[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 155 (Thursday, August 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48965-48968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20328]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final 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 final results of 1998-1999 antidumping duty 
administrative review and new shipper review of stainless steel bar 
from India.

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

SUMMARY: On March 8, 2000, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of administrative review and new shipper review of 
the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. These 
reviews cover nine manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is 
February 1, 1998 through January 31, 1999.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
Final Results of Review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melani Miller or Meg Weems, Import 
Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-0116 or 482-2613, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 March 8, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results 
of administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel bar from India (65 FR 12209) (``Preliminary 
Results''). On July 12, 2000, the Department published its 
determination that it was not practicable to complete the reviews 
within the originally anticipated time limit, and extended the time 
limit for completion of the final results of these reviews until not 
later than August 4, 2000, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act (65 FR 42989). The manufacturers/exporters in this 
administrative review are Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. 
(``Bhansali''), Chandan Steel Ltd. (``Chandan''), Ferro Alloys 
Corporation Limited (``Facor''), Isibars Limited (``Isibars''), Jyoti 
Steel Industries (``Jyoti''), 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 
manufacturer/exporter in this new shipper review is Meltroll 
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (``Meltroll''). The period of review (``POR'') is 
February 1, 1998, through January 31, 1999. We invited parties to 
comment on our Preliminary Results of review. At the request of certain 
interested parties, we held a public hearing on May 22, 2000.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review and new 
shipper review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are stainless steel bar (``SSB''). 
SSB means

[[Page 48966]]

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.

Rescission

    As noted in our Preliminary Results, Bhansali, Jyoti, and Shah 
reported no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR that were not already covered by a previous segment of 
this proceeding. We independently confirmed this information with the 
Customs Service. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 
are rescinding the review with respect to these companies.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
these reviews are addressed in the Decision Memo from Susan Kuhbach, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Richard W. 
Moreland, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
August 3, 2000, which is adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which 
are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main 
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    In the Preliminary Results, we applied total adverse facts 
available to Panchmahal, Viraj and Parekh. As total facts available, we 
used 21.02 percent. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by 
interested parties, as well as a thorough review of all the information 
on the record, we have determined that the continued use of total facts 
available with respect to Panchmahal and Viraj is unwarranted. We have 
determined, however, that the use of partial facts available is 
necessary in certain circumstances for Panchmahal and Viraj. For a 
complete discussion on why we are applying partial facts available for 
these final results, see Facts Available, Comments 1 and 4 in the 
Decision Memo.
    For Panchmahal, we have used constructed value as the basis for 
normal value as facts available. In addition, we have added the highest 
finishing cost reported based on size and finishing operation for all 
products.
    For Viraj, we have used third country sales as the basis for normal 
value. Where there were no identical matches, we used the all-others 
rate, 12.45, as facts available.
    As in the Preliminary Results, we continue to find that the use of 
total facts available for Parekh is warranted. We have now corroborated 
the facts available rate of 21.02 percent for this review. For a 
further discussion of this issue, see Facts Available, Comment 5 in the 
Decision Memo.

Changes From the Preliminary Results

    We calculated export price and normal value based on the same 
methodology used in the Preliminary Results, with the following 
exceptions:

Chandan

    We used constructed value (``CV'') to calculate normal value 
(``NV'') for the company's U.S. sales that did not have contemporaneous 
home market sales for matching purposes. In accordance with section 
773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Chandan's 
cost of materials, labor, overhead, G&A, selling, profit, and U.S. 
packing costs.

Facor

    We adjusted Facor's direct material costs and credit expenses, and 
corrected certain ministerial errors (see Cost of Production/
Constructed Value, Comment 3; Verification, Comment 1; and Ministerial 
Errors, Comment 1 in the Decision Memo).

Isibars

    We adjusted the payment date for several sales and allowed certain 
interest revenue adjustments (see Export Price, Comment 2 of the 
Decision Memo).

Panchmahal

    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 discussed below. We based NV on CV (see Facts 
Available, Comment 1, in the Decision Memo).
    In calculating Panchmahal's price to the United States, we used 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 CFR price to the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions for discounts, foreign inland freight, international 
freight, marine insurance, and brokerage and handling.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Panchmahal's cost of materials, labor, overhead, 
G&A, selling, profit, and U.S. packing costs. Finally, for Panchmahal's 
price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Sindia and Venus

Cost of Production Analysis

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, the Department found 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by these companies 
in their comparison markets were made at prices below their respective 
costs of production (``COP''), based on cost allegations made by the 
petitioners. However, time did not permit us to examine prices and 
costs for the Preliminary Results. Therefore, we are conducting a COP 
analysis for the first time in these final results for

[[Page 48967]]

Sindia and Venus. This analysis is 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. For both Sindia and Venus, we recalculated the reported 
COP and CV by averaging the material expenses reported for identical 
models to ensure that identical merchandise had single, model-specific 
cost of materials (``COM'') values (see Facts Available, Comment 3 of 
the Decision Memo).

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. We deducted from 
comparison market prices movement charges, discounts, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses.
    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 
sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

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, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, 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.
    We found that both Sindia and Venus made comparison 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.

Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
for Sindia and Venus based on the sum of the respective respondent's 
cost of materials, labor, overhead, G&A, selling, profit, and U.S. 
packing costs.
    Having completed our cost investigation, we conducted comparisons 
as discussed below.

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 for interest 
revenue and deductions, where appropriate, for 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)(A) of the Act, we deducted comparison market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.
    For Sindia, we made further changes as follows:
    1. We recalculated its yield loss ratio to account for total waste 
as reported in Sindia's Annual Report. See Cost of Production/
Constructed Value, Comment 6 in the Decision Memo.
    2. We recalculated its fixed overhead rate to account for total 
insurance expenses. Cost of Production/Constructed Value, Comment 7 in 
the Decision Memo.
    3. We recalculated SG&A and interest expense ratios. Cost of 
Production/Constructed Value, Comments 9 and 10 in the Decision Memo.

Viraj

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from India to the 
United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as 
discussed below.
    In calculating the price to the United States, we used 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 the CIF price to the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions for 
foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, and 
brokerage and handling.
    Viraj claimed an upward adjustment to EP for a ``duty drawback'' 
program. We make such an adjustment when a 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 Viraj did not demonstrate a sufficient link between the import 
duty and the rebate, we have not made an adjustment to EP. 
Specifically, Viraj 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.
    In the case of Viraj, we based NV on the company's sales to a third 
country market as facts available. (For a further discussion of this 
issue, see Facts Available, Comment 4, in the Decision Memo.) Viraj's 
aggregate sales of the foreign like product to its third country 
market, Canada, were greater than five percent of its sales, by volume, 
of the subject merchandise to the United States. Thus, Viraj's third 
country market satisfies the criteria of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of 
the Act.
    In using these sales to Canada, 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 deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign 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.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins

[[Page 48968]]

exist for the period February 1, 1998, through January 31, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan..................................  0.00
Facor....................................  19.54
Isibars..................................  0.07 (de minimis)
Panchmahal...............................  10.24
Parekh...................................  21.02
Sindia...................................  1.33
Venus....................................  0.33 (de minimis)
Viraj....................................  2.50
Meltroll.................................  0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific 
assessment rates. With respect to both export price and constructed 
export price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for 
each importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting 
percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject 
merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order 
during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
and new shipper review for all shipments of stainless steel bar from 
India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates 
shown above except that, for firms whose weighted-average margins are 
less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the Department shall 
require no deposit of estimated antidumping duties; (2) for previously 
reviewed or 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 these 
reviews, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the most recent rate 
established for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 12.45 percent. This rate is the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (59 FR 66915, 66921, December 28, 1994).
    These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of the 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 violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo

Comments and Responses
1. Facts Available
2. Cost of Production/Constructed Value
3. Export Price
4. Affiliation
5. Normal Value
6. Verification
7. Ministerial Errors
8. Other Issues


    Dated: August 3, 2000.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-20328 Filed 8-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-U