[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47543-47546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20321]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel bar from India. We gave interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results and have 
made certain changes for the final results. We find that certain 
companies reviewed sold stainless steel bar from India in the United 
States below normal value during the period February 1, 2001 through 
January 31, 2002.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2003.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 7, 2003, the Department published the Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Bar from India (``Preliminary Results'') in the Federal 
Register (68 FR 11058).
    In April and May 2003, we conducted verifications of the sales and 
cost of production (``COP'') questionnaire responses submitted by 
Isibars Limited (``Isibars''), Venus Wire Industries Limited 
(``Venus''), and the Viraj Group, Ltd. (``Viraj''). We issued 
verification reports in May and June 2003.
    After inviting parties to comment on the Preliminary Results of 
this review, Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals 
Division of Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., Slater Steels 
Corp., Empire Specialty Steel and the United Steelworkers of America 
(AFL-CIO/CLC) (collectively, ``the petitioners''), and Mukand, Ltd. 
(``Mukand''), Venus Wire Industries Limited (``Venus''), and the Viraj 
Group, Ltd. (``Viraj'') filed case and rebuttal briefs,\1\ 
respectively, on June 30 and July 9, 2003.

Scope of the Order

    Merchandise covered by the order is shipments of stainless steel 
bar (``SSB''). SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight 
lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, 
cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform 
solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, 
segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, 
hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether 
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, 
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 
deformations produced during the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which, if less than 4.75 mm in thickness, 
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or, if 4.75 mm 
or more in thickness, have a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do 
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, 
shapes and sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The other company in this review, Isibars Limited, did not 
file case or rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Bar from India (``Decision Memorandum'') dated August 
4, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
which parties raised and to which we responded, all of which are in the 
Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties 
can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and 
the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department 
building (``CRU''). In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Facts Otherwise Available

    We continue to find that Mukand did not cooperate to the best of 
its ability in this review and are assigning Mukand an antidumping duty 
rate based on total adverse facts available. See section 776 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''), 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). See also Preliminary 
Results and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from India to the 
United States were made at less than fair value, we compared export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price

[[Page 47544]]

(``CEP'') to normal value (``NV''). Our calculations followed the 
methodologies described in the Preliminary Results, except as noted 
below and in the final results calculation memoranda cited below, which 
are on file in the CRU.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For sales by Isibars' and Venus to the United States, we used EP as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Act. For Viraj's sales to the United 
States, we used CEP as defined in section 772(b) of the Act.

Isibars

    In the preliminary results, we adjusted Isibars' U.S. sales price 
for an excise tax that appeared to be included in the price. We are not 
making this adjustment for the final results (see Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 8). We recalculated Isibars' indirect selling expenses to 
include bad debts written off (see Decision Memorandum at Comment 7). 
Finally, we revised Isibars' reported sales invoice dates and credit 
expenses for certain sales. See Isibars Limited Final Results 
Calculation Memorandum (``Isibars Calculation Memorandum'') dated 
August 4, 2003.

Venus

    For certain U.S. sales, we revised the reported payment date and 
credit expenses (see Decision Memorandum at Comment 17). We revised the 
calculation of indirect selling expenses. Specifically, we revised the 
calculation of directors' salaries and allocated the indirect selling 
expenses over the cost of goods sold for the POR. We revised the 
reported quantity for one U.S. sale and revised the sales invoice date 
on another U.S. sale. For further discussion of these adjustments, see 
Venus Wire Industries Limited Final Results Calculation Memorandum 
(``Venus Calculation Memorandum'') dated August 4, 2003.

Normal Value

1. Calculation of COP

Isibars
    We adjusted Isibars' reported cost of manufacture (``COM'') to 
include payments for the lease of steelmaking assets. We also adjusted 
Isibars' reported COM for the yield loss incurred on the variable and 
fixed overhead cost of billets used in the production of subject 
merchandise. We adjusted the denominators of Isibars' reported general 
and administrative (``G&A'') and interest expense ratios (used to 
determine product-specific G&A and interest expenses) to exclude 
administrative labor costs and to include the payment for the lease of 
steelmaking assets. We recalculated Isibars' reported interest expense 
ratio and per-unit interest expense rate to reflect one interest 
expense ratio based on the highest level of consolidation. We adjusted 
Isibars', Zenstar's and Isinox' interest expenses, where applicable, to 
include all foreign exchange gains and losses in each company's 
interest expenses. For Isinox, we excluded foreign exchange gains and 
losses from its G&A expenses. Because Isibars did not provide the COP 
data for one product control number, we assigned that product control 
number the costs of a similar product.
    For a detailed discussion of the above-mentioned adjustments, see 
Isibars Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Final Results dated August 4, 2003, and the 
Decision Memorandum at Comments 2-6.
Venus
    We adjusted Venus' reported COM to include additional material 
costs based on corrected production quantities. We adjusted Venus' 
reported COM for process and yield loss incurred during fiscal year 
(``FY'') 2001-2002. Because Venus was able to explain its yield loss 
methodology at verification, we allowed its scrap offset for the final 
results. Further, we adjusted Venus' reported fixed overhead per-unit 
costs for depreciation expenses incurred for FY 2001-2002.
    We adjusted the numerator of Venus' reported G&A expenses to 
include donations and losses on the sale of assets and to exclude 
prior-period adjustments. We adjusted the denominators of Venus' 
reported G&A and interest expense ratios (used to determine product-
specific G&A and interest expenses) to reflect cost of goods sold for 
FY 2001-2002. Finally, we recalculated Venus' reported interest 
expenses to include net foreign exchange gains and losses.
    For a detailed discussion of the above-mentioned adjustments, see 
Venus Wire Industries Limited Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results dated August 4, 2003, and 
the Decision Memorandum at Comments 15-19.
Viraj
    We revised Viraj Alloys Limited's (``VAL'') reported depreciation 
expense to account for an additional depreciation expense that resulted 
from a change in depreciation methods. Because this depreciation 
expense covers multiple accounting periods, we amortized the amount 
based on the average remaining life of VAL's fixed assets in order to 
determine what portion should be allocated for the POR and included it 
in the G&A expense ratio calculation. We included the POR's portion of 
the additional depreciation expense in the denominator of the G&A 
expense rate calculation.
    VAL calculated its interest expense rate based on total interest 
expenses and total cost of sales (``COS'') of the Viraj Group of 
companies. Because the Viraj Group of companies does not prepare 
consolidated financial statements, we revised VAL's interest expense 
rate calculation using only VAL's interest expense and COS. In 
addition, we excluded VAL's waived interest expenses from its interest 
expense ratio calculation.
    For a detailed discussion of the above-mentioned adjustments, see 
Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Final Results (``Viraj Cost Calculation Memorandum'') dated August 
4, 2003, and the Decision Memorandum at Comments 11-14.

2. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices 
below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we disregard those sales of that product because we determine that in 
such instances the below-cost sales represent ``substantial 
quantities'' within an extended period of time in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine 
whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    Isibars and Venus each made more than 20 percent of their 
comparison market sales, for certain products, at prices less than the 
COP and, thus, we disregarded these sales from the calculation of NV. 
We found that Viraj did not make more than 20 percent of its sales of 
any product at prices less than the COP. So, we have included all of 
Viraj's home market sales in the calculation of NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1).

[[Page 47545]]

3. Calculation of NV

Isibars
    We accounted for rebates in the calculation of NV. (We overlooked 
rebates inadvertently in our calculations for the preliminary results.) 
We revised the sizes and control numbers reported for certain sales due 
to minor corrections presented at verification. We recalculated 
indirect selling expenses to include bad debts written off (see 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3). Also, we recalculated imputed credit 
expenses, and we adjusted certain sales quantities for returned sales. 
In addition, we revised payment dates and payment terms for certain 
sales. For a further discussion of these adjustments, see Isibars 
Calculation Memorandum.
Venus
    We revised the calculation of indirect selling expenses. 
Specifically, we revised Venus' calculation of directors' salaries and 
allocated the indirect selling expenses over the cost of goods sold for 
the POR (see Venus Calculation Memorandum).
Viraj
    We revised a sales invoice date based on information provided at 
verification. See Viraj Group, Ltd. Final Results Calculation 
Memorandum dated August 4, 2003.

Calculation of Constructed Value

    We calculated constructed value (``CV'') based on the same 
methodology described in the Preliminary Results except that we made 
all of the same above-described adjustments to CV that we made to COP 
for Isibars and Venus. For Viraj, we adjusted Viraj Impoexpo Ltd.''s 
(``VIL'') raw material costs based on VAL's COP. Thus, we revised VIL's 
raw material costs to reflect the adjustments made to VAL's G&A and 
interest expense ratios (see supra at ``Calculation of COP''). In 
addition, VIL excluded certain ``usance'' expenses and bank charges 
from the interest expense ratio calculation. We revised VIL's interest 
expense to exclude only the bank charges which were reported as selling 
expenses. For a detailed discussion of the above-mentioned adjustments, 
see Viraj Cost Calculation Memorandum and the Decision Memorandum at 
Comments 9 and 11-14.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the 
period February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isibars Limited............................................         4.59
Mukand, Ltd................................................        21.02
Venus Wire Industries Limited..............................        *0.02
Viraj Group, Ltd...........................................        0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*(De minimis)

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the United States Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection (``BCBP'') shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. To 
determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total value of 
the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or 
customer)-specific ad valorem rate was greater than de minimis, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) 
and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer 
(or customer).
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to the BCBP within 15 days of publication of these final 
results of review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all 
shipments of stainless steel bar from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date 
of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Isibars 
Limited and Mukand, Ltd. will be the rate indicated above; for Venus 
Wire Industries Limited and the Viraj Group, Ltd., which have de 
minimis or zeros rates, no antidumping duty deposit will be required; 
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; and (3) the cash deposit rate for 
all other exporters will continue to be 12.45 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 
See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994).
    These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 4, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.

Appendix 1

Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1. Use of Adverse Facts Available for Mukand
Comment 2. Isibars' Start-up Adjustment
Comment 3. Isibars' Variable and Fixed Overhead Costs
Comment 4. Isibars' General and Administrative Expenses
Comment 5. Isibars' Offsets for Reimbursements of Insurance Claims
Comment 6. Isibars' Interest Expenses
Comment 7. Isibars' Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 8. Isibars' Excise Taxes
Comment 9. Viraj's Selling Expenses
Comment 10. Collapsing the Viraj Group of Companies

[[Page 47546]]

Comment 11. Viraj's Calculation of Depreciation
Comment 12. Viraj's Forgiven Interest Expense
Comment 13. Viraj's Unconsolidated Financial Statements
Comment 14. Viraj's Offset To Interest Expenses
Comment 15. Venus' Scrap Realization Offset
Comment 16. Venus' General and Administrative Expense Ratio 
Adjustments
Comment 17. Venus' Interest Expense Ratio Adjustment
Comment 18. Venus' Depreciation Expense and Repairs and Maintenance 
Expense
Comment 19. Venus' Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses
Comment 20. Venus' Income Tax Provision
[FR Doc. 03-20321 Filed 8-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P