[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49673-49675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-833]


Stainless Steel Bar From Japan: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic interested party, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Japan for the period 
February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002. This review covers one 
producer/exporter of subject merchandise, Aichi Steel Works, Ltd.
    We have preliminarily determined a dumping margin in this review. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on any entries of subject merchandise manufactured 
or exported by Aichi Steel Works, Ltd.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Ellman, AD/CVD Enforcement 3, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4852.

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's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR 
Part 351 (April 2001).

Background

    On February 1, 2002, the Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (67 FR 4945) with 
respect to the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from 
Japan. The petitioners, Carpenter Technology, Crucible Specialty, 
Electralloy, and Slater Steels, requested a review of Aichi Steel 
Works, Ltd. (Aichi) on February 27, 2002. In response to the 
petitioners' request, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of an administrative review on March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14696), in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b).

Scope of Order

    The merchandise covered by this review is stainless steel bar. For 
purposes of this review, the term ``stainless steel bar'' 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. 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), 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 review is currently 
classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00 and 
7222.30.00 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 
review is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review is February 1, 2001, to January 31, 2002.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 2) 
fails to provide such

[[Page 49674]]

information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, 
subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, 3) significantly 
impedes a determination under the antidumping statute, or 4) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 
section 782(i) of the Act, then the Department shall, subject to 
section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in determining 
dumping margins.
    The Department sent Aichi a questionnaire on April 4, 2002, with a 
due date of May 13, 2002, seeking information necessary to conduct a 
review of any shipments that the firm may have made to the United 
States during the period of review. Aichi did not respond to our 
original questionnaire, nor did it make any effort to inform the 
Department of its intention not to respond. On May 15, 2002, two days 
after the deadline for responding to the Department's questionnaire, 
the Department contacted counsel for Aichi, and received a return phone 
message five days later, on May 20, 2002, in which counsel for Aichi 
indicated that the company would not be responding to the Department's 
questionnaire in this segment of the proceeding. See Memorandum 
regarding Notification of Respondent's Decision Not to Respond to 
Department's Questionnaire: Stainless Steel Bar from Japan (May 21, 
2002). The company did not notify the Department of any difficulties in 
complying with the request for information, nor did it seek an 
opportunity to submit information in alternative forms with an 
appropriate explanation. Therefore, Aichi failed to comply with the 
provisions of section 782(c) of the Act. Because Aichi has withheld 
information that was requested by the Department, and has failed to 
provide any information whatsoever, the statute directs that we 
determine Aichi's dumping margin using facts otherwise available, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. Because Aichi has 
provided no information whatsoever, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act 
are inapplicable.
    In selecting from the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of 
the Act provides that the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. The section also provides that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final 
determination in the investigation segment, a previous review under 
section 751 of the Act or a determination under section 753 of the Act, 
or any other information placed on the record. See sections 776(b)(1)-
(4) of the Act. In addition, the Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the URAA, H.Doc.103-316, vol.1 (1994) (SAA), establishes 
that the Department may employ an adverse inference ``to ensure that 
the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' SAA at 870. As noted 
above, Aichi not only failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, it took no affirmative steps to inform the Department of 
its intention not to participate until the Department contacted its 
counsel. Moreover, Aichi did not inform the Department of any 
difficulties in meeting requirements, nor did it seek to submit data in 
alternative forms with an appropriate explanation. On these grounds, 
the Department finds that Aichi failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for 
information, and accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b), we are 
employing an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8932 (February 
23, 1998). In employing adverse inferences, the Department is 
instructed to consider ``the extent to which a party may benefit from 
its own lack of cooperation.'' SAA at 870.
    In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce Aichi's cooperation, we have assigned this company as adverse 
facts available a rate of 61.47 percent, which is the margin calculated 
in the original less-than fair-value (LTFV) investigation using 
information provided in the petition. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From Japan, 59 FR 
66930 (December 28, 1994). The rate was selected as the best 
information available in the final determination of the investigation, 
and has been applied as the ``all-others'' rate in every subsequent 
review. Although two other rates have been calculated for Aichi in 
prior segments of this proceeding, those rates were calculated based on 
Aichi's cooperation. To apply one of those rates as the adverse facts 
available rate would unduly reward Aichi's lack of cooperation in the 
current review. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b)(1), the 
Department finds that the rate of 61.47 percent is an appropriate basis 
for adverse inference.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department when using 
secondary information shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 
Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as that used 
here, constitutes secondary information. See SAA at 870. The SAA 
provides that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. SAA at 870. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent 
practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    To assess the reliability of the petition margin, in accordance 
with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined 
the key elements of the calculations of export price and normal value 
upon which the petitioners based their margins for the petition. The 
U.S. prices in the petition were based on quotes to U.S. customers, 
most of which were obtained through market research. See Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, December 30, 1993. We were able 
to corroborate the U.S. prices in the petition by comparing these 
prices to publicly available information based on IM-145 import 
statistics covering sales from Japan which were contemporaneous with 
the period of this administrative review. See Memorandum from Brian 
Ellman, Case Analyst to the File, Corroboration of Petition Rate for 
Use as Facts Available, July 8, 2002.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an

[[Page 49675]]

appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) 
(the Department disregarded the highest dumping margin as adverse best 
information available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin). There is no evidence of circumstances indicating that the 
margin used as facts available in this review is not appropriate.
    Throughout the history of this proceeding, all producers/exporters 
of subject merchandise except Aichi have been subject to the rate of 
61.47 percent for several years. Aichi was also subject to this rate as 
a result of the investigation. As this rate has never before been 
challenged, except by Aichi in previous segments, nor has any 
information been presented in the current review that calls into 
question the reliability or the relevance of the information contained 
in the petition, the Department finds that the information is reliable. 
The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, codified at 19 
CFR 351.308(d), states, ``{t}he fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from 
applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary 
information in question.'' Additionally, the SAA at 870 states 
specifically that ``{t}he fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the agencies from 
applying an adverse inference.'' The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the 
Department need not prove that the facts available are the best 
alternative information. Therefore, based on our efforts, described 
above, to corroborate information contained in the petition and in 
accordance with 776(c) of the Act, which discusses facts available and 
corroboration, we consider the margins in the petition to be 
corroborated to the extent practicable for purposes of this preliminary 
determination (see Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 10358, 10360 (March 7, 2002)). Therefore, 
the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines 
that a margin of 61.47 percent exists for Aichi for the period February 
1, 2001, to January 31, 2002.
    Interested parties may request a hearing not later than 30 days 
after publication of this notice. Interested parties may also submit 
written arguments in case briefs on these preliminary results within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than 
five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement 
of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including a discussion of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department 
will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department 
will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The rate will be assessed uniformly 
on all entries of Aichi merchandise made during the period of review. 
The Department will issue appraisement instructions for Aichi 
merchandise directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Aichi will be the 
rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, 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 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 61.47 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 66930, 
December 28, 1994). This deposit rate, 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)(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 double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 23, 2002.
Bernard Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-19341 Filed 7-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S