[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8939-8942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2980]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 1999-2000 administrative 
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 Panchmahal Steel Limited. This review covers sales of stainless 
steel bar to the United States during the period February 1, 1999, 
through January 31, 2000.
    We have preliminarily determined that, during the period of review, 
Panchmahal Steel Limited made sales below normal value. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
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: February 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blanche Ziv or Ryan Langan, Office 1, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

[[Page 8940]]

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-4207 or (202) 482-1279 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 1999).

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 14, 2000 (65 FR 7348). In February 2000, the Department 
received requests from the four respondents to conduct an 
administrative review. Thus, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), 
we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16875), with respect to 
Chandan Steel Ltd. (``Chandan''), Isibars Limited (``Isibars''),Viraj 
Impoexpo Ltd. (``Viraj''), and Panchmahal Steel Limited 
(``Panchmahal''). The review covers the period February 1, 1999, 
through January 31, 2000.
    On May 2, 2000, Chandan and Isibars withdrew their requests for 
review. Chandan and Isibars' withdrawal requests were timely and no 
other interested party requested a review of these companies. 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding 
the review of Chandan and Isibars.
    On June 20 and 29, 2000, the petitioners submitted allegations of 
sales made below the cost of production for Viraj and Panchmahal, 
respectively. Because the petitioners' allegations provided a 
reasonable basis to suspect that sales in the home market by Viraj and 
Panchmahal had been made at prices below the cost of production, the 
Department initiated sales below cost investigations of Viraj and 
Panchmahal on July 11 and 13, 2000, respectively.
    On September 8, 2000, Viraj withdrew its request for review. 
Although, the respondent's withdrawal was received by the Department 
well after the deadline of June 28, 2000, section 351.213(d)(1) of the 
Department's regulations permits the Department to extend the deadline 
if ``it is reasonable to do so.'' Therefore, in accordance with 
351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department extended 
the deadline to withdraw requests for review and rescinded the 
administrative review with respect to Viraj (see the September 26, 2000 
memo, ``Partial Rescission of Administrative Review with Respect to 
Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.'' from team to Susan Kuhbach).
    The Department conducted verification of Panchmahal's cost and 
sales information in December 2000, at Panchmahal's corporate 
headquarters in Baroda, India, and at its production facility in Kalol, 
India. The Department issued the sales and cost verification report on 
January 4, 2001.

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 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 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) provides 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.
    Thus, if any one of these criteria is not met, the Department may 
decline to consider the information at issue in making its 
determination.
    We have preliminarily determined that the use of facts available is 
necessary in this review for Panchmahal. Our reasons are described 
below (see also the January 29, 2001 memo, ``Application of Adverse 
Facts Available for Panchmahal Steel Ltd.'' from team to Susan 
Kuhbach).
    In its May 15, 2000 section A questionnaire response, Panchmahal 
reported the quantity and value of home market sales of the merchandise 
under review. Panchmahal's June 8, 2000 Section B questionnaire 
response, which included its home market sales database, indicated that 
``black bar,'' or hot rolled bar was the only type of the merchandise 
under review sold in the home market during the POR. On September 6, 
2000, we asked Panchmahal to confirm that it had reported all of its 
home market sales of the merchandise under review. In

[[Page 8941]]

making this confirmation, we specifically instructed Panchmahal to 
ensure that sales of ``bright bar,'' or cold-rolled bar, and black bar 
were included in the reported data for the home market. On October 10, 
2000, Panchmahal confirmed in its first supplemental questionnaire 
response that it had reported all home market sales of all types of the 
merchandise under review in the home market sales listed in its 
previous submissions.
    At verification, we discovered that Panchmahal failed to report its 
home market sales of bright bar (see the January 4, 2001 sales and cost 
verification report), despite the fact that, as noted above, cold-
rolled bar is included in the scope of the review. Moreover, the 
Department specifically asked for ``bright bar'' sales in its 
supplemental questionnaire. Panchmahal stated at verification that it 
has excluded these home market sales because it believed that the 
merchandise in question was not included within the scope of the review 
due to quality differences. However, we disagree with Panchmahal's 
interpretation of the scope of this proceeding and believe that 
Panchmahal should have reported its home market sales of bright bar. 
The description of the merchandise covered by the scope of this review 
does not make exceptions based on the quality of the merchandise. 
Furthermore, if Panchmahal was uncertain of its reporting requirements, 
it should have sought clarification from the Department about it. It 
did not do so despite having had ample opportunity.
    In addition, Panchmahal did not prepare for verification as 
requested in the verification outline. Specifically, Panchmahal did not 
prepare any of the requested documentation for the pre-selected items 
for sales or costs. As a result, the verification process was 
significantly impeded and many reported items were left unverified. 
Specifically, packing costs, indirect selling expenses, commission 
expenses and level of trade adjustments were not verified with respect 
to home market sales. In addition, we were unable to verify the 
following expenses and adjustments for U.S. sales: Inland freight; 
international freight; credit; packing; indirect selling expenses; 
brokerage and handling; and inventory carrying costs. Regarding its 
costs, Panchmahal did not prepare documents demonstrating how the 
reported cost information reconciled to inventory, consumption, 
production, and accounting records and financial statements. Therefore, 
we were unable to verify the reported raw material, overhead, and 
bright bar cost data; labor costs were the only reported costs that 
were verified.
    Despite having stated at the beginning of verification that all the 
documents required for verification were available at its sales office, 
Panchmahal was unable during verification to provide documents 
supporting production and costs data because they were stored at the 
production factory. Consequently, the documents available to the 
verifiers for the majority of cost and production data were limited to 
worksheets and summary sheets Panchmahal used to prepare the responses 
submitted to the Department, and monthly accounting ledgers.
    In addition, Panchmahal officials were unavailable to participate 
in verification on numerous occasions and for extended periods of time. 
See, e.g., verification report at 8-10 and 14. The Department scheduled 
verification to last 5 full business days, but because Panchmahal 
officials were not available throughout this period, a significant 
amount of time was wasted and unproductive. Panchmahal officials' 
absence significantly impeded the Department's ability to conduct a 
complete sales and cost of production verification. (For a further 
discussion see, Memorandum to Richard Moreland dated Janaury 29, 2001, 
``Application of Facts Otherwise Available for Panchmahal Steel Ltd.,'' 
which is available in the public records of the Department's Central 
Records Unit, Room B-099).
    For these resaons, we find that Panchmahal's sales and cost 
information is substantially unverified and cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for calculating export price or normal value. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we find that the use of 
facts otherwise available is warranted because Panchmahal withheld 
information requested by the Department, Panchmahal significantly 
impeded this proceeding, and Panchmahal's reported sales and cost 
information was unverifiable.
    In determining the appropriate facts available to assign to 
Panchmahal, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we find that 
Panchmahal failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with requests for information throughout this administrative 
review (see Memorandum to Richard Moreland dated Janaury 29, 2001, 
``Application of Facts Otherwise Available for Panchmahal Steel 
Ltd.''). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that an adverse 
inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. We also 
find that Panchmahal's sales and costs information does not meet the 
standards for consideration of information outlined in section 782(e) 
of the Act.
    As adverse facts available, we have assigned a margin of 19.54 
percent to Panchmahal. This margin was calculated for Ferroy Alloys 
Corporation Limited (``Facor'') during the 1998-1999 administrative 
review and represents the highest weighted-average margin determined 
for any firm during any segment of this proceeding (see Stainless Steel 
Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965, 48968 
(Aug. 10, 2000)).
    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 at 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)).
    The highest calculated margin in the history of this proceeding is 
19.54 percent (see Stainless Steel Bar from

[[Page 8942]]

India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965, 48968 (Aug. 
10, 2000)). In this review, there are no circumstances indicating that 
this margin is inappropriate as facts available. There are no 
calculated margins in this review. Therefore, we find that the 19.54 
percent rate is corroborated to the greatest extent practicable in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping 
margin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
            Manufacturer/ exporter                 Period      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panchmahal...................................  2/1/98-1/31/99      19.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day 
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 this administrative review, 
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 this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. 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 this administrative review 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 company will be the rate established in the final 
results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, 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 this review, 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 and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 29, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-2980 Filed 2-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P