[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69721-69723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-29347]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-810


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

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 19, 2002, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the new shipper administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. We gave 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary 
results. Based on an examination of our calculations, we have made a 
change for the final results. We find that the reviewed company made 
sales of stainless steel bar from India in the United States below 
normal value during the period of review, February 1 through July 31, 
2001.

DATES: Effective Date: November 19, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle, Office 1, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, 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 statute are 
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
effective January 1, 1995, (``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') 
regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

Background

    The manufacturer/exporter that requested this new shipper 
antidumping duty administrative review is Uday Engineering Works 
(``Uday''). The period of review (``POR'') is February 1 through July 
31, 2001. Since the publication of the preliminary results of this 
review (see Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of New 
Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 53775 (August 19, 
2002)), the following events have occurred:

[[Page 69722]]

    On September 10, 2002, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
Uday. Uday filed its response on September 23, 2002. Uday filed a case 
brief on October 2, 2002. Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible 
Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy 
Corp., Slater Steel Corp., Empire Specialty Steel, and the United 
Steelworkers of America (collectively, ``the petitioners'') filed a 
rebuttal brief on October 16, 2002. On October 28, 2002, Uday submitted 
additional written argument. As this submission did not meet the 
definition of case or rebuttal briefs outlined in the Department's 
regulations, the Department did not consider this submission in making 
its decision (see 19 CFR 351.309).

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, have 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 reviews 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, our written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this new shipper administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum'' from Susan Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, to Richard Moreland, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 12, 2002, 
(``Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A 
list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded, all 
of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as 
an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues 
raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this 
public memorandum which is on file in Import Administration's Central 
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, 
a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from India to the 
United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export 
price to normal value. Our calculations followed the methodologies 
described in the preliminary results, except that we corrected a 
clerical error in the recalculation of Uday's imputed credit expense 
reported on its U.S. sale (see Uday Engineering Works Final Results 
Calculation Memorandum dated November 12, 2002.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the 
period February 1 through July 31, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-Average
            Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uday Engineering Works...............................             19.80%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated 
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for the merchandise 
subject to this review. To determine whether the duty assessment rates 
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem 
rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales 
to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total 
value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer 
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rate was greater than de minimis, we 
calculated a per unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) 
and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer 
(or customer).
    Pursuant to its published announcement, the Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service 
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review (see 
``Announcement Concerning Issuance of Liquidation Instructions 
Reflecting Results of Administrative Reviews'' (August 9, 2002) (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/liquidation-announcement.html).

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all 
shipments of stainless steel bar from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date 
of the final results of this new shipper antidumping duty 
administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate 
indicated above; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or 
exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-
than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit 
will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this review, the previous review, or the original 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) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in 
this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation (see Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 
28, 1994)).
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

[[Page 69723]]

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 12, 2002.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1

Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1. Calculation of U.S. Imputed Credit Expenses
Comment 2. Variable Cost of Manufacturing
Comment 3. Duty Drawback
[FR Doc. 02-29347 Filed 11-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S