[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38301-38303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-808]


Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Notice of Amended Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Amended Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Herzog, Stephen Bailey, or 
Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4271, (202) 482-1102, and (202) 482-3434, 
respectively.

Amendment of Final Results

    On May 8, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the final results of its 
administrative review of stainless steel wire rods (``SSWR'') from 
India for the period December 1, 2000, through November 30, 2001. See 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 26288 (May 
15, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (``Final 
Results'').
    On May 16, 2002, petitioner Carpenter Technology Corporation timely 
filed ministerial error allegations, pursuant to section 351.224(c)(2) 
of the Department's regulations. Respondent, Mukand, Limited 
(``Mukand'') did not file rebuttal comments. Respondent, the Viraj 
Group, Limited (``the Viraj Group'') filed ministerial error 
allegations on May 27, 2003, and on June 2, 2003, petitioner filed 
rebuttal comments.
    As a result of our analysis of respondent's and petitioner's 
comments, the Department is amending the Final Results in the 
antidumping administrative review of stainless steel wire rods from 
India covering the period December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001, 
for Mukand and the Viraj Group.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise under review is certain stainless steel wire rods, 
which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, 
squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of 
alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 
10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These 
products are only manufactured by hot-rolling and are normally sold in 
coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of SSWR sold 
in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed and 
pickled. The most common size 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
    The SSWR subject to this review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and

[[Page 38302]]

7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes (as of March 1, 2003, renamed the U.S. 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection), the written description of 
the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the 
merchandise is covered by the review.

Ministerial Errors

    A ministerial error is defined in Sec.  351.224(f) of the 
Department's regulations as ``an error in addition, subtraction, or 
other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate 
copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of 
unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.'' 
Section 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations provides that we 
``will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate * * * correct 
any ministerial error by amending the final results of review * * * '' 
After reviewing interested parties' allegations, we have determined, in 
accordance with Sec.  351.224 of the Department's regulations, that the 
Final Results includes the ministerial errors discussed below.

Mukand

Comment 1: Facts Available
    Petitioner alleges that the Department understated the United 
States weighted-average price and entered value used to calculate the 
facts otherwise available rate that was applied to Mukand's constructed 
export price (``CEP'') sales. Specifically, petitioner argues that the 
Department erroneously derived the U.S. price by dividing quantity by 
value. In addition, petitioner states that the Department erroneously 
used an amount for the entered value that differs from the weighted-
average entered value calculated for Mukand's EP sales. As a result, 
petitioner contends that these errors understate the importer-specific 
assessment rate. To correct these errors, petitioner argues that the 
Department should use the actual calculated weighted-average U.S. price 
and entered value of Mukand's EP sales in determining the facts 
available rate applied to Mukand's CEP sales.
    Mukand did not file rebuttal comments to this ministerial error.
    Department's Position: For the Final Results, the Department 
applied facts otherwise available to Mukand's CEP sales in the United 
States. See Final Results, at Comment 2 and 3. As facts otherwise 
available, the Department calculated a weighted-average U.S. price of 
Mukand's reported EP sales and substituted the weighted-average price 
for Mukand's reported CEP sales. See Final Results, at Comment 3. 
However, as the petitioner correctly contends, in calculating the facts 
otherwise available rate, the Department first calculated a weighted-
average U.S. price, but then recalculated the U.S. price by dividing 
quantity by value. See Analysis Memorandum for Mukand, Limited, for the 
Final Results of the 2000-2001 Adminstrative Review of Stainless Steel 
Wire Rods from India, dated May 8, 2003 (``Mukand Final Analysis 
Memorandum''), at page 4. In addition, the Department erroneously 
calculated the entered value by using the entered value of Mukand's CEP 
sales, instead of the weighted-average entered value of Mukand's EP 
sales. See Mukand Final Analysis Memorandum. The result of these errors 
was to understate the total entered value to which facts otherwise 
available were to be applied, thus understating the importer-specific 
assessment rate.
    To correct these errors, the Department has revised the final 
margin calculation program to apply the average net U.S. price of 
Mukand's EP sales to the weighted-average entered value of Mukand's EP 
sales. See Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of the 
2000-2001 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 
India: Mukand, Limited, dated June 12, 2003 (``Amended Mukand Final 
Analysis Memorandum''), at page 1. Although these changes do not affect 
the overall weighted-average margin as published in the Federal 
Register notice for Mukand, they do adjust the adverse facts available 
applied to Mukand's CEP sales, and thus the importer-specific 
assessment rate.

The Viraj Group

Comment 2: Direct Material
    The Viraj Group alleges that the Department double-counted sub-
contracting labor in the calculation of the Viraj Group's total cost of 
production (``TOTCOM'') and constructed value (``CV'') for United 
States sales. The Viraj Group argues that the Department should not 
have included sub-contracting labor charges in the build up of TOTCOM 
and CV.
    Petitioner did not provide rebuttal comments.
    Department's Position: We agree with the Viraj Group. Our 
examination of the Department's labor calculation reveals that the 
programming language is not in error, but reflects the sum of the 
subcontracting expenses (DIRLABCV) and the direct labor expenses 
(DIRLABCO), as intended by the Department. However, further examination 
of our computer program for the Final Results reveals that the 
Department overstated the amount of total material cost required to 
produce a billet used in products sold in the United States. The 
Department inadvertently replaced the transfer price reported in the CV 
database with the total cost of manufacturing as reported in the Viraj 
Group's section D database. Rather, the Department intended to replace 
the transfer price reported by the Viraj Group in the CV database with 
the direct material cost of each respective model as it was reported in 
the section D database. See Analysis for the Amended Final Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rods 
from India--the Viraj Group, Limited (``the Viraj Group'') (``Viraj 
Group Final Amended Analysis Memorandum'') from Stephen Bailey to 
Robert Bolling dated June 12, 2003, at page 1. Therefore, for these 
amended final results of review, we have replaced the inappropriate 
value for material cost hard coded into our final model match and 
margin programs with the value of the total direct material cost found 
on the Viraj Group's section D database.
Comment 3: Interest Expense
    The Viraj Group alleges that the Department incorrectly included 
interest expenses not related to the Viraj Group's actual interest cost 
in calculating the interest expense ratio for COP.
    Petitioner argues that the Department correctly added all interest 
expenses when it re-calculated the Viraj Group's interest expense 
ratio. Petitioner maintains that in the Final Results the Department 
determined to include all interest expenses reported in the Viraj 
Group's financial statements in the calculation of credit expenses. See 
Final Results, at Comment 11. Petitioner further contends that the 
decision by the Department to include all interest expenses in 
calculating a revised interest expense ratio for the Viraj Group is 
methodological and not clerical.
    Department's Position: We agree with the Viraj Group. In the Final 
Results, the Department inadvertently double-counted the Viraj Group's 
interest expenses in the total cost of manufacturing calculation. The 
Viraj Group reported on page 4 of its December 2, 2002 section D 
supplemental questionnaire response (``section D supplemental 
response'')

[[Page 38303]]

that it used two different methodologies to calculate its reported 
interest expenses in two separate interest fields, INTEX and INTEX2 for 
the cost database and INTEXCV and INTEXCV2 for the CV database. In the 
first methodology, the Viraj Group reported a reduced amount of 
interest expense based on its claims that it is not required to pay all 
of the interest owed on its bank loans due to its alleged bankruptcy 
protection and reorganization (``BIFR'') rehabilitation status (INTEX 
and INTEXCV). The second methodology reported by the Viraj Group 
calculates the total interest expense of the Viraj Group based on all 
of the loans owed without regard to the Viraj Group's alleged BIFR 
status (INTEX2 and INTEXCV2) as instructed in the Original 
Questionnaire, dated January 29, 2002, at page D-17. For the Final 
Results, the Department added these two amounts of interest to obtain 
the total amount of interest expense reported by the Viraj Group. See 
the model match and margin programs for the Final Results at lines 579 
and 273, respectively. However, further examination of the record 
reveals that this calculation was in error because it added both the 
theoretical and actual interest expense amounts for the Viraj Group. 
The section D supplemental response demonstrates that the total amount 
of interest that the Viraj Group owes its banks, absent its alleged 
BIFR status (i.e., the second methodology), is reflected in its 
financial statements. Therefore, for these amended final results of 
review, we have revised our calculation to take into account all of the 
interest expense that the Viraj Group owes its banks, as well as the 
adjustment explained in the Preliminary Results. See Stainless Steel 
Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 1040 (January 8, 2003) 
(``Preliminary Results'') and accompanying Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results of Review for Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India for 2000-
2001: The Viraj Group, Limited, at page 2. Accordingly, we did not take 
into account the Viraj Group's alleged BIFR status when calculating the 
Viraj Group's revised interest expense ratio. See Viraj Group Final 
Amended Analysis Memorandum from Stephen Bailey to Robert Bolling dated 
June 12, 2003, at page 2.

Amended Final Results

    Pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(e) of the Department's regulations, we are amending the Final 
Results to reflect the correction of the above-cited ministerial 
errors. The revised final weighted-average dumping margins are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Original
                                             weighted         Revised
          Exporter/manufacturer               average        weighted
                                          margin percent      average
                                             for final    margin percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukand..................................           26.38           26.38
The Viraj Group.........................            3.25            0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised cash deposit rates for Mukand and the Viraj Group shown 
above are effective on all shipments of the subject merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice, and will remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    Accordingly, the Department will determine, and the U.S. Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection (``BCBP'') will assess, antidumping 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise from Mukand and the Viraj 
Group during the period December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001, in 
accordance with these amended final results.

International Trade Commission Notification

    These amended final results and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: June 16, 2003.
Joseph Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-16342 Filed 6-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P