[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3143-3146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1651]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-820]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Bar from France

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

ACTION: Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Terre Keaton, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

Final Determination

    The Department of Commerce is conducting an antidumping duty 
investigation of stainless steel bar from France. We determine that 
stainless steel bar from France is being, or is likely to be, sold in 
the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 
735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. On August 2, 2001, the 
Department of Commerce published its preliminary determination of sales 
at less than fair value of stainless steel bar from France. Based on 
the results of verification and our analysis of the comments received, 
we have made changes in the margin calculations. The final weighted-
average dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled 
``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation.''

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department 
of Commerce's (``the Department's'') regulations refer to 19 CFR part 
351 (2001).

Case History

    Since the publication of the preliminary determination in this 
investigation (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless 
Steel Bar From France, 66 FR 40201 (August 2, 2001) (``Preliminary 
Determination'')), the following events have occurred:
    In August through September 2001, we conducted verifications of the 
questionnaire responses submitted by Aubert & Duval S.A. (``A&D'') and 
Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. (``U-SI''). On August 28, 2001, A&D notified 
the Department that it was no longer participating in this 
investigation. We issued U-SI's verification report on October 25, 
2001. See ``Verification'' section of this notice for further 
discussion.
    On November 27, 2001, U-SI submitted revised sales and cost 
databases pursuant to verification findings and to the Department's 
November 13, 2001, request.
    The petitioners \1\ and respondent filed case and rebuttal briefs 
in November 2001. A public hearing was held at the request of the 
petitioners on December 6, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this case are Carpenter Technology Corp., 
Crucible Speciality Metals, Electralloy Corp., Empire Specialty 
Steel Inc., Slater Steels Corp., and the United Steelworkers of 
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the deadline for this determination was originally 
December 17, 2001, in order to accommodate certain verifications that 
were delayed because of the events of September 11, 2001, the 
Department tolled the final determination deadline in this and the 
concurrent stainless steel bar investigations until January 15, 2002.

[[Page 3144]]

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the term ``stainless steel 
bar'' includes 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. Stainless steel bar includes cold-
finished stainless steel bars 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), products that have been cut from stainless 
steel sheet, strip or plate, 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 stainless steel bar subject to this investigation 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, the written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
    Prior to the preliminary determinations in these investigations, 
the respondent in this and the companion stainless steel bar (``SSB'') 
investigations filed comments seeking to exclude certain products from 
the scope of these investigations. The specific products identified in 
their exclusion requests were: stainless steel tool steel, welding 
wire, special-quality oil field equipment steel (``SQOFES''), and 
special profile wire.
    In the preliminary determinations, we concluded that all of these 
products, except for special profile wire, are within the scope of 
these investigations. Specifically, regarding stainless steel tool 
steel, welding wire, and SQOFES, after considering the respondents' 
comments and the petitioners' objections to the exclusion requests, we 
preliminarily determined that the scope is not overly broad. Therefore, 
stainless steel tool steel, welding wire, and SQOFES are within the 
scope of these SSB investigations. In addition, we preliminarily 
determined that SQOFES does not constitute a separate class or kind of 
merchandise from SSB. Regarding special profile wire, we preliminarily 
determined that this product does not fall within the scope as it is 
written because its cross section is in the shape of a concave polygon. 
Therefore, we did not include special profile wire in these 
investigations. For details, see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach and 
Louis Apple from the Stainless Steel Bar Team, dated July 26, 2001, 
entitled ``Scope Exclusion Requests,'' and the Memorandum to Louis 
Apple from the Stainless Steel Bar Team, dated July 26, 2001, entitled 
``Whether Special Profile Wire Product is Included in the Scope of the 
Investigation.''
    Finally, we note that in the concurrent countervailing duty 
investigation of stainless steel bar from Italy, the Department 
preliminarily determined that hot-rolled stainless steel bar is within 
the scope of these investigations. See Preliminary Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing 
Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Stainless 
Steel Bar from Italy, 66 FR 30414 (June 6, 2001).
    With the exception of one respondent in the Germany investigation 
which filed comments on the Department's preliminary scope decision 
with respect to SQOFES, and with which the Department disagrees and has 
addressed in the January 15, 2002, Decision Memorandum in that case, no 
other parties filed comments on our preliminary scope decisions. 
Furthermore, no additional information has otherwise come to our 
attention to warrant a change in our preliminary decisions. Therefore, 
we have made no changes for purposes of the final determinations.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 1999, through 
September 31, 2000.

Facts Available

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that 
facts available was warranted in accordance with section 776(a) of the 
Act to calculate the dumping margin for the respondent A&D. Therefore, 
for the preliminary determination A&D's dumping margin was based on the 
simple average of the margins contained in the petition. The use of 
facts available was required because although A&D responded to the 
Department's questionnaires, it did not provide usable data for 
purposes of our preliminary margin analysis. See Preliminary 
Determination, 66 FR at 40201 (August 2, 2001).
    Since the preliminary determination and prior to the verification 
of A&D's home market data, A&D notified the Department of its 
withdrawal from participation in this investigation.\2\ section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party or any 
other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
{Department} under this title, (B) fails to provide such information by 
the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the {Department} shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.'' Use of facts available is warranted 
in this case under section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act because A&D 
failed to allow the Department to verify its data, thereby 
significantly impeding the proceeding.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences 
may be used when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. A&D decided to withdraw its participation in this 
investigation, thereby precluding the Department from verifying its 
data. On this basis the Department determined that it failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in this 
investigation. Thus, the Department has determined that, in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is 
warranted and has assigned A&D an antidumping rate based on adverse 
inferences.
    In accordance with our standard practice, we determine the margin 
used as adverse facts available by selecting the higher of (1) the 
highest margin stated in the notice of initiation, or (2) the highest 
margin calculated for any respondent. See e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter 
Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From

[[Page 3145]]

Japan and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 
Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan and the Republic of South Africa, 64 
FR 69718, 69722 (December 14, 1999), followed in Notice of Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter 
Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan 
and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and 
Pressure Pipe From Japan and the Republic of South Africa, 65 FR 25907, 
25908 (May 4, 2000); see also Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 
63 FR 10847, 10848 (March 5, 1998), followed in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod From Germany, 63 FR 40433 (July 29, 1998). In accordance with our 
stated practice, in this case we applied to A&D the highest margin in 
the notice of initiation which was based on the petition.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts 
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, 
H. Doc. No. 103-316 (1994) (``SAA''), states that ``corroborate'' means 
to determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 
870.
    In this case, when analyzing the petition for purposes of the 
initiation, the Department reviewed all of the data upon which the 
petitioners relied in calculating the estimated dumping margins and 
determined that the margins in the petition were appropriately 
calculated and supported by adequate evidence in accordance with the 
statutory requirements for initiation. In order to corroborate the 
petition margins for purposes of using them as adverse facts available, 
we examined the price and cost information provided in the petition 
when making our preliminary determination. For further details, see 
Memorandum to Louis Apple from The Team entitled ``Preliminary 
Determination of Stainless Steel Bar from France: Use of Facts 
Available and Corroboration of Petition Margins,'' dated July 26, 2001. 
Since the preliminary determination, we have received no additional 
information which would cause us to reconsider whether the information 
in the petition has probative value. Therefore, we have continued to 
find in the final determination that the rates contained in the 
petition have probative value.
    In accordance with Section 776(c) of the Act, we were able to 
corroborate the information in the petition using information from 
independent sources that were reasonably at our disposal. As a result, 
we are assigning A&D the highest margin contained in the petition, 
71.83 percent, for purposes of the final determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from France to 
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to normal value 
(``NV''). Our calculations followed the methodologies described in the 
Preliminary Determination, except as noted below and in the January 15, 
2002, Decision Memorandum, which is on file in the Import 
Administration's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room B-099 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.

Constructed Export Price

    For all sales to the United States, we used CEP as defined in 
section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated CEP based on the same 
methodologies described in the Preliminary Determination, with the 
following exception:
     We treated the technical service expense as an indirect 
rather than as a direct selling expense.

Normal Value

    We used the same methodology as that described in the Preliminary 
Determination to determine the cost of production and NV, with the 
following exceptions:

Calculation of NV

     We determined that although there are but two levels of 
trade (``LOT'') in the home market, each of those LOTs were different 
from the U.S. LOT. Therefore, we granted a CEP offset.
     We treated expenses incurred by a home market affiliate, 
which acted as a commission agent, as indirect selling expenses rather 
than direct selling expenses.
     We recalculated home market warranty expenses on a 
customer-specific basis rather than on a general-product basis and 
treated both the respondent and its affiliate's home market warranty 
expenses as direct selling expenses.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act in the same manner as in the Preliminary Determination.

Verification

    In this investigation, and in the companion SSB investigations from 
Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, verifications 
were scheduled for all responding companies during the period August 
through October 2001. Based on the security concerns and logistical 
difficulties brought about by the tragic events of September 11, for 
some companies in these countries we were unable to complete our 
verifications as scheduled. However, for these companies, we did verify 
major portions of the company's questionnaire responses.
    While the statute at 782(i)(1) and the Department's regulations at 
351.307(b)(1)(i) direct the Department to verify all information relied 
upon in a final determination of an investigation, the Department's 
verification process is akin to an ``audit'' and the Department has the 
discretion to determine the specific information it will examine in its 
audits. See Bomont Industries v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 1507, 1508 
(CIT 1990) (comparing verification to an audit). The courts concur that 
verification is a spot check and it is not intended to be an exhaustive 
examination of the respondent's records. See Mansato v. United States, 
698 F. Supp. 275, 281 (CIT 1988). Furthermore, the courts have noted 
that Congress has given Commerce wide latitude in formulating its 
verification procedures. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1386, 1396 (CAFC 1997).
    In these investigations, we believe that we have met the standard 
for having verified the information being used in this final 
determination, despite our inability to complete the verifications as 
originally scheduled. Although the amount of information verified was 
less than planned in certain SSB cases, verification was conducted as 
scheduled in this SSB proceeding.
    Based on the information verified, we are relying on the responses 
as submitted, subject to the minor corrections previously noted 
elsewhere in this notice and the Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the January 15, 2002, Decision 
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this 
notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised 
and to which we

[[Page 3146]]

have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on 
file in the Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of the 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/frnhome.htm. The paper copy and electronic version 
of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend all entries of SSB 
from France that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after August 2, 2001, the date of publication of the 
Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. The Customs Service 
shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the CEP, as 
indicated in the chart below. These instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins for this 
LTFV proceeding are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Exporter/manufacturer                      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aubert & Duval, S.A........................................        71.83
Ugine-Savoie Imphy, S.A....................................         3.90
All Others *...............................................        3.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A), we have excluded from the
  calculation of the all-others rate margins which are zero or de
  minimis, or determined entirely on facts available.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination. As 
our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, 
determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten 
material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that 
material injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order.
    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 notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective 
order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and 
the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 15, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo

Comments

    1. Whether to Collapse the Sales Prices and Production Costs of 
two Affiliates Across Countries
    2. Defining Foreign Like Product for Making Product Comparisons
    3. Ranking ``Peeled and Descaled'' as a Final Finish 
Characteristic
    4. Assigning Total Facts Available
    5. Calculating the Dumping Margin
    6. Level of Trade
    7. Home Market Expenses Reported In Lieu of Commissions
    8. Treatment of Movement and Selling Expenses Between Home 
Market Affiliates as Manufacturing Costs
    9. Home Market Warranty Expenses
    10. Treatment of UFS/U-SF's Restructuring Costs as Selling 
Expenses
    11. U.S. Credit Expenses for Consignment Sales
    12. Whether to Include Freight Revenue in Calculation Formulas 
Used to Report Certain U.S. Discounts and Expenses
    13. Treatment of the French Tax Provision

[FR Doc. 02-1651 Filed 1-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P