[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39354-39357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-808]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium in response to timely requests by 
respondent, ALZ, N.V. (ALZ) and its affiliated U.S. importer 
TrefilARBED, Inc. and by petitioners. This review covers shipments of 
this merchandise to the United States during the period of May 1, 2000 
through April 30, 2001. We have preliminarily determined that U.S. 
sales have been made below normal value (NV). See ``Preliminary Results 
of Review'' section below for the company-specific rate. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties based 
on the difference between constructed export price (CEP) and NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  June 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon at (202) 482-0162, 
Julio Fernandez at (202) 482-0190, or Brett Royce at (202) 482-4106, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute & Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended. In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on SSPC from 
Belgium on May 21, 1999 (64 FR 27756). On May 1, 2001, the Department 
published in the Federal Register (66 FR 21740) a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of this antidumping duty order. On 
May 16, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), respondent ALZ, 
N.V. (ALZ) and its affiliated U.S. importer TrefilARBED, Inc. 
(TrefilARBED), and the petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum, Corp., AK Steel 
Corporation, Butler Armco Independent Union, North American Stainless, 
Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the United Steelworkers of 
America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, petitioners), timely requested a 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain SSPC from Belgium. On 
June 19, 2001, we published a notice of initiation of the antidumping 
review of SSPC from Belgium. See 66 FR 32934.
    Due to complicated issues in this case, on December 17, 2001, the 
Department extended to deadline for the preliminary results of this 
antidumping duty administrative review until no later than May 31, 
2002. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 64950 (December 17, 2001).

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or 
without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled 
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in 
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-
rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified 
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope 
of these orders are the following: (1) plate not in coils, (2) plate 
that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. In addition, certain 
cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded from the 
scope of these orders. The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate 
in coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the physical 
characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-reduction 
process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more, 
and has been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction process.
    The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable 
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
cost information provided by ALZ and TrefilARBED. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
and proprietary versions of the verification reports, which are on file 
in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department 
building.

Date of Sale

    ALZ reported invoice date as the date of sale. Invoice date is also 
the

[[Page 39355]]

Department's presumptive date for date of sale. See section 351.401(i) 
of the Department's regulations and Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999) (SSPC Final Determination). In 
the original investigation, we determined that invoice date was the 
proper date of sale in both markets. For purposes of this review, we 
also have examined whether invoice date or some other date better 
represents the date on which the material terms of sale were 
established. The Department has examined sales documentation, including 
order confirmations and invoices, provided by ALZ and TrefilARBED for 
its home market and U.S. sales, and has preliminarily found that the 
material terms of sale are set as of the invoice date in both markets. 
Specifically, changes in price and quantity may occur after the initial 
order confirmation date, and up to the invoicing date. See Sales and 
Cost Verification of ALZ, N.V.: Antidumping Administrative Review on 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, from Julio A. Fernandez, 
through Sally C. Gannon, to the File (May 24, 2002), at page 5. See 
also Sales Verification of TrefilARBED, Inc.: Antidumping 
Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 
from Julio A. Fernandez and Brett L. Royce, through Sally C. Gannon, to 
the File (May 30, 2002), at page 11. As such, pursuant to section 
351.401(i) of the Department's regulations, we preliminarily determine 
that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for both the home and 
U.S. markets in this administrative review because it better reflects 
the date upon which the material terms of sale were finally 
established.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSPC from Belgium to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared the CEP to the NV for ALZ 
as specified in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the 
Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared 
these to individual U.S. transactions.

Constructed Export Price

    We calculated CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
because sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser took place after 
importation into the United States.
    We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
billing adjustments (adjustment for freight and adjustments for 
customer claims), where applicable, and further processing expenses. We 
also made deductions for the following movement expenses, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: 
foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance (including marine 
insurance), international freight (including foreign brokerage), U.S. 
inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland insurance, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight 
from warehouse to unaffiliated customer and U.S. Customs duty. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling 
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (credit costs), inventory 
carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also deducted the 
profit allocated to these expenses, in accordance with sections 
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we 
compared the volume of ALZ's home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Based on this comparison, 
we determined that the aggregate volume of ALZ's home market sales of 
the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of ALZ's U.S. sales. Thus, we determined that ALZ had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ALZ had made home market 
sales at prices below its cost of production (COP) in this review 
because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the cost test 
in the original investigation. See SSPC Final Determination. See also 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 56272 (November 7, 2001), 
and Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Belgium, from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD 
Enforcement III, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, dated November 7, 2001 (wherein ALZ's margin was based 
on total adverse facts available). Therefore, the Department initiated 
an investigation to determine whether ALZ made home market sales during 
the POR at prices below its COP. Accordingly, we calculated the COP 
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for 
the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing costs, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    For these preliminary results, we recalculated respondent's 
reported COP based on information obtained during verification. See 
Memorandum to the File from Julio A. Fernandez through Sally C. Gannon 
Regarding Analysis of ALZ, N.V., dated May 31, 2002, for a discussion 
of the business proprietary facts underlying this conclusion. We 
compared the COP figures to home 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. On 
a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, 
less any applicable movement charges and discounts.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended 
period of time (i.e., one year), such sales were made in substantial 
quantities, and (2) whether such sales were made at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time 
in the normal course of trade.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, because we 
compared prices to POR weight-averaged 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)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV when there were no 
contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the

[[Page 39356]]

comparison market that passed the cost test. We calculated CV, in 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, based on the sum of ALZ's 
cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and 
profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by ALZ in connection 
with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the 
ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For 
selling expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported 
for home market sales that passed the cost test, weighted by the total 
quantity of those sales.
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made deductions for billing adjustments (adjustment when 
customer picks up the merchandise), early payment discounts, inland 
freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs and 
U.S. credit expenses.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. 
Further, in identifying levels of trade for export price (EP) and 
comparison-market sales (i.e., NV based on either home-market or third-
country prices), we consider the starting prices before any 
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference involves the performance of different 
selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, 
as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-61733 (November 19, 1997).
    In this case, ALZ requested that the Department adjust NV to 
account for different levels of trade in the home market and the U.S. 
market. However, the information on the record does not justify 
treating CEP sales and home market sales as sales at different levels 
of trade. Because much of the information on LOT is business 
proprietary, our analysis is set forth in a Memorandum to the File from 
Julio A. Fernandez through Sally C. Gannon Regarding Level of Trade 
Analysis for ALZ, N.V. (May 31, 2002) (LOT Analysis Memo) (public 
version on file in the Department's CRU). Because we found that the 
home market LOT did not differ from the CEP LOT, we preliminarily did 
not make a LOT adjustment, or, as requested by respondent, a CEP offset 
for sales by ALZ in Belgium which are compared with CEP sales in the 
United States.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A of the Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the 
antidumping margin for ALZ, for the period May 1, 2000 through April 
30, 2001, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALZ, N.V................................................            5.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), 
its calculations to interested parties within 5 days of the date of 
public announcement of these results, or if no public announcement, 
within 5 days of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.310(c). Unless otherwise notified by the Department, any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of 
this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 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. 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Unless the due date for the final results is extended, the 
Department will publish a notice of final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, not later than 120 days after 
the date of publication of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated 
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for ALZ based on entered 
values. We will direct Customs to assess this ad valorem rate against 
the entered value on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this 
review, the Department will issue assessment instructions directly to 
Customs.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all 
shipments of stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium 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) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in 
the original investigation of sales at LTFV or a previous review, the 
cash deposit 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 or 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) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the 
cash deposit rate shall be 9.86 percent, the ``all others'' rate made 
effective by the LTFV investigation. See SSPC Final Determination. 
These deposit rates, 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 Sec.  351.402(f)(2) to file a 
certificate

[[Page 39357]]

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 issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-14375 Filed 6-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S