[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3146-3149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-412-822]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Bar From the United Kingdom

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an antidumping duty 
investigation of stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom. We 
determine that stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom 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 the United Kingdom. Based on the results of verification and our 
analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin 
calculations. Therefore, this final determination differs from the 
preliminary determination. The final weighted-average dumping margins 
are listed below in the section entitled ``Continuation of Suspension 
of Liquidation.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4007, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).

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 the United Kingdom, 66 FR 40214 (August 2, 2001) 
(``Preliminary Determination'')), the following events have occurred:
    On August 24, 27, and September 4, 2001, we received requests for a 
public hearing from Firth Rixson Special Steels Limited (``FRSS''), 
Corus Engineering Steels Ltd. (``Corus'') and the petitioners, 
respectively. We conducted verification of Corus's questionnaire 
responses during the period September through November 2001. See 
``Verification'' section of this notice for further discussion. On 
November 2, 2001, we received a case brief from Valkia Ltd. 
(``Valkia'') in response to a letter issued by the Department on 
October 19, 2001. Corus submitted revised sales and cost data pursuant 
to verification findings on November 30, 2001.
    The petitioners and FRSS filed case briefs on December 7, 2001. The 
petitioners and Corus filed rebuttal

[[Page 3147]]

briefs on December 13, 2001. A public hearing was held on December 14, 
2001.
    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.

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 determination in this investigation, the 
respondents in this and the companion 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 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'') for this investigation is 
October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000.

Use of Facts Available

    In the Preliminary Determination, we based Crownridge's and FRSS's 
antidumping duty rates on the facts otherwise available, in accordance 
with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, respectively. See also 
the Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland from Louis Apple entitled 
``Preliminary Determination of Stainless Steel Bar (SSB) from the 
United Kingdom: Use of Facts Available,'' dated July 26, 2001 (Facts 
Available Memorandum).
    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.''
    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. Crownridge did not respond to the antidumping 
questionnaire. In the preliminary determination, we determined that it 
was appropriate to assign Crownridge a margin based on facts available 
(i.e., the all others rate), rather than on adverse facts available, 
because the information on the record at that time indicated that it 
was unable to provide a response. We have changed this determination 
based on information placed on the record since the preliminary 
determination, indicating that Crownridge (now operating as Valkia) 
could have responded to the Department's questionnaire and that it 
provided misleading information during our investigation. Consequently, 
we find that Crownridge/Valkia failed to act to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information, and a margin based on adverse 
facts available is warranted. This issue is addressed in further detail 
in Comment 2 of the January 15, 2002 Decision Memorandum.

[[Page 3148]]

    As explained in the Preliminary Determination, FRSS withheld or 
failed to provide the data required to perform the antidumping duty 
calculations, despite ample opportunity to do so. On this basis we 
determined that FRSS failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability in this investigation, and the application of a dumping 
rate based on adverse inferences is warranted. This issue is addressed 
in further detail in Comment 1 of the January 15, 2002, Decision 
Memorandum.
    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 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 (May 4, 
2000); and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea and Germany, 63 FR 
10826, 10847 (March 5, 1998), followed in Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea 
and Germany, 63 FR 40433 (July 29, 1998).
    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.R. 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, we 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. For the preliminary determination, in order to corroborate 
the petition margins for purposes of using them as adverse facts 
available, we re-examined the price and cost information provided in 
the petition in light of information developed during the 
investigation. See the Facts Available Memorandum for further details 
of our corroboration methodology. 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.
    As we noted in the Preliminary Determination, 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 have assigned to 
Crownridge/Valkia and FRSS the highest rate contained in the petition, 
125.77 percent, for purposes of the final determination. See Comment 1 
and Comment 2 of the January 15, 2002 Decision Memorandum.

Fair Value Comparisons

    With respect to Corus, to determine whether sales of stainless 
steel bar from The United Kingdom to the United States were made at 
less than fair value, we compared 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 and Memorandum from Taija 
A. Slaughter to Neal A. Halper (Calculation Memo), 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 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 
exceptions:
    We based the final margin calculations on databases provided by 
Corus since the Preliminary Determination, containing corrections to 
various clerical errors related to Corus's reported sales expense 
fields, resulting from verification. See the November 30, 2001 
verification reports on file in room B-099 of the Commerce Department.

Normal Value

    We used the same methodology as that described in the Preliminary 
Determination to determine the cost of production (``COP''), whether 
comparison market sales were at prices below the COP, and the NV, with 
the following exceptions:

1. Cost of Production Analysis

    We based the cost of production analysis on a database provided by 
Corus since the Preliminary Determination reflecting minor corrections 
resulting from verification. See the November 9, 2001 verification 
report on file in room B-099 of the Commerce Department. We also 
revised Corus's reported general and administrative expenses to include 
an amount for restructuring costs. See Corus's Comment 1 in the January 
15, 2002, Decision Memorandum and the Calculation Memo for further 
details of this adjustment.

2. Calculation of NV

    We calculated NV based on the same methodologies described in the 
Preliminary Determination, using a database provided by Corus since the 
Preliminary Determination, reflecting minor corrections to Corus's home 
market sales expense fields, resulting from verification. See the 
November 9, 2001 verification report on file in room B-099 of the 
Commerce Department. We deducted various discounts, rebates, movement 
expenses, direct selling expenses, and packing cost from the reported 
gross unit price, which were inadvertently not included in the 
calculation of NV in the preliminary determination. We also corrected 
an error with respect to the weight-averaging of net home market price.

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, France, Italy, Korea and Taiwan, 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

[[Page 3149]]

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 PMC Specialties Group, Inc. v. United States, 20 C.I.T. 
1130 (1996). The courts concur that verification is a spot check and is 
not intended to be an exhaustive examination of the respondent's 
records. See Mansato v. United States, 698 F.Supp. 275, 281 (C.I.T. 
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 (Fed. Cir. 
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, the respondents did not control what was verified 
and what was not verified. It was the Department, not the companies, 
that established the original verification schedule and determined the 
order in which the segments would be verified. Moreover, each company 
was fully prepared to proceed with each segment of the original 
verification based upon the Department's schedule and could not have 
anticipated that the Department would perhaps not actually verify all 
segments. Finally, we note that all responding companies and the 
petitioners fully cooperated with the Department's post-September 11 
efforts to conduct as many segments of verification as practicable.
    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, 2001, 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 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)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to continue to suspend 
liquidation of all imports of stainless steel bar from the United 
Kingdom 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. Customs 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 suspension of liquidation instructions will remain 
in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corus Engineering Steels, Ltd..............................         4.48
Crownridge Stainless Steel, Ltd............................       125.77
Firth Rixson Special Steels, Ltd...........................       125.77
All Others*................................................        4.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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 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 in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

Appendix

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

    1. Facts Available Margin for FRSS
    2. Facts Available Margin for Crownridge/Valkia

Corus Issues

    3. Restructuring Costs
    4. Redundancy Expenses
    5. Allocation of Parent Company G&A Expenses
    6. Calculation of U.S. Credit Expense
    7. Assignment of Product Control Numbers
    8. Corus's Comparison Hierarchy
    9. CEP Offset Adjustment
    10. Treatment of Negative Margin Sales
    11. Calculation of NV

[FR Doc. 02-1652 Filed 1-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P