[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52587-52588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25975]



[[Page 52587]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-828]


Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Taiwan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On June 12, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from Taiwan 
(66 FR 31613). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the 
subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is September 1, 1999, 
through August 31, 2000.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have not made any changes in the margin calculations presented in the 
preliminary results of review. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the company under review is listed below in the section 
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Amdur or Karine Gziryan, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office 4, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-5346 and (202) 482-4081, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 
to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

Background

    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Walsin Lihwa 
Corporation (Walsin). The POR is September 1, 1999, through August 31, 
2000.
    On June 12, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from Taiwan. See 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Taiwan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 31613 (June 12, 2001) 
(Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
On July 17, 2001, the respondent, Walsin, submitted a case brief. The 
petitioners (i.e., Carpenter Technology Corp., Empire Specialty Steel, 
and the United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC), submitted a 
rebuttal brief on July 24, 2001. At the request of Walsin, the 
respondent, we held a public hearing on August 21, 2001.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this review, SSWR comprises products that are hot-
rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, 
squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be 
coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is 
made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of 
carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other 
elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-
rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold 
in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR 
sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed 
and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or 
small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 
millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest 
size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that 
most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes 
normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 
inches in diameter.
    Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the 
review. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the 
excluded grades is as follows:

SF20T

Carbon  0.05 max
Manganese  2.00 max
Phosphorous  0.05 max
Sulfur  0.15 max
Silicon  1.00 max
Chromium  19.00/21.00
Molybdenum  1.50/2.50
Lead-added  (0.10/0.30)
Tellurium-added  (0.03 min)

K-M35FL

Carbon  0.015 max
Silicon  0.70/1.00
Manganese  0.40 max
Nickel  0.30 max
Chromium  12.50/14.00
Lead  0.10/0.30
Phosphorous  0.04 max
Sulfur  0.03 max
Aluminum  0.20/0.35

    The products subject to this review are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 
7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this review is dispositive.

Duty Absorption

    On November 14, 2000, the petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR 
by the respondent. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the 
Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review 
initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or 
exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. This review was initiated two years 
after the publication of the order. However, because Walsin did not 
sell to unaffiliated customers in the United States through an importer 
that is affiliated, we will not make a duty absorption determination in 
this segment of the proceeding within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) 
of the Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that we inadvertently overlooked the petitioners' 
November 14, 2000 allegation for inclusion in the Preliminary 
Results. However, no party has alleged in this proceeding that 
Walsin sold to unaffiliated customers in the United States through 
an affiliated importer. We therefore believe that making our 
decision at this point in the proceeding to not make a duty 
absorption determination will not prejudice any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Successorship

    In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that Walsin 
is the successor to Walsin CarTech Specialty Steel Corporation (Walsin 
CarTech) for purposes of this proceeding, and for the application of 
the antidumping law. See Preliminary Results, 66 FR at 31614. Because 
we

[[Page 52588]]

received no comments on this issue, for the reasons stated in the 
Preliminary Results, and based on the facts on the record, we find 
Walsin to be the successor to Walsin CarTech for purposes of this 
proceeding, and for the application of the antidumping law.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum), dated October 10, 2001, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion 
of the issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in the public Decision 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 Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy 
and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin 
exists for the period September 1, 1999, through August 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walsin Lihwa Corporation...................................         4.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 importer-specific assessment rates. 
We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the 
quantity sold used to calculate those margins for each importer.\2\ 
Where the resulting importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will direct Customs to assess that rate uniformly 
on each of that importer's entries during the review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the Preliminary Results, we incorrectly stated that we 
calculated each importers' duty assessment rate by dividing the 
total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by their total entered 
value for each importer, while in fact, we calculated an assessment 
rate using the total quantity sold in the denominator of this 
calculation because Walsin did not report the entered value of its 
sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since we have determined that Walsin is the successor to Walsin 
CarTech for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, we will 
further instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assign Walsin CarTech's 
antidumping company identification number to Walsin.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of SSWR from Taiwan 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 firm will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above (except for Walsin 
CarTech \3\), 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 prior review, or the original 
less-than-fair-value (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 or exporters will continue to 
be 8.29 percent. This rate is the ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Since we have determined that Walsin is the successor to 
Walsin CarTech for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, 
Walsin CarTech will no longer have its own company-specific cash 
deposit rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed. shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

    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 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i) (1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 10, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo

1. Interest Expense Calculation: Use of Consolidated Financial 
Statement
2. Interest Expense Calculation: Inclusion of Interest Expense 
Related to Investments
3. Interest Expense Calculation: Offsetting Total Interest Expenses 
with Capital Gains

[FR Doc. 01-25975 Filed 10-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P