[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22358-22359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10368]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Court Decision and 
Suspension of Liquidation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 18, 2003, in Carpenter Technology Corp. v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 00-09-00447, Slip. Op. 03-28 (CIT 2003), a 
lawsuit challenging the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') 
Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Recession of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (August 4, 2000) (``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'') (collectively, ``Final Results''), the Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') affirmed the Department's remand 
determination and entered a judgment order. In the remand 
determination, the Department clarified two aspects of the Final 
Results relating to the banding of sales and the dissimilar treatment 
of two respondents. In addition, the Department recalculated the 
antidumping duty rate for Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. (Viraj'') employing a 
modified calculation of neutral facts available. As a result of the 
remand determination, the antidumping duty rate for Viraj has decreased 
from 2.5 percent to the de minimis rate of 0.19 percent.

[[Page 22359]]

    Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (``Timken''), the Department will continue to order the 
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a 
``conclusive'' decision in this case. If the case is not appealed, or 
if it is affirmed on appeal, the Department will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to revise the cash deposit rate and liquidate all 
relevant entries covering the subject merchandise for Viraj.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Langan or Cole Kyle, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group I, Office 1, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2613 or (202) 482-1503, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Following publication of the Final Results, Carpenter Technology 
Corp. (``Carpenter''), the petitioner in this case, and Viraj, a 
respondent in this case, filed lawsuits with the CIT challenging the 
Department's Final Results.
    In the Final Results, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended effective January 1, 1995 (``the 
Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), the Department 
calculated Viraj's antidumping duty margin using third country sales 
data for normal value because Viraj's home market sales information was 
incomplete. In using the third country database, the Department was 
unable to make adjustments for differences in merchandise because, 
although Viraj cooperated to the best of its ability, it did not report 
variable cost of manufacture (``VCOM'') data in its third country and 
U.S. sales databases. See section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. Therefore, 
the Department relied on facts otherwise available to account for these 
differences. In doing so, the Department matched U.S. sales to third 
country sales according to size ranges (``banding'') for price 
comparison purposes. Where banding did not result in an identical 
match, the Department applied the ``all others'' rate of 12.45 percent 
calculated in Stainless Steel Bar from India; Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 
28, 1994) (``LTFV investigation''). The ``all others'' rate was 
calculated in accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, pre-
URAA.
    The Court remanded the use of banding to the Department for further 
explanation. The Court did not find the Department's matching 
methodology unreasonable or inconsistent with law and recognized the 
Department's broad authority to determine and apply a model-matching 
methodology to determine a relevant ``foreign like product'' under 
sections 773 and 771(16) of the Act. However, the Court noted the 
apparent disparate treatment between Viraj and another respondent, 
Panchmahal Steel, Ltd. The Court found that this ``disparity'' and the 
Department's language in its Issues and Decision Memorandum 
necessitated a further explanation from the Department of its rationale 
for banding Viraj's sales.
    Additionally, the Court questioned the Department's use of the 
``all others'' rate applied to Viraj's unmatched U.S. sales. The Court 
found that the Department's use of a pre-URAA weighted-average ``all 
others'' rate that contained one margin based entirely on adverse facts 
available did not constitute non-adverse facts available. As such, the 
Court concluded that the Department could not apply this ``all others'' 
rate to Viraj, a cooperative respondent. See section 776(b) of the Act.
    The Draft Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (``Draft 
Results'') was released to the parties on September 5, 2002. In its 
Draft Results, the Department clarified to the court its use of banding 
and the dissimilar treatment of Viraj and Panchmahal Steel, Ltd. We 
also reconsidered our use of the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation as neutral facts otherwise available where Viraj's U.S. 
sales did not have an identical match under the banding methodology. We 
modified our application of neutral facts otherwise available in the 
margin calculations by substituting for the ``all others'' rate the 
weighted-average dumping margin from Viraj's matched banded sales in 
order to conform with the Court's conclusion that the ``all others'' 
rate included adverse inferences.
    Comments on the Draft Results were received from Carpenter on 
September 13, 2002, and Viraj submitted rebuttal comments on September 
18, 2002. On September 30, 2002, the Department responded to the 
Court's Order of Remand by filing its Final Results of Redetermination 
pursuant to the Court remand (``Final Results of Redetermination''). 
The Department's Final Results of Redetermination was identical to the 
Draft Results.
    The CIT affirmed the Department's Final Results of Redetermination 
on March 18, 2003. See Carpenter Technology Corp. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 00-09-00447, Slip. Op. 03-28 (CIT 2003).

Suspension of Liquidation

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal 
Circuit''), in Timken, held that the Department must publish notice of 
a decision of the CIT or the Federal Circuit which is not ``in 
harmony'' with the Department's Final Results. Publication of this 
notice fulfills that obligation. The Federal Circuit also held that the 
Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until 
there is a ``conclusive'' decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to 
Timken, the Department must continue to suspend liquidation pending the 
expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's May 17, 2003, decision or, 
if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the Federal 
Circuit. The Department will instruct the Customs Service to revise 
cash deposit rates and liquidate relevant entries covering the subject 
merchandise effective April 28, 2003, in the event that the CIT's 
ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    Dated: April 21, 2003.
Joesph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-10368 Filed 4-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S