comparison Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a basis for calculating NV, we 
compared each respondent's 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 respondent's volume of 
sales of the foreign like product to individual third country markets 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    For Chandan, Facor, Isibars, and Sindia, we determined that the 
home market provides a viable basis for calculating NV 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. 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 Meltroll and Venus, we determined that the home market was not 
appropriate for calculating NV 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. Therefore, we examined these companies' sales to third 
country markets. Both Meltroll and Venus 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 
Meltroll, we selected Venezuela as the third country market. Although 
it was not the largest

[[Page 12213]]

third country market, the merchandise sold to Venezuela was more 
similar to the merchandise sold to the United States, the Venezuelan 
sales were contemporaneous with U.S. sales, while sales to the largest 
third country were not, and the volumes of the individual sales in 
Venezuela and the United States were comparable. For Venus, we chose 
Mexico as the third country market. Although it was not the largest 
third country market, the merchandise sold to Mexico was more similar 
to the merchandise sold by Venus to the United States. Both Meltroll's 
aggregate sales of the foreign like product to Venezuela and Venus' 
aggregate sales of the foreign like product to Mexico 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 August 
25, 1999, for Venus and August 26, 1999, for Meltroll, ``Selection of 
Third Country Comparison Market,'' which are available in the public 
records of the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099).

2. Cost of Production Analysis

    As noted above, based on cost allegations made by the petitioners, 
the Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales by Isibars in the comparison market were made at prices below its 
respective costs of production (``COP''). As a result, we have 
conducted an investigation to determine whether this company made 
comparison market sales during the POR at prices below its respective 
COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We also conducted 
a cost investigation for Facor, because we disregarded sales pursuant 
to the cost test for this company in the most recently completed 
previous review (see Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of 
New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 19712 (April 
21, 1998).
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of 
materials, fabrication, general and administrative expenses, and 
packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by the companies.
B. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP for the respective companies 
to comparison market sales of the foreign like product, as required 
under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these 
sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to 
disregard comparison market sales made at prices below the COP, we 
examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal 
course of trade, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to comparison 
market prices, less movement charges, discounts, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices 
below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' However, where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales 
of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we determined that 
such sales have been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act. In such cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a 
specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales 
of that product.
    We found that Facor and Isibars made home market sales at below COP 
prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. 
Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit the recovery 
of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded 
these sales from our analysis in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act.

3. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
for Facor and Isibars based on the sum of the respective respondent's 
cost of materials, labor, overhead, G&A, selling, profit, and U.S. 
packing costs. (As discussed in the ``Use of Facts Otherwise 
Available'' section above, we did not calculate CV for Chandan because 
its CV information was incomplete.)

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For comparisons to those products for which there were comparison 
market sales at prices at or above the COP, we based NV on prices to 
comparison market customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We also made additions and deductions, 
where appropriate, for interest revenue, rebates, inland freight, 
international freight, marine insurance, and brokerage and handling. In 
addition, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and bank 
charges, where appropriate. Finally, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted comparison market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs.
    We note that, with respect to the calculation of Isibars' 
circumstance-of-sale adjustment, we have asked Isibars to clarify and 
provide further information on those sales for which it has not yet 
reported a payment date. In the event that Isibars is unable to comply 
with our request for information, we may resort to the use of facts 
available, which may, if appropriate, be adverse to the interests of 
the company.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan....................................    2/1/98-1/31/99       0.00
Facor......................................    2/1/98-1/31/99      12.13
Isibars....................................    2/1/98-1/31/99       0.42
Panchmahal.................................    2/1/98-1/31/99      21.02
Parekh.....................................    2/1/98-1/31/99      21.02

[[Page 12214]]

 
Sindia.....................................    2/1/98-1/31/99       0.01
Venus......................................    2/1/98-1/31/99       0.00
Viraj......................................    2/1/98-1/31/99      21.02
Meltroll...................................    2/1/98-1/31/99       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 351.224(b) of our regulations, we will 
disclose to the relevant parties the calculations performed for these 
preliminary results. Any interested party may request a hearing within 
30 days of publication. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days 
after the publication of this notice, or the first businessday 
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. 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 to the 
total entered value of the same sales. 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 requirements 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 sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-5649 Filed 3-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P