[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47049-47056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20182]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-814]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Ugine S.A. (``Ugine''), 
respondent, and Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, 
Inc.), North American Stainless, Butler-Armco Independent Union, 
Zanesville Armco Independent Organization Inc., and the United 
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, collectively, (``the 
Petitioners''), the U.S. Department of Commerce (``Department'') is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (``SSSS'') from France for the 
period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. The Department preliminarily 
determines that a dumping margin exists for Ugine's sales of SSSS in 
the United States. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (``Customs'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of Ugine's merchandise during the period 
of review. The preliminary results are listed in the section titled 
``Preliminary Results of Review,'' infra.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Werner, Enforcement Group III, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: 202-482-2667.

Background

    On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the amended final determination and antidumping duty order on SSSS from 
France. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils from France, 64 FR 40562 (July 27, 1999) (``Antidumping Duty 
Order''). On March 19, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the amended final results of the first antidumping duty 
administrative review of SSSS from France. See Notice of Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 67 FR 12522 (March 19, 2002). On 
January 28, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register the 
amended final results of the second antidumping duty administrative 
review of SSSS from France. See Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils from France, 68 FR 4171 (January 28, 2003).
    On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from 
France for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. See Notice 
of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 67 FR 
44172 (July 1, 2002).
    On July 31, 2002, Ugine, a French producer and exporter of subject 
merchandise, and the Petitioners requested that the Department conduct 
a review of Ugine's sales or entries of merchandise subject to the 
Department's antidumping duty order on SSSS from France. On August 27, 
2002, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review for the period July 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2002. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 
55000 (August 27, 2002).
    On October 7, 2002, Ugine reported in its response to Section A of 
the Department's questionnaire, that it made sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. On October 22, 2002, 
Ugine submitted translations of financial statements that it had 
submitted in its October 7, 2002, response. On October 28, 2002, Ugine 
submitted its responses to Section B, C, D, and E of the Department's 
questionnaire. On December 10, 2002, Ugine submitted its cost 
reconciliation. On December 20, 2002, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire for Sections A, B, and C of Ugine's 
questionnaire responses. On January 30, 2003, Ugine submitted its 
responses to the supplemental Sections A, B, and C questionnaire. On 
March 3, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for 
Sections D and E of Ugine's questionnaire responses, and Ugine 
submitted its response on April 3, 2003. On March 25, 2003, the 
Department issued a sucessorship questionnaire to Ugine. On April 15, 
2003, Ugine submitted its response to the successorship questionnaire. 
On April 23, 2003, the Department requested Ugine submit Imphy Ugine 
Precision's (``IUP's''), an affiliate of Ugine, cost reconciliation as 
well as downstream sales of its affiliates. On April 30, 2003, the 
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire for Sections A, 
B, and C, and on May 14, 2003, the Department issued a second 
supplemental questionnaire for Sections D and E. On May 21, and May 27, 
2003, Ugine submitted its response to the second supplemental 
questionnaire for Sections A, B, and C. On May 29, 2003, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire concerning Ugine's successorship 
response. On June 2, 2003, Ugine submitted its sales reconciliation. On 
May 28, and June 4, 2003, Ugine submitted its response to the second 
supplemental questionnaire for Sections D and E. On June 11, 2003, 
Ugine submitted its response to the supplemental questionnaire on 
successorship.
    On March 27, 2003, the Department extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review. See 
Notice of Extension of Time Limit of the Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless

[[Page 47050]]

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 14948 (March 27, 
2003).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by Ugine for use in our preliminary results. We 
used standard verification procedures, including examination of 
relevant accounting and production records and original source 
documents provided by Ugine. From June 15, 2003 through June 20, 2003, 
we verified sales and successorship information provided by Ugine. From 
June 24, 2003 through July 1, 2003, we verified constructed export 
price (``CEP'') sales information provided by Ugine and its U.S. sales 
affiliates. Our verification results are outlined in the public version 
of the verification report and are on file in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU'') located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce 
Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. See 
Memorandum from Cheryl Werner and Eugene Degnan, Case Analysts through 
James C. Doyle, Program Manager, to the File: Verification of Sales and 
Successorship for Ugine S.A. in the 3rd Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, dated 
July 31, 2003 (``Home Market Report''); Memorandum from Cheryl Werner 
and Kit Rudd, Case Analysts through James C. Doyle, Program Manager, to 
the File: Verification of CEP Sales for Usinor Stainless USA in the 3rd 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from France, dated July 31, 2003 (``U.S. Sales Report 
I''); and Memorandum from Cheryl Werner and Kit Rudd, Case Analysts 
through James C. Doyle, Program Manager, to the File: Verification of 
CEP Sales for Hague Steel Corporation in the 3rd Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France, dated July 31, 2002 (``U.S. Sales Report II'').

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 
2002.

Scope of 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 
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 order is currently classifiable 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 review of this order 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).
    Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. 
This product 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 1.025 percent or less, 
silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 1.020 percent 
or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, 
with inclusion controls for sulphide of not 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 not 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 order. 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.

[[Page 47051]]

    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. 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 order. 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 order. 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 5 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 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 a 
certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this order. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliation of Parties

    Pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, the Department 
preliminarily finds that Arcelor S.A. (``Arcelor'') is affiliated with 
Usinor S.A. (``Usinor''), by virtue of its acquisition of 97.58 percent 
of Usinor's shares. Ugine, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of 
Usinor.\7\ Additionally, Arcelor acquired 99.43 percent shares of Arbed 
S.A.'s (``Arbed's'') shares, and 95.03 percent of Aceralia 
Corporaci[oacute]n Sider[uacute]rgica S.A.'s (``Aceralia's'') shares. 
Therefore, as discussed below, the Department also preliminarily finds 
that Arbed and Aceralia are affiliated with Usinor by virtue of the 
common ownership by Arcelor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Ugine's Section A questionnaire response, at page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, any person directly or 
indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five 
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any 
organization and such organization shall be considered affiliated. 
Thus, since Arcelor owns 97.58 percent of Usinor's shares, 99.43 
percent of Arbed's shares, and 95.03 percent of Aceralia's shares, it 
directly owns more than five percent of the shares of these 
companies.\8\ Moreover, we preliminarily find this affiliation between 
Usinor and Arcelor, Arbed, and Aceralia and their subsidiaries to be 
effective as of February 28, 2002. We preliminarily find February 28, 
2002, to be the date reflective of Arcelor's acquisition of Usinor's, 
and Aceralia's shares, because it is the effective date for the 
consolidation of Usinor, Arbed, and Aceralia's financial results.\9\ 
According to Arcelor's consolidated financial statements, the Arcelor 
Group was created upon the merger of Aceralia, Arbed and Usinor, 
effective on February 28, 2002, in accordance with the International 
Financial Reporting Standards (``IFRA'').\10\ For a complete discussion 
of this issue, see Memorandum from Cheryl Werner, Case Analyst through 
James C. Doyle to the File: Affiliation of Arcelor and Usinor, dated 
July 31, 2003 (``Affiliation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Ugine's April 15, 2003, successorship questionnaire 
response, at Exhibit 5: Arcelor Group Brochure.
    \9\ See Home Market Verification Report, at Exhibit 19: 
Arcelor's 2002 consolidated financial statements.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Successorship

    Ugine, an entity involved in the production and sale of subject 
merchandise in the United States, changed its name immediately 
following the POR to Ugine & ALZ France S.A. We have conducted a 
successorship review during this POR because entries for the new entity 
will be made under that name during the next POR. We also note that 
Usinor Stainless USA, a U.S. sales affiliate of Ugine, has changed its 
name to Arcelor Stainless USA.
    The Department is making this successorship determination in order 
to apply the appropriate and necessary company-specific cash deposit 
rates. In determining whether Ugine & ALZ France is the successor to 
Ugine for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department 
examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in: 
(1) Management, (2) production facilities, (3) suppliers,

[[Page 47052]]

and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 
(May 13, 1992) (``Brass from Canada''); Steel Wire Strand for 
Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 28796 (July 13, 1990); 
and  Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 
1994). While examining these factors alone will not necessarily provide 
a dispositive indication of succession, the Department will generally 
consider one company to have succeeded another if that company's 
operations are essentially inclusive of the predecessor's operations. 
See Brass from Canada. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates, with respect 
to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, that the new 
company is essentially the same business operation as the former 
company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit 
rate of its predecessor.
    The evidence on the record, including Ugine's company brochures, 
customer lists, and lists of suppliers, including those in Ugine's 
successorship responses, demonstrates that with respect to the 
production and sale of the subject merchandise, Ugine & ALZ France is 
the successor to Ugine. Specifically, the evidence shows that Ugine & 
ALZ France has the same SSSS production facilities, and most of the 
same customers, suppliers, and management, as Ugine had. At 
verification, we confirmed that Ugine's production facilities, 
customers, and suppliers had not changed. See Home Market Verification 
Report, at pages 12-13. We reviewed Ugine's organizational structure 
before and after the acquisition of its parent company by Arcelor and 
confirmed that there was only minimal changes. See id. Furthermore, we 
reviewed documentation at verification to support the name change, 
including the registration of the new name. See id, at Exhibit 5. 
Therefore, we preliminary find that Ugine & ALZ France is the successor 
to Ugine for purposes of this proceeding, and for the application of 
the antidumping law.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Ugine's sales of subject merchandise from 
France to the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared the CEP to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we 
calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to 
individual CEP transactions.

Transactions Reviewed

A. Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e, the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or 
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Ugine's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because Ugine'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 determine that the home market was viable.

B. Arm's Length Test

    Ugine reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliate 
end users and resellers during the POR. Sales to affiliated customers 
in the home market not made at arm's length were excluded from our 
analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we 
compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unafflilated 
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, 
discounts and packing. Where prices to the affiliated party were on 
average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unrelated party, we 
determined that sales made to the related party were at arm's length. 
See 19 CFR 351.403(c).\11\ Where no affiliated customer ratio could be 
calculated because identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated 
customers, we were unable to determine that these sales were made at 
arm's length and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis. See, 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy, 67 FR 39677, 39679 
(June 10, 2002). Where the exclusion of such sales eliminated all sales 
of the most appropriate comparison product, we made comparisons to the 
next most similar model. In our home market NV calculation, we have 
included Ugine's sales to certain of its affiliated customers because 
these entities passed the Department's arms's length test criteria. 
Conversely, certain other affiliated customers did not pass the arm's 
length test and have therefore been excluded from our home market NV 
calculation. For a further discussion of home market sales made by 
Ugine to one affiliated reseller who failed the arm's length test, 
please see the ``Facts Available'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Because this review was initiated before November 23, 2002, 
the 99.5 percent test applies to this review. See Antidumping 
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 
67 FR 69186, 69197 (November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Date of Sale

    As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department will use the 
respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date 
better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer 
establishes the essential terms of sale. Ugine explained that both the 
U.S. market's and HM's prices and quantities may be modified between 
the date of the initial order and the date of shipment.\12\ Ugine 
explained that price may be modified to reflect changing market 
conditions. Ugine also explained that quantities may be modified when 
the customer's needs change between the initial order and shipment, or 
when Ugine's production exceeds the initial order quantity by more than 
the agreed-upon tolerance and the customer agrees to accept the 
additional quantity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Ugine's January 29, 2003, supplemental Section A 
questionnaire response, at 20.
    \13\ Id. Also, see Home Market Verification Report, U.S. Sales 
Report I, and U.S. Sales Report II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home Market

    For all home market sales, Ugine reported the earlier of the date 
of invoice or date of shipment to its customers as the date of sale. 
Ugine reported that it had significant changes to price and volume 
between the contract date and invoice date during the first half of 
2002.\14\ Therefore, the Department is using Ugine's invoice date as 
the date of sale for the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Market

    For all U.S. market sales, Ugine reported two sets of sale to the 
Department: the earlier of the date of invoice or date of shipment to 
its customer; and order (contract) date. Ugine reported that there were 
changes to the price and volume between the contract date and invoice 
date during the first half of 2002.\15\ At verification, Ugine revised 
upward the percentage of changes to the price and volume due to a 
programming error in its analysis.\16\

[[Page 47053]]

We preliminarily find that Ugine had significant changes to its prices 
and volumes between contract date and invoice date. Moreover, we note 
for some CEP sales, Ugine was unable to report an order date because 
Hague did not maintain this information in its normal course of 
business. Therefore, since there were significant changes between 
contract date and invoice date and the Department's preference is not 
to mix invoice dates and contract dates from the same market in its 
analysis, we are using the earlier of Ugine's U.S. affiliates' invoice 
date or shipment date as the date of sale for the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ See Home Market Verification Report, at Exhibit 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
SSSS products covered by the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this 
notice, supra, which were produced and sold by Ugine in the home market 
during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of 
determining appropriate product comparisons of U.S. sales of SSSS 
products. We relied on nine characteristics to match U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product 
(listed in order of preference): (1) Grade; (2) hot/cold rolled; (3) 
gauge; (4) surface finish; (5) metallic coating; (6) non-metallic 
coating; (7) width; (8) temper; and (9) edge trim. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions 
listed in the Department's questionnaire.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price (``EP'') 
is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed 
to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter 
of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(b) (of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter.
    For purposes of this review, Ugine classified all of its exported 
sales of SSSS as CEP sales. During the review period Ugine made sales 
to the United States through its two U.S. based affiliates, Usinor 
Stainless USA and Hague, which then resold the merchandise to 
unaffiliated customers. According to Ugine, Usinor Stainless USA serves 
as a national ``super-distributor'' for Ugine in the U.S. market. Hague 
is an affiliated customer in the United States which further 
manufactured the SSSS before selling to unaffiliated customers. 
Therefore, because Ugine's U.S. sales were made by Usinor Stainless USA 
and Hague after the subject merchandise was imported into the United 
States, it is appropriate to classify these sales as CEP sales.
    We calculated the CEP in accordance with Section 772(b) of the Act. 
We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We also made deductions 
for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance 
with 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight from plant to 
distribution warehouse, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from 
warehouse/plant to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. warehouse expenses, 
other U.S. transportation expense, wharfage expenses, and Customs 
duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States, including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying 
costs, discounts, rebates, credit, warranty expenses, commissions and 
other indirect selling expense.
    For products that were further manufactured after importation, we 
adjusted for all costs of further manufacturing in the United States in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. We deducted the profit 
allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) in 
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total 
revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all 
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to 
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity (including 
further manufacturing costs), based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses 
to total expenses for both the U.S. and home market. We also adjusted 
the starting price for billing adjustments and freight revenue.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Constructed Value (``CV'') Comparison'' and ``Price-to-Price 
Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production in the 
most recently completed segments of these proceedings on SSSS from 
France, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by 
Ugine in its home market were made at prices below the cost of 
production (``COP''), pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 64 FR 30820 (June 
8, 1999) (``LTV Final''); Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
France, 67 FR 6493 (February 12, 2002); and Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils from France, 67 FR 78773 (December 26, 2002). Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis 
of home market sales by Ugine as described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of Ugine's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), including interest 
expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by 
Ugine in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. 
Ugine reported that it had purchases of scrap from an affiliated 
supplier. However, we find that Ugine's purchases of scrap do not 
constitute a major input because they do not represent a significant 
portion of the cost of manufacturing.\17\ Section 773(f)(2) states that 
the Department can disregard transactions with affiliated parties if 
the amount representing that input does not fairly reflect the amount 
usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in the

[[Page 47054]]

market under consideration. Therefore, according to section 773(f)(2) 
we compared the transfer price to the market price for the four types 
of scrap purchased from an affiliated party and found that for three 
types of scrap the transfer price was more than the market price. For 
one type of scrap the market price was slightly more than the transfer 
price. The purchase of this type of scrap was insignificant compared to 
the purchases of the other three types of scrap. Any adjustment under 
773(f)(2) will have an immaterial affect on the reported cost. 
Therefore, for the preliminary results the Department has not made any 
adjustment to the reported costs for purchase of scrap from an 
affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Memorandum from Cheryl Werner through James C. Doyle, 
Program Manager, to the File; Analysis for Ugine S.A. for the 
Preliminary Results of the 3rd Administrative Review on Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip Coils from France for the period July 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2002, dated July 31, 2003, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP for Ugine to home market sales 
of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the 
Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices 
below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales 
made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made 
(1) Within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and 
(2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable 
billing adjustments, movements, movement charges, discounts, and direct 
and indirect selling expense.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Ugine's sales of a given product were at prices less than 
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Ugine's sales 
of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined that such sales have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average 
costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Ugine's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A 
(including interest expenses), U.S. packing costs, and profit. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and 
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Ugine in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling 
expenses, we used the actual weighted-average home market direct and 
indirect selling expenses.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find a home market match of identical or similar 
merchandise. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We deducted from CV the weighted-
average home market direct selling expenses.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers or prices 
to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's length. 
Where appropriate, we deducted discounts, rebates, credit expenses, 
warranty expenses, inland freight, inland insurance, and warehousing 
expense. We also adjusted the starting price for billing adjustments, 
freight revenue, and direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, 
where applicable, for home market indirect selling expenses to offset 
U.S. commissions in CEP comparisons.
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
Additionally, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In 
accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous 
matches to a U.S. sale observation resulted in difference-in-
merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of 
manufacturing (``COM'') of the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.
    For reasons discussed in the ``Level of Trade'' section below, we 
allowed a CEP offset for comparisons made at different levels of trade. 
To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home market indirect 
selling expenses from NV for home market sales that were compared to 
U.S. CEP sales. We limited the home market indirect selling expense 
deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in 
calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market, or when NV 
is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 
and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we 
make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the 
CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference 
in levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 
61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondent, we 
examined all types of selling functions and activities reported in the 
respondent's questionnaire responses on LOT and during verification. In 
analyzing whether separate LOTs existed in this review, we found that 
no single selling function was sufficient to warrant a separate LOT in 
the home market. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). Based on a comparison of all 
selling functions performed for sales through affiliated parties to all 
selling functions performed for unaffiliated customers, we have 
preliminarily determined that Ugine sold merchandise at one LOT in the 
home market during the POR. The LOT involved sales made through three

[[Page 47055]]

channels: sales by Ugine directly to unaffiliated service centers or 
end users (Channel 1); sales made by Ugine with the assistance of Ugine 
France Service in its capacity as sales agent (Channel 2); and sales 
made by IUP to unaffiliated end users and service centers (Channel 3). 
From our analysis of the marketing process for these sales, we have 
determined that there are not significant distinctions in selling 
activities between Ugine's sales to its unaffiliated customers in 
Channels 1 and 2 and IUP's direct sales to its unaffiliated customers 
through Channel 3. See Memorandum from Eugene Degnan, Case Analyst to 
the File through James C. Doyle, Program Manager, Third Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from France: Level of Trade Analysis, dated July 31, 2003 (``LOT 
Memorandum''), on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, 
Room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC. Therefore, we preliminarily concluded that one LOT 
existed in the home market during the POR.
    In order to determine the LOTs of the U.S. market, we received the 
selling activities associated with each reported channel of 
distribution. Ugine only reported CEP sales in the U.S. market. Because 
all of Ugine's CEP sales in the U.S. market were made through Usinor 
Stainless USA and Hague, we found that there was one LOT in the U.S. 
market. For these CEP sales, we determined that fewer and different 
selling functions were performed for CEP sales to Usinor Stainless USA 
than for sales at the home market LOT. In addition, we found that sales 
at the home market LOT were at a more advanced stage of distribution 
compared to the CEP sales. See LOT Memorandum at 11.
    We examined whether a LOT adjustment was appropriate. The 
Department makes this adjustment when it is demonstrated that a 
difference in LOTs affects price comparability. However, where the 
available data do not provide an appropriate basis upon which to 
determine a LOT adjustment, and where the NV is established at a LOT 
that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the 
CEP transactions, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 
(the CEP offset provision). We were unable to quantify the LOT 
adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, as we 
found that the LOT in the home market did not match the LOT of the CEP 
transactions. Because of this, we did not calculate a LOT adjustment. 
Instead, a CEP offset was applied to the NV-CEP comparisons. See LOT 
Memo at 11. In the two most recent administrative reviews of this 
order, where similar fact patterns existed, we also granted a CEP 
offset. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 67 FR 
6493 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 8; and see Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
France, 67 FR 51210 (August 7, 2002).

Facts Available

    We preliminary determine that the use of facts available is 
appropriate for one element of Ugine's dumping margin calculation. 
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: (A) 
Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 
(C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    In this case, consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A), and (B) and 
(C) of the Act, we preliminary find that use of facts available is 
warranted for home market sales made to an affiliated reseller who 
failed the arm's length test. On December 20, 2002, the Department sent 
Ugine a supplemental questionnaire requesting the downstream sales for 
all known affiliated customers and resellers who purchased the subject 
merchandise in the home market during the POR. On January 28, 2003, 
Ugine submitted a letter arguing that if the Department applies one of 
the criteria outlined in the letter, resales by affiliated customers 
need not be reported. One of these criteria specifically stated that if 
the customers passed the arm's length test, then there was no need to 
report those customers' downstream sales. On January 29, 2003, Ugine 
submitted its Sections A-C supplemental questionnaire response, but did 
not include downstream sales for any affiliated customers. On April 23, 
2003, the Department requested downstream sales for a smaller number of 
affiliated resellers, which included the affiliated customer who failed 
the arm's length test. To date, Ugine has not provided the downstream 
sales for any customer, including that affiliated customer. Therefore, 
consistent with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, Ugine withheld 
information that had been requested by the Department, failed to 
provide such information in a timely manner, and significantly impeded 
the determination under the antidumping statute, justifying the use 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In 
addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the Department 
may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as 
facts otherwise available. Ugine has failed to provide the downstream 
sales made by affiliated resellers as requested in the Department's 
December 20, 2002, and April 23, 2003, letters to Ugine. However, in 
this case, the volume of sales from Ugine to its affiliated customer 
which failed the arm's length test is minimal. Therefore, we find 
adverse facts available is not warranted for these sales and will use 
facts available.
    In selecting from facts otherwise available, for these preliminary 
results, for those sales to the affiliated reseller that failed the 
arm's length test, for which Ugine did not provide downstream sales, 
the Department used the gross unit price of the most similar model 
purchased by an unaffiliated customer. The Department applied similar 
facts available in a recent investigation as well as the second 
administrative review of this case. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from France, 67 FR 31204 (May 9, 2002); and 
see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, 67 FR 51210 (August 7, 
2002).

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of 
the Act directs the Department to use the daily exchange rate in effect 
on the date of sale in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. 
dollars, unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In 
accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined as a 
general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs

[[Page 47056]]

from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel 
Wire Rods from France; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915, 8918 (March 6, 1996), and Policy 
Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 6, 1996). The 
benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 
business days. When we determine a fluctuation exists, we substitute 
the benchmark for the daily rate. In this case, there was no currency 
fluctuation.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

          Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
               Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                   Average
                                                                Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugine S.A...................................................        3.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose to any 
party to the proceeding, within ten days of publication of this notice, 
the calculations performed. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the 
date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to 
submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 
summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the 
Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide 
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any 
such comments on a computer diskette. The Department will publish the 
final results of this administrative review, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments 
or at a hearing, within 120 days after the publication of this notice.

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall 
determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to Customs within fifteen days of publication of 
the final results of review. The final results of this review shall be 
the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of 
merchandise covered by the results and for future deposits of estimated 
duties. For duty assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-
specific assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margins 
calculated for the U.S. sales to the importer by the total entered 
value of these sales. If the preliminary results are adopted in the 
final results of review, this rate will be used for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on all entries of the subject merchandise by that 
importer during the POR.

Cash Deposits

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) 
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ugine will be that 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, 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 prior review, or the original less than fair value 
(``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established in 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 review 
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, which 
was 9.38 percent. See Antidumping Duty Order at 40565.
    If we determine in the final results that Ugine & ALZ France is the 
successor to Ugine for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, 
Ugine will no longer have its own company-specific cash deposit rate.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under regulation 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 double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice is published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistance Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-20182 Filed 8-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M