[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53775-53777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21014]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of New 
Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Uday Engineering Works, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting a new shipper administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. 
This review covers sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period February 1 through July 31, 2001.
    In these preliminary results, we find that Uday Engineering Works 
made sales of subject merchandise below normal value. The dumping 
margin is shown in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of 
this notice. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle, Office 1, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 
20230; telephone (202) 482-1503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. In addition, all 
references to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') 
regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

Background

    On July 25, 2001, the Department received a request from Uday 
Engineering Works (``Uday'') to conduct a new shipper administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. 
On August 13, 2001, the Department requested that Uday remedy certain 
deficiencies in its request for a new shipper review. On August 21, 
2001, Uday submitted a revised request for a new shipper review. On 
August 31, 2001, the Department rejected Uday's new shipper request 
because of certain remaining deficiencies. Uday appropriately amended 
its request for a new shipper review on September 20, 2001. The 
Department published in the Federal Register, on October 23, 2001, a 
notice of initiation of a new shipper administrative review of Uday 
covering the period February 1 through July 31, 2001 (66 FR 53585). See 
19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(A).
    On November 5, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Uday. We received a response on January 9, 2002. On 
February 5, 2002, the petitioners submitted an allegation that Uday 
made sales below the cost of production (``COP'').
    On April 2, 2002, the Department found that because of the 
complexity of the issues involved in this case it was not practicable 
to complete the review in the time allotted, and we published an 
extension of time limit for the completion of the preliminary results 
of this review to no later than August 13, 2002, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h)(2). See Stainless 
Steel Bar from India; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 16717 (April 8, 
2002).
    We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that sales by Uday in the home market had 
been made at prices below the cost of production and initiated a sales 
below cost investigation accordingly on April 16, 2002 (see memorandum 
from Team to Susan Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 1, 
``Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Uday Engineering 
Works,'' dated April 16, 2002 (``Sales Below Cost Memorandum'')). Also, 
on April 16, 2002, we requested that Uday respond to the Section D cost 
of production section of the Department's original questionnaire. Uday 
filed its response to Section D on May 1, 2002.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Uday and received 
responses in June and July 2002.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel bar 
(``SSB''). SSB 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. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs 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 SSB subject to these orders is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 
7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope of this order is dispositive.

Export Price

    In calculating the price to the United States, we used export price 
(``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States. We calculated EP based on the C&F price to the United States. 
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, as 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight and international freight.
    In calculating the export price, we relied upon the data submitted 
by Uday, except as noted below:

[[Page 53776]]

    a. We revised the reported gross unit price to reflect the currency 
in which the sale was made.
    b. We recalculated entered value based on the revised gross unit 
price.
    c. We made an adjustment for bank charges not reported by Uday.
    d. We revised Uday's reported credit expenses to include a portion 
of the credit period that was unaccounted for in Uday's calculation.
    e. We did not grant the duty drawback adjustment claimed by Uday. 
The Department grants a duty drawback adjustment when the respondent 
can demonstrate that there is ``(1) a sufficient link between the 
import duty and the rebate, and (2) a sufficient amount of raw 
materials imported and used in the production of the final exported 
product'' (see Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel Pipes and Tubes 
from India, (62 FR 47632 at 47635) (September 10, 1997). In this 
instance, Uday has failed to demonstrate that it meets the criteria for 
a duty drawback adjustment.
    For further discussion of the above-mentioned changes, see 
Memorandum to Case File ``Uday Engineering Works Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum'' (``Calculation Memorandum'') dated August 13, 
2002, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-
099 of the main Department building.

Normal Value:

1. Home Market Viability
    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 (i.e., 
whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), we compared Uday's volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because Uday's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.
2. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Uday's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
expenses (G&A), and interest expenses, where appropriate. We relied on 
the COP information provided by Uday in its questionnaire and 
supplemental responses except that we revised Uday's G&A and financial 
expense rates to exclude packing and selling expenses from the cost of 
goods sold denominator (see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for Preliminary 
Determination'' dated August 13, 2002).
3. Test of Home Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COPs 
to home market sales of the foreign like product during the period of 
review (``POR''), as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order 
to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. The 
prices were exclusive of commissions and indirect selling expenses, 
where appropriate. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made 
(1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and 
(2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time.
4. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices 
below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. If so, we disregard the below-
cost sales.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Uday's home market sales within an extended period of time were at 
prices less than the COP and did not provide for the recovery of costs. 
We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining above-cost 
sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1).
    For Uday's sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade (e.g., 
sales that passed the cost test), we compared those sales to 
constructed value (``CV''), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act.
5. Calculation of Constructed Value
    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on home market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for Uday, 
when sales of comparison products could not be found, either because 
there were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the 
comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication 
for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A, 
including interest, profit and U.S. packing costs. We made the same 
adjustments to CV as described in the ``Calculation of COP'' section of 
this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based selling expenses, G&A and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale 
of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for 
consumption in the foreign country.
6. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
    We calculated NV based on ex-factory prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the home market. We made adjustments for differences in 
costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In 
addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit 
expenses, where appropriate. We calculated imputed credit expenses 
where Uday did not report them based on the time from when the 
merchandise was shipped to the receipt of payment (see Calculation 
Memorandum).
7. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV 
for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we added 
U.S. packing costs.

[[Page 53777]]

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping 
margin:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Manufacturer/Exporter                          Period of Review              Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uday Engineering Works........................................         2/1/01 - 7/31/01                  20.36 %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon completion of this new shipper administrative review, the 
Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any 
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of 
this review is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent or greater). 
Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates 
for the merchandise in question. The assessment rate will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the 
POR. The Department will issue assesment instructions directly to the 
Customs Service within 15 calendar days of the publication of the final 
results of review in the Federal Register.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper administrative 
review for all shipments of stainless steel bar from India 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) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the 
original less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, 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 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) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers 
and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall be 12.45 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. (See 59 FR 66915, 
December 28, 1994).
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the date 
of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs 
(see below). Interested parties may submit written arguments in case 
briefs 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 date of filing the case briefs. 
Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings should provide a summary 
of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs 
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f)(3).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review within 90 days from the issuance of these preliminary results.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 13, 2002.
Richard Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-21014 Filed 8-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S