[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4171-4175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-814]


Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France

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

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Villanueva, AD/CVD Enforcement 
Group III, Office IX, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-3208.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered 
are certain stainless steel sheet and strip 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 sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is

[[Page 4172]]

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81\1\, 
7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 
7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 
7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 
7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 
7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 
7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 
7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 
7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 
7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 
7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 
7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, 
and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 
7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 
7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of this review. These excluded products are 
described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this review. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this review. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this review. This high-strength, 
ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified 
Numbering System (``UNS'') as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by 
weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 
manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 
percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 
0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium 
added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 
1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 
aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is 
generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in 
widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly

[[Page 4173]]

used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available 
under proprietary trade names such as ``Durphynox 17.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this review. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\5\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6''.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \6\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment of Final Results

    On December 26, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published its final results for stainless steel sheet and 
strip in coils from France for the July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, 
period of review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
France: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From France (``Final 
Results''), 67 FR 78773 (December 26, 2002).
    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.224(c), on December 19, 2002, 
Ugine, S.A. (``Ugine''), a respondent in this administrative review, 
requested that the Department extend the deadline to file ministerial 
errors regarding the Final Results from December 24, 2002 to January 
10, 2002. On December 20, 2002, the Department extended the deadline to 
file any ministerial allegations on the Final Results from December 24, 
2002 to December 31, 2002. See Letter from the Department to Ugine, 
dated December 20, 2002. Consequently, on December 31, 2002, Ugine and 
the Petitioners\7\ timely filed an allegation that the Department made 
ministerial errors in the Final Results, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 
Sec. 351.224(c). Ugine submitted rebuttal comments on January 6, 2003 
in reply to the Petitioners' ministerial error allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Petitioners in this case are Allegheny Ludlum 
Corporation, AK Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, United 
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union 
and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arm's Length Test Program

    The Petitioners contend that in its Final Results, the Department, 
in calculating the net price, inadvertently failed to consider both 
home market interest revenue (INTREVH) and home market commissions 
(COMMH). Thus, according to the Petitioners, the Department should 
revise its Final Results to add home market interest revenue and deduct 
home market commissions in calculating the net price in the arm's 
length test, consistent with its standard practice.

Model Match Program

    The Petitioners note that the Department's model match program used 
for the Final Results, contained two errors. According to the 
Petitioners, in the model match program, the Department erred in 
calculating the home market net price because it did not add home 
market interest revenue (INTREVH) in the calculation. Therefore, the 
Petitioners assert, the Department should revise its home market net 
price calculation to add home market interest revenue in the model 
match program in accordance with its standard practice.
    The Petitioners also argue that in its Final Results, the 
Department inadvertently failed to update the date of payment for 
unpaid sales (where PAYDTU/H equals `` ''). According to the 
Petitioners, the Department's standard policy in final administrative 
results is to update the date of payment for unpaid sales to the last 
day of each market's respective verifications and to recalculate credit 
expenses (CREDITU/H), as appropriate. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steal Beams from Italy and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated May 20, 2002, at 
Comment 9. Therefore, the Petitioners argue that for home market sales 
this date of payment was June 21, 2002, and for U.S. market sales it 
was May 24, 2002. See Memorandum to the File from Alex Villanueva, 
Import Compliance Specialist, through James C. Doyle, Program Manager, 
Verification Report of the 2nd Administrative Review of Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from France Home Market Sales and Cost 
Verification Report of Ugine, S.A. (``Home Market Verification 
Report''), dated July 31, 2002, at 1, and Memorandum to the File from 
Alex Villanueva and Jonathan Herzog, Import Compliance Specialists, 
through James C. Doyle, Program Manager, Verification Report of the 2nd 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France U.S. Sales and Cost Verification Report of Ugine, S.A. (``U.S. 
Market Verification Report''), dated July 31, 2002 at 1. Thus, the 
Petitioners argue, the Department should revise its Final Results to 
update the date of payment for unpaid home market and U.S. market sales 
to the last day of verification in the model match program.

Margin Calculation Program

    The Petitioners argue that in calculating the values that would be 
used to determine the Constructed Export Price (``CEP'') profit in the 
Final Results, the Department inadvertently mixed U.S. dollar-based 
variables with Euro-based variables without performing the proper 
conversion. The Petitioners note that this occurred when the Department 
calculated the cost of goods sold for U.S. sales when the Department 
combined the U.S. dollar-based further manufacturing, general and 
administrative expenses, interest expenses and packing expenses. 
Furthermore, the Petitioners note, the mixed-currency costs of good 
sold for U.S. sales was then added to the Euro-based home market costs 
of goods sold. Similarly, the Petitioners claim, the U.S. dollar-based 
revenue for U.S. sales was added to Euro-based revenue for home market 
sales. Finally, the Petitioners argue that the same error was performed 
with regard to selling expenses and movement expenses. The Petitioners 
argue that in order to correct for this error, the Department should 
convert all U.S. dollar-denominated variables (FURMANU, REVENU, 
SELLEXPU,

[[Page 4174]]

MOVEXPU) to Euros in the margin calculation program.
    In addition, the Petitioners argue that the Department failed to 
update the day of payment for unpaid sales (where PAYDTU/H equals `` 
'') in the margin calculation program. According to the Petitioners, 
the Department's normal practice is to update the date of payment for 
unpaid sales to the last date of each verification and to recalculate 
credit expenses (CREDITU/H) appropriately. As noted above, the 
Petitioners argue, the last date of verification for home market sales 
was June 21, 2002, and for U.S. market sales was May 24, 2002. Thus, 
the Petitioners request that the Department revise its Final Results to 
update the date of payment for unpaid home market and U.S. market sales 
to the last day of verification for each respective market in the 
margin calculation program.
    Ugine argues that in the Final Results, the Department attempted to 
take interest revenue into account when calculating the net U.S. price 
in the margin calculation program, but inserted the programming code 
incorrectly before the ``End'' statement. Therefore, to correct this 
error, Ugine requests that the Department revise its programming code 
to properly take into account the interest revenue when calculating the 
net U.S. price in the margin calculation program.
    In their rebuttal comments, Ugine argues that the Petitioners' 
claim that the Department ``inadvertently'' used the same method for 
calculating credit expenses in both the preliminary and final results. 
According to Ugine, the Petitioners suggest that the Department 
intended to ``update'' the methodology by inserting an assumed payment 
date for sales for which payment had not been received and 
recalculating the reported credit expenses based on this assumed 
payment date in both the model match and the margin programs. Ugine 
notes, that the Department, however, gave no indication in its 
preliminary results or Final Results that it was contemplating the 
methodological change the Petitioners are now suggesting. Furthermore, 
Ugine argues, nor did the Petitioners raise this issue in their case 
brief or rebuttal brief. Consequently, Ugine notes, it is now too late 
for the Petitioners to advance this methodological change to the 
calculation after the Department has completed its Final Results.
    In addition, Ugine argues that under the credit expense methodology 
used by the Department in its preliminary and Final Results, there is 
no basis for the Petitioners' suggested ``update'' to the calculations. 
According to Ugine, in the Department's preliminary results, credit 
expenses for those sales for which payment had not been received were 
calculated using an estimated credit period. Ugine asserts that the 
estimated credit period for these sales was based on the weighted-
average credit period for sales during the reporting period for which 
payment dates were available. Ugine argues that the Petitioners' 
comments have not shown this methodology to be inaccurate or erroneous, 
and therefore, provide no basis for the Department to jettison this 
calculation methodology, even if these arguments were timely.
    Finally, Ugine notes, that for U.S. sales made by Hague, the 
Petitioners' suggested ``update'' is simply inapplicable. According to 
Ugine, the credit period for all sales by Hague was determined based on 
an accounts-receivable turnover analysis because Hague was not able to 
identify the payment date for individual transactions. Therefore, Ugine 
argues, the fact that no payment date was reported for these sales does 
not mean that payment had not been received, but that is simply a 
function of the reporting methodology used by Hague. Ugine states that 
this methodology was verified by the Department without discrepancy and 
has been accepted by the Department in all prior reviews of this case. 
Accordingly, Ugine claims, even if the Department were to accept the 
Petitioners' comment, the credit expenses calculated for Hague's sales 
should not be affected.

Department's Position

    We agree with Ugine and the Petitioners.
    With regard to the Petitioners' argument regarding the treatment of 
interest revenue and commissions paid for home market sales in the 
arm's length test, we agree. In our Final Results, we inadvertently 
failed to consider both home market interest revenue (INTREVH) and home 
market commissions (COMMH) in calculating the net price. Thus, to 
correct for this error, we have revised our Final Results and added 
home market interest revenue and deducted home market commissions in 
calculating the net price in the arm's length test.
    With regard to the Petitioners' argument that the Department erred 
in calculating the home market net price because we did not add home 
market interest revenue (INTREVH) to the calculation in the model match 
program, we agree. Therefore, for these amended final results, we 
correctly revised our home market net price calculation and added home 
market interest revenue in the model match program.
    With regard to the Petitioners' argument that in calculating the 
values that would be used to determine the CEP profit in the Final 
Results, we mistakenly mixed U.S. dollar-based variables with Euro-
based variables without performing the proper conversion in the margin 
calculation program, we agree. To correct for this error, we properly 
converted all U.S. dollar-denominated variables (FURMANU, REVENU, 
SELLEXPU, MOVEXPU) to Euros in the margin calculation program.
    With regard to Ugine's argument that Department incorrectly applied 
the programming code to account for interest revenue when calculating 
the net U.S. price, we agree. We note that although the programming 
code is correct, it was inadvertently placed in the incorrect order, 
preventing the program from taking interest revenue into account when 
calculating the net U.S. price. For these amended final results, we 
have correctly applied the programming code to take interest revenue 
into account when calculating the net U.S. price in the margin 
calculation program.
    With regard to the Petitioners' argument that we failed to update 
the date of payment for unpaid sales (where PAYDTU/H equals `` '') in 
the margin and model match calculation programs, we disagree. It is the 
Department's standard practice to replace the date of payment with the 
last day of verification of that particular market (i.e., the last day 
of the home market verification should be used as the date of payment 
for unpaid home market sales and the last day of the U.S. market 
verification should be used as the date of payment for unpaid U.S. 
market sales). However, in the instant case, the home market sales have 
a date of payment. Ugine reported, as it has reported in the 
investigation and the first administrative review, an average payment 
date for its home market sales where payment had not yet been received. 
Additionally, credit expenses for those sales for which payment had not 
been received were calculated using a weighted-average credit period. 
Therefore, the Petitioners assertion that certain home market sales had 
no payment date is wrong. In addition, in our Final Results we did not 
intend to replace Ugine's average payment date methodology with the 
last day of the home market sales verification. Consequently, we are 
affirming our use of Ugine's average payment date for sales for which 
payment had not been

[[Page 4175]]

received in the home market and are not changing our Final Results.
    With regard to the Petitioners similar argument regarding sales 
where there was no date of payment (PAYDTU) in the U.S. market, we 
disagree. We agree with Ugine that the date of payment reported was 
based on an accounts-receivable turnover methodology because Hague was 
not able to identify the date of payment on a sales-specific basis. 
Furthermore, the credit period for sales made by Hague was determined 
based on this same methodology. At the U.S. market verification, we 
verified this methodology and found no discrepancies. See U.S. Market 
Verification Report at 18. This fact was not disputed by the 
Petitioners. Therefore, for the Final Results, we have not changed the 
date of payment used by Hague.
    Therefore, we are amending the Final Results to reflect the 
correction of the above-cited ministerial errors. All changes made to 
the arm's length test, model match and margin program can be found in 
the analysis memorandum. See Memorandum to the File from Alex 
Villanueva, Senior Case Analyst to James C. Doyle, Program Manager, 
Final Analysis for Ugine S.A. for the Amended Final Results of the 2nd 
Administrative Review Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, dated January 
20, 2003.
    The weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Amended Final Weighted
           Producer/Manufacturer Exporter                Final Weighted-Average         [chyph]Average Margin
                                                         [chyph]Margin (percent)              (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugine, S.A..........................................                          1.47                          1.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, we are issuing and publishing these amended final 
results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 17, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-1902 Filed 1-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S