[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70765-70778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-31354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-808]


Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel wire rods (``SSWR'') from India in response to a request by 
Panchmahal Steel Limited (``Panchmahal''), Mukand Limited (``Mukand''), 
the Viraj Group (``Viraj''), and by petitioner,\1\ who requested a 
review of Isibars Limited (``Isibars''), Mukand, and Viraj. The period 
of review (``POR'') is December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carpenter Technology Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have preliminarily determined that Mukand and Viraj have sold 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during the POR. 
In addition, we have determined to rescind the review with respect to 
Panchmahal based on the timely withdrawal of the only request for 
review of the company. Lastly, we have preliminarily determined to 
apply an adverse facts available rate to all sales and entries of 
Isibars' subject merchandise during the POR. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for 
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 
are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the 
issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Isibars contact Eugene Degnan at 
(202) 482-0414, for Mukand contact Jonathan Herzog at (202) 482-4271, 
for Panchmahal contact Jonathan Freed at (202) 482-3818, and for Viraj 
contact Kit Rudd at (202) 482-1385, or Robert Bolling at (202) 482-
3434. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 20, 1993, the Department published the final 
determination in the Federal Register that resulted in the antidumping 
duty order on certain stainless steel wire rods from India. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel 
Wire Rods From India, 58 FR 54110 (October 20, 1993) (``Antidumping 
Duty Order''). On December 2, 2002, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of this antidumping duty order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 67 FR 71533 (December 2, 
2002) (``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'').
    On December 31, 2002, Mukand, Panchmahal, and Viraj requested an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel wire rods from India. See Letter to Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration from Mukand, Panchmahal, and Viraj, dated 
December 31, 2002. Also, on December 31, 2002, petitioner requested an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel wire rods from India for Isibars, Mukand, and Viraj. 
See Letter to the Honorable Donald L. Evan from petitioner, dated 
December 31, 2002. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b), we published a 
notice of initiation of the review of Isibars, Mukand, Panchmahal, and 
Viraj on January 22, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 68 FR 3009 (January 22, 2003). On January 23, 2003, petitioner 
filed a request that the Department verify Isibars, Mukand, Panchmahal, 
and Viraj.
    On February 11, 2003, the Department issued Sections A-E 
questionnaires to Isibars, Mukand, Panchmahal, and Viraj. Additionally, 
the Department initiated a sales below cost of production inquiry and 
requested that Mukand and Viraj respond to Section D of the 
questionnaire in addition to Sections A, B, and C.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the Department disregarded certain Mukand and Viraj 
sales made in the home market that failed the cost test in the most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding and excluded such 
sales from NV, the Department determined that there are reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Mukand and Viraj made sales in 
the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise in this review. See Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 
26288 (May 15, 2003) (``Final Results''); section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (``the Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Panchmahal

    On March 4, 2003, the Department received a letter from Panchmahal 
withdrawing its request for an administrative review. See Letter from 
Panchmahal, dated March 4, 2003.

Isibars

    On March 11, 2003, Isibars submitted its Section A response to the 
Department and supplemented it with additional exhibits on April 11, 
2003. On April 14, 2003, Isibars submitted its Sections B and C 
response. Additionally, on April 14, 2003, the Department issued its 
first supplemental Section A questionnaire to Isibars, to which Isibars 
responded on May 28, 2003. However, due to improper filing by Isibars, 
the Department initially rejected this submission.
    On April 23, 2003, petitioner submitted an allegation that Isibars 
was selling subject merchandise below their

[[Page 70766]]

cost of production. See Petitioner's Cost Allegation, dated April 23, 
2003. On April 25, 2003, the petitioner supplemented their cost of 
production allegation. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: 
Isibars' Sales Deficiencies and Supplement to Isibars Allegation of 
Sales Below Cost (April 25, 2003). On June 3, 2003, the Department 
initiated a cost of production inquiry and requested that Isibars 
submit its Section D response.
    On May 29, 2003, the Department issued a Sections B and C 
supplemental questionnaire to Isibars, to which Isibars responded on 
June 20, 2003. On July 8, 2003, the Department received Isibars' 
Section D response. Also on July 8, 2003, Isibars properly refiled its 
first Section A supplemental questionnaire of May 28, 2003.
    On August 20, 2003, the Department issued a second Sections A, B, 
and C supplemental questionnaire and a first Section D supplemental 
questionnaire. The Department received Isibars' response to the second 
Sections A, B, and C supplemental questionnaire on September 29, 2003 
and to the first Section D supplemental questionnaire on October 14, 
2003. On September 12, 2003, the Department issued a third Section A 
supplemental questionnaire to Isibars, to which Isibars responded on 
October 14, 2003. On September 24, 2003, the Department issued a second 
Section D supplemental questionnaire to Isibars, to which Isibars 
responded on October 14, 2003.
    On October 6, 2003, the Department issued a fourth Section A 
supplemental questionnaire, a third Sections B and C supplemental 
questionnaire, and a third Section D supplemental questionnaire to 
Isibars, to which Isibars responded on October 20, 2003. On October 21, 
2003, the Department issued a fifth Section A supplemental 
questionnaire and a fourth Section D questionnaire, to which Isibars 
responded on November 5, 2003.

Mukand

    On March 11, 2003, Mukand submitted its Section A response. On 
March 14, 2003, Mukand supplemented its Section A response with several 
exhibits. On April 7, 2003, Mukand submitted its Sections B and C 
questionnaire response.
    On May 14, 2003, the Department requested pursuant to its Final 
Results, that Mukand submit its Section D response. See Letter to 
Mukand from Mr. Robert Bolling, dated May 14, 2003. On May 29, 2003, 
the Department issued its first Sections A, B, and C supplemental 
questionnaire to Mukand, to which Mukand responded on June 27, 2003. On 
June 11, 2003, Mukand submitted its Section D response. On July 11, 
2003, Mukand supplemented its June 27, 2003, response with a Section C 
response concerning its constructed export price (``CEP'') sales.
    On July 28, 2003, the Department issued a Section D supplemental 
questionnaire to Mukand, to which Mukand responded on August 29, 2003. 
On August 12, 2003, the Department issued a Sections A, B, and C 
supplemental questionnaire to Mukand. Mukand responded to the 
Department's Sections A, B, and C supplemental questionnaire on 
September 8, 2003. Also on August 12, 2003, the Department issued a 
Section C supplemental questionnaire to Mukand regarding its CEP sales, 
to which Mukand submitted a letter, dated September 15, 2003, informing 
the Department that it would not submit a response to this 
questionnaire. On September 23, 2003, the Department issued a Sections 
A, B, C, and D supplemental questionnaire to Mukand, to which Mukand 
responded on October 17, 2003. On October 29, 2003, the Department 
issued a second Sections A, B, C, and D supplemental questionnaire to 
which Mukand responded on November 17, 2003.

Viraj

    Viraj submitted its Section A response on March 18, 2003 and its 
Sections B, C, and D responses on April 4, 2003. The Department issued 
its first Section A supplemental questionnaire to Viraj on April 9, 
2003, to which Viraj responded on May 19, 2003. The Department issued 
its first Sections B, C, and D supplemental questionnaire to Viraj on 
June 20, 2003, to which Viraj responded on July 5, 2003. The Department 
issued a second Section A supplemental questionnaire to Viraj on 
September 3, 2003, to which Viraj responded on September 20, 2003. The 
Department issued a third Section A supplemental questionnaire to Viraj 
on September 11, 2003, to which Viraj responded on September 15, 2003. 
The Department issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire for Section A 
and a second Sections B, C and D supplemental questionnaire on October 
7, 2003, to which Viraj responded on October 13, 2003. The Department 
issued a fifth Section A supplemental questionnaire to Viraj on October 
13, 2003. Viraj responded to this questionnaire on October 20, 2003. 
The Department issued a third Sections C and D supplemental 
questionnaire to Viraj on October 20, 2003, to which Viraj responded on 
October 23, 2003. The Department issued a fourth Section D supplemental 
questionnaire to Viraj on October 27, 2003, to which Viraj responded on 
October 30, 2003. The Department issued a fifth Sections C and D 
supplemental questionnaire to Viraj on October 29, 2003, and received 
Viraj's response on October 30, 2003.
    On August 5, 2003, the Department extended the due date for the 
preliminary results. See Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 46164, (August 5, 2003)(``August 5th 
extension''). In accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 
Department extended the deadline date for the notice of preliminary 
results 90 days, from the original date of September 2, 2003, to 
December 1, 2003. See August 5th extension.
    Additionally, on November 21, 2003, in accordance with Section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department again extended the due date for 
the notice of preliminary results an additional 11 days from the 
revised due date of December 1, 2003, to December 12, 2003. See 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Extension of Time Limit for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 
FR 65680 (November 21, 2003).

Period of Review

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

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise under review is certain SSWR, 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 is 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 
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and purposes of the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the 
written

[[Page 70767]]

description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether 
or not the merchandise is covered by the review.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information provided by Viraj from November 3, 2003, through 
November 8, 2003, using standard verification procedures, including an 
examination of relevant sales, cost, financial records, and selection 
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public version of the 
verification report and are on file in the Department's Central Records 
Unit located in Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Partial Rescission of Review

    Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that 
a party which requests an administrative review may withdraw the 
request within 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of 
initiation of the requested administrative review. The Department may 
extend this deadline if it is reasonable to do so. On December 31, 
2003, Panchmahal requested that the Department review its sales for the 
POR. On March 4, 2003, which is within the 90 day period, Panchmahal 
withdrew its request for an administrative review. Thus, Panchmahal's 
request was timely and no other interested party requested a review of 
Panchmahal's sales to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is rescinding the 
review, in part, with respect to Panchmahal for the period of December 
1, 2001, through November 3, 2002.

Facts Available

    In the instant review, despite numerous requests and clarifications 
from the Department, Isibars failed to adequately provide the 
information requested by the Department. As explained in detail below, 
because the Department received deficient and incomplete responses to 
the questionnaire and multiple supplemental questionnaires from 
Isibars, the Department was unable to verify the incomplete information 
that Isibars did provide, which is necessary for the margin analysis.
    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 sections 782 (c) and (e) of the Act; (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 
section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to Section 
782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
promptly notifies the Department that it is unable to submit the 
information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a 
full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is 
able to submit the information, the Department shall take into 
consideration the ability of the party to submit the information in the 
requested form and manner, and may modify such requirements to the 
extent necessary to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that 
party. Section 782(c)(2) of the Act similarly provides that the 
Department shall consider the ability of the party submitting the 
information and shall provide such interested party assistance that is 
practicable.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If the person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, notwithstanding the 
Department's determination that the submitted information is 
``deficient'' under section 782(d) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider such information if all of the following 
requirements are satisfied: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    In this review, Isibars repeatedly failed to supply the Department 
with information regarding home market and U.S. market sales 
reconciliations, major inputs from affiliates, control number 
(``CONNUM'') specific weight-averaged cost data, operable home market 
and U.S. market sales data, and they failed to serve petitioner in this 
review. These deficiencies effectively prevented the Department from 
conducting a meaningful verification. Despite the numerous requests by 
the Department in supplemental questionnaires, telephone calls, and e-
mails, Isibars has failed to rectify the above mentioned factual 
deficiencies to the record, and to properly serve petitioner in this 
review. Additionally, the Department offered extra assistance and aid 
to Isibars in getting the required information on the record. See Memo 
to the File--e-mail correspondence with Isibars, dated October 8, 2003; 
Memo to the File--e-mail correspondence with Isibars, dated October 21, 
2003; Memo to the File--e-mail correspondence with Isibars, dated 
October 24, 2003. Finally, although Isibars is appearing in this review 
pro se, the Department recognized that Isibars has extensive experience 
with Departmental procedures, having participated in numerous stainless 
steel bar reviews. See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 47543 (August 11, 2003); 
Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 2000).
    The Department delayed its departure for verification in order to 
allow Isibars time to provide the necessary information requested by 
the Department. See Memo to the File, e-mail correspondence with 
Isibars, dated November 5, 2003. Furthermore, the Department informed 
Isibars of the consequences of Isibars' continue failure to provide the 
materials requested by the Department. See October 21st letter; October 
29th letter; all Department supplemental questionnaires. Nonetheless, 
the Department ultimately cancelled Isibars' verification because 
Isibars failed to provide the Department the requested information 
(i.e., sales reconciliations, major inputs data from its affiliates, 
CONNUM specific weighted-average cost data, operable home market and 
U.S. market sales data), and failed to serve the petitioner in this 
review.
    Accordingly, and as discussed in more detail below, the Department 
determined to apply facts available for

[[Page 70768]]

the requested information withheld by Isibars, in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2) of the Act. Further, as discussed below, the 
Department finds that in not providing the requested information, and 
not serving petitioners, Isibars failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability in this review, and therefore determines that an adverse 
inference is warranted for all Isibars' sales.

A. Failure to Submit a Sales Reconciliation

    The reconciliation is required of respondents to determine if all 
appropriate sales of the subject merchandise have been reported. A 
reconciliation serves as a ``starting point'' for the Department at 
verification. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 77, 78 
(January 4, 1999). Among other things, the goal of verification is to 
confirm the accuracy and completeness of the data provided in a 
company's questionnaire responses and this data serves as a basis for 
the Department to ascertain if sales were accurately reported. See 19 
C.F.R. 351.307(d).
    Isibars' failure to provide or withholding of the requested 
reconciliation is an incomplete questionnaire response that 
significantly impeded this proceeding. See Notice of Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Heavy 
Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China 65 FR 43290 (July 
13, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1 
(The Department used total facts available because the respondent 
failed to provide the essential reconciliation chart requested by the 
Department necessary to test the completeness of questionnaire 
response, and thus failed verification). Indeed, without the requested 
sales reconciliation information, the Department is unable to verify 
the information Isibars submitted. It is important to note that the 
Department has cancelled verification in several other cases because of 
incomplete questionnaire responses, and specifically because the 
respondents failed to provide requested reconciliations. See Gourmet 
Equipment Corp. v. United States, 24 C.I.T. 572 (CIT July 6, 2000), 
regarding Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from Taiwan, 64 FR 17314 (1999)(The 
Court affirmed the Department's refusal to conduct verification because 
the respondent's submissions were not reconcilable to its financial 
statements, meaning the information submitted was unverifiable; as a 
result, the Department applied adverse facts available); Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Taiwan: Final Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 49618, 49620-21 (Sept. 28, 2001)(The 
Department canceled both sales and cost verification because 
respondents failed to provide explanation and documentation for all its 
expenses and sales, and provided incomplete, deficient, and 
inconsistent affiliated-party sales information); Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Indonesia, 64 FR 73164, 73165-
66 (Dec. 29, 1999)(``CTL Plate from Indonesia'') (the Department 
canceled verification and applied adverse facts available because the 
respondent did not adequately address the sales-related and cost-
related questions).
    Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department. The Department has requested sales reconciliations from 
Isibars three times: in the original questionnaire, sent on February 
11, 2003; in a supplemental questionnaire, issued on October 21, 2003; 
and in a letter to Isibars, sent on October 29, 2003. See Cancellation 
of Verification Memorandum, dated November 26, 2003 (``Cancellation of 
Verification Memorandum'') at 2-3. However, Isibars failed to supply a 
sales reconciliation throughout this review.
    Section 782(d) requires that, in the case of a deficient response 
by the respondent, the Department inform the respondent of the 
deficiency, and give the respondent an opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. In addition to the original questionnaire, and two 
supplemental questionnaires requesting a sales reconciliation, the 
Department, in an October 29, 2003, letter, alerted Isibars that 
failure to supply this information would lead to the cancellation of 
verification, and may result in the Department basing its determination 
on facts available. See Cancellation of Verification Memorandum at 2.
    Because Isibars failed to supply the Department with the requested 
sales reconciliation that the Department needed to conduct a meaningful 
verification, and gave no explanation why it has failed to do so, 
despite numerous opportunities afforded by the Department, the 
Department cannot consider Isibars to have acted to the best of its 
ability in this review. Therefore, the application of adverse facts 
available in determining the preliminary margin, in accordance with 
section 776(b) of the Act, is warranted. See Certain Hot-rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Taiwan: Final Determination of Antidumping 
Duty Order, 66 FR 49618, 49620-21 (Sept. 28, 2001).

B. Major Inputs

    Section 773(f)(2) of the Act allows the Department to test whether 
transactions between affiliated parties involving any element of value 
(i.e., major or minor inputs) are at prices that ``fairly reflect the 
market under consideration.'' Section 773(f)(3) of the Act allows the 
Department to test whether, for transactions between affiliated parties 
involving a major input, the value of the major input is not less than 
the affiliated supplier's COP, where there is reasonable cause to 
believe or suspect the price is below COP. The Department considers the 
initiation of a sales-below-cost investigation reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that major inputs to the foreign like product may 
also have been sold at prices below the COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(f)(3) of the Act. See Silicomanganese from Brazil; Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 37869, 37871 (July 
15, 1997). Therefore, because a sales-below-investigation has been 
initiated, the Department requires major input data from Isibars.
    Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department. Isibars has repeatedly failed to provide information 
regarding its affiliate's cost of production and market price for major 
inputs supplied by its affiliates. The Department has requested this 
information three times in questionnaires and supplemental 
questionnaires: the original Section D questionnaire, issued June 3, 
2003; and two supplemental questionnaires, issued on September 24, 
2003, and October 21, 2003. Because Isibars has withheld this 
information, the Department is authorized, subject to section 782(d) of 
the Act, to use facts otherwise available.
    Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent provides information, but the information cannot be 
verified. Because Isibars provided only the transfer price of major 
inputs, and not the market price and the affiliate's cost of

[[Page 70769]]

production, the Department is unable to properly value major inputs, 
pursuant to section 773(f)(3), and therefore cannot meaningfully verify 
Isibars' COP.
    Section 782(d) requires that, in the case of a deficient response 
by the respondent, the Department inform the respondent of the 
deficiency, and give the respondent an opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. In addition to the two supplemental questionnaires that 
were issued requesting that Isibars supply major input information, the 
Department also notified Isibars of the importance of supplying this 
information to the Department in two letters sent to Isibars, on 
October 21, 2003, and on October 29, 2003. See Cancellation of 
Verification Memorandum at 3.
    Because Isibars has not provided the requested information 
necessary to value major inputs despite numerous opportunities and 
requests by the Department, and because Isibars has offered no 
explanation why they have not supplied this information, we determine, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that Isibars has not acted to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. Therefore, the application of adverse facts available in 
determining the preliminary margin, in accordance with section 776(b) 
of the Act, is warranted. See CTL Plate from Indonesia at 73174-75.

C. Section D Cost Data not CONNUM Specific

    Despite the repeated requests by the Department to correct its 
data, Isibars' reported labor and variable overhead costs remain 
virtually the same for each CONNUM in its reported cost of production 
(``COP'') data, and literally the same for each CONNUM in its reported 
constructed value (``CV'') data. Without accurate data for these items, 
the Department cannot perform an accurate cost test, cannot make 
appropriate selections for price-to-price comparisons, and cannot 
determine accurate constructed values for use as normal value. 
Therefore, Isibars' Section D response is unusable for this preliminary 
determination. See Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from 
Turkey, 65 FR 1127, 1131 (January 7, 2000).
    Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department. The Department has requested that Isibars report its 
Section D COP and CV data as CONNUM specific weighted-average data six 
times: in the original Section D questionnaire, in three supplemental 
questionnaires, issued on August 20, 2003; on October 6, 2003; and on 
October 21, 2003; and in a letter and an e-mail sent to Isibars on 
October 29, 2003. Isibars has never complied with these numerous 
requests.
    Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent fails to provide requested information in the form or manner 
requested by the Department, subject to sections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782. Although Isibars supplied some cost data, as explained 
immediately below, it repeatedly failed to conform its cost data to the 
form requested by the Department. Isibars never, pursuant to section 
782(c)(1), notified the Department that it could not submit this data 
in the form requested. Furthermore, the data, as provided by Isibars, 
is unusable by the Department in determining Isibars' COP. See section 
782(e).
    Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent provides information, but the information cannot be 
verified. Because Isibars' Section D cost data is not provided as 
CONNUM specific weighted-averaged data, the Department cannot verify 
the COP for each unique product of subject merchandise.
    Section 782(d) requires that, in the case of a deficient response 
by the respondent, the Department inform the respondent of the 
deficiency, and give the respondent an opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. In the original Section D questionnaire, the Department 
provided a general explanation to Isibars of how to report its COP 
data. This general explanation instructed Isibars that the COP is the 
weighted-average CONNUM specific cost of the product sold. See original 
questionnaire, at D-1. A footnote on page D-1 further explains that 
there should be a ``single weighted-average cost for each CONNUM.'' See 
original questionnaire, at D-1. Furthermore, the Section D 
questionnaire specifically instructed Isibars to report each COP 
variable as CONNUM specific per-unit costs. See original questionnaire, 
at D-15--D-17. Despite these instructions, Isibars failed to report 
CONNUM specific per-unit costs in its Section D database.
    In the first Section D supplemental questionnaire, issued on August 
20, 2003, the Department explained to Isibars that it must account for 
time in its allocations for labor and variable production overhead, and 
requested Isibars submit worksheets showing how it calculated these 
costs. Isibars never responded to these requests. In the October 21, 
2003, supplemental questionnaire, the Department requested this again, 
and Isibars did respond, in its November 5, 2003, response, but did not 
account for time in its allocation. The Department also stressed to 
Isibars in the Department's October 6, 2003, supplemental questionnaire 
that Isibars must report weighted average costs specific to each unique 
CONNUM. However, to date Isibars has never adjusted its reported CONNUM 
data to reflect CONNUM specific, weighted-average data. Finally, in 
light of the fact that Isibars appears in this review pro se, the 
Department once again, in a letter sent on October 29, 2003, stressed 
to Isibars that its cost data must be reported as CONNUM specific 
weighted averages, and emphasized that failure to do so would result in 
cancellation of the verification of Isibars.
    Because Isibars failed to supply the Department with the requested 
data that the Department needed to conduct a meaningful verification, 
and gave no explanation why it has failed to do so, despite numerous 
opportunities afforded by the Department, the Department cannot 
consider Isibars to have acted to the best of its ability in this 
review. Therefore, the application of adverse facts available in 
determining the preliminary margin, in accordance with section 776(b) 
of the Act, is warranted. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
Products from Indonesia, 64 FR 73164, 73174-75 (December 29, 1999).

D. Computer Data Files Submitted November 5, 2003, for Sections B & C 
Were Inoperable

    The final computer data file received by the Department from 
Isibars on November 5, 2003, contained data files for Sections B & C 
that were inoperable and could not be accessed.
    Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department. Isibars failed to provide final data sets of home market 
and U.S. sales, immediately before the planned verification.
    Section 782(d) requires that, in the case of a deficient response 
by the respondent, the Department inform the respondent of the 
deficiency, and give

[[Page 70770]]

the respondent an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. 
Isibars was cautioned in an October 21, 2003, letter, attached to the 
Department's October 21, 2003, fifth Section A, fourth Section D 
supplemental questionnaire, that the Department required working 
computer data files from Isibars in order to proceed to verification. 
See October 29, 2003, letter from the Department. Isibars was again 
cautioned by the Department, in an October 29, 2003, letter from the 
Department, that failure by Isibars to submit complete and accurate 
data would result in the cancellation of verification. See October 29, 
2003, letter.
    Because Isibars failed to supply the Department with the necessary 
sales data that the Department needed to conduct a meaningful 
verification, and gave no explanation why it has failed to do so, 
despite numerous opportunities afforded by the Department, the 
Department cannot consider Isibars to have acted to the best of its 
ability in this review. Therefore, the application of adverse facts 
available in determining the preliminary margin, in accordance with 
section 776(b) of the Act, is warranted. See Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Porcelain on Steel Cookware 
from Mexico, 65 FR 63562, 63564 (October 24, 2000) (stating that the 
use of adverse facts available was appropriate because respondent did 
not provide home market sales data in a timely manner).

E. Failure To Serve Petitioner in This Review

    Isibars' non-service of petitioners, in conjunction with numerous 
late filings, improper filings, and incomplete responses by Isibars, 
has possibly impaired petitioners ability to participate in this 
review. See Petitioner's letter Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India--
Isibars' Supplemental Sales Deficiencies and Cost Deficiencies, dated 
October 20, 2003.
    Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available when a 
respondent fails to provide information by the deadline for submission, 
or in the form or manner requested. Isibars has failed to serve the 
petitioner in this review numerous times, as requested by section 
351.303(f)(1) of the Department's regulations, which directs all 
persons filing a document with the Department to simultaneously serve a 
copy of that document to all persons on the service list. To date, 
petitioner has not received: Isibars' September 29, 2003, Sections B & 
C supplemental questionnaire response; Isibars' October 14, 2003, 
Section A supplemental questionnaire response; Isibars' October 14, 
2003, first Section D supplemental questionnaire response; Isibars' 
October 14, 2003, Section D second supplemental questionnaire response; 
nor Isibars' October 20, 2003, Sections A, B and D supplemental 
questionnaire response.
    Section 782(d) requires that, in the case of a deficient response 
by the respondent, the Department inform the respondent of the 
deficiency, and give the respondent an opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. Despite numerous admonitions by the Department (i.e., 
an October 15, 2003, telephone call; an October 15, 2003, e-mail; and 
an October 29, 2003, letter), Isibars, to date, has never served to 
petitioner the above mentioned responses.
    Because Isibars failed to serve petitioner, and gave no explanation 
why it has failed to do so, despite admonitions by the Department, the 
Department cannot consider Isibars to have acted to the best of its 
ability in this review. Therefore, the application of adverse facts 
available in determining the preliminary margin, in accordance with 
section 776(b) of the Act, is warranted.
    Isibars' failure to provide the information requested by the 
Department has resulted in an inadequate response that has prevented 
the Department from conducting verification and using its data in the 
preliminary results. See Cancellation of Verification Memorandum to the 
File from Eugene Degnan to Edward Yang, dated November 26, 2003 
(``Cancellation of Verification Memorandum''). Furthermore, Isibars' 
failure to provide the requested data and to serve petitioners has 
significantly impeded this review, as defined by section 776(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and (D) 
of the Act, and having satisfied sections 782(c)(2), (d), and (e) of 
the Act, the Department has determined to apply facts otherwise 
available in this proceeding with respect to Isibars.
    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be used in 
selecting from the facts available if a party has failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative 
Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(``URAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Citation No. (1994), at 870. 
Furthermore, ``an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27340 (May 17, 1997).
    In this case, Isibars has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with the requests for information. As 
discussed above, despite the numerous requests by the Department, 
Isibars failed to provide or withheld requested information from the 
Department (i.e., a sales reconciliation, information concerning the 
valuation of major inputs, weighted-average CONNUM specific cost data, 
service of the petitioner, and a working Sections B and C database). 
Additionally, Isibars was provided numerous offers of assistance by the 
Department and opportunities and supplemental questionnaires to fully 
respond to the Department's requests, in accordance with section 782(d) 
of the Act. See Cancellation of Verification Memorandum. However, 
despite the assistance offered and provided by the Department's staff, 
Isibars failed to rectify its many record deficiencies. See 
Cancellation of Verification Memorandum.
    Due to Isibars' failure to provide the requested information that 
the Department identified as necessary for the verification, the 
Department was precluded from conducting verification by the inadequacy 
of information on the record. Moreover, Isibars failed to provide a 
reasonable explanation for its failure to comply with these standard 
requests for information. Accordingly, the Department finds that 
Isibars did not act to the best of its ability to provide the 
information requested, despite the assistance offered by the 
Department. As facts become available, we have preliminarily assigned 
Isibars the all others rate of 48.80 percent. As discussed below, we 
have corroborated this rate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.308(d) of the 
Department's regulations.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the 
Department's disposal. The SAA,

[[Page 70771]]

clarifies that the petition is secondary information, and states that 
corroborate means to determine that the information used has probative 
value. See SAA at 870; See also 19 CFR 351.308(d). To corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. We 
have previously examined the reliability of the 48.80 rate and found it 
to be reliable, and placed it on the record of this review. See 
Corroboration Memorandum for Panchmahal Steel Limited for the final 
results of the 2000-2001 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire 
Rods from India, dated May 8. We have no information in this 
administrative review which would indicate a change in the reliability 
of this rate.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of the corroboration, the 
Department has considered information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstance indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as best information available (predecessor to facts 
available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997)(the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated). None of these circumstances are present here. 
Moreover, the rate selected is the rate currently applicable to an 
exporter, and there is no information on the record of this review that 
demonstrates that this rate is not relevant for use as AFA during this 
administrative review.
    Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any previous 
segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., the rate of 48.80 
percent from the petition) is in accord with section 776(c)'s 
requirement that secondary information be corroborated (i.e., that it 
have probative value).

Affiliation/Collapsing

    In the previous administrative review, the Department collapsed 
Viraj Forgings Limited (``VFL''), Viraj Alloys Limited (``VAL'') and 
Viraj Impoexpo Limited (``VIL'') because the companies were found 
capable, through their sales and production operations, of manipulating 
prices or affecting production decisions. See Final Results. In the 
current review, Viraj reported that there were operational and legal 
changes to Viraj affiliated companies during this POR. See Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: 
Collapsing of Viraj Alloys, Ltd. And VSL Wires, Ltd., dated December 
12, 2003 (``Viraj Collapsing Memorandum''). In the current review, VAL 
and VSL Wires, Limited (``VSL'') reported they produced subject 
merchandise during the POR. As discussed below, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that VAL and VSL are affiliated companies, and 
that VAL and VSL should be collapsed and considered one entity pursuant 
to section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(f). See Viraj 
Collapsing Memorandum.
    Section 771 (33) of the Act, states that the Department considers 
the following parties as affiliated:
    (A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by 
the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants;
    (B) Any officer or director of an organization and such 
organization;
    (C) Partners;
    (D) Employer and employee;
    (E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or 
holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting 
stock or shares of any organization and such organization;
    (F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person; and
    (G) Any person who controls any other person and such other person.
    For the purpose of this statute, a person is deemed to control 
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position 
to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. See section 
771(33) of the Act. Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.401(f) states that the 
Department will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single 
entity where: (1) Those producers have production facilities for 
similar or identical products that would not require substantial 
retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing 
priorities; and (2) where there is a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production. In identifying whether a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production 
exists, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) states that the Department may consider: 
(i) The level of common ownership; (ii) the extent which managerial 
employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of 
an affiliated firm; and (3) whether operations are intertwined, such as 
through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and 
pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or 
significant transactions between the affiliated producers.
    The Department has analyzed the information regarding affiliation 
on the record in this administrative review, and preliminarily 
determines that VAL and VSL should be considered affiliated under 
sections 771(33)(A) and (F) by virtue of common control by several 
family members involved in ownership and management of VAL and VSL. See 
Viraj Collapsing Memorandum at 3. First, the record evidence shows that 
a husband and wife serve as the chairperson of VAL and VSL, 
respectively, while two brothers serve as directors of VAL and VSL, 
respectively. See Viraj Collapsing Memorandum at 3.
    Moreover, the aforementioned chairperson and directors of VAL and 
VSL control significant shares of stocks in both companies, and the 
chairperson of VAL is also the managing director of VAL. See Viraj 
Collapsing Memorandum at 3. Thus, due to their significant 
shareholdings and positions within the companies, the chairpersons and 
directors are in a position to exercise legal and operational control 
over both VAL and VSL. See Viraj Collapsing Memorandum at 3. Therefore, 
the Department preliminarily determines that VAL and VSL are affiliated 
in accordance with sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act by virtue of 
the fact that immediate members of the family are also the chairperson 
and directors of VAL and VSL and directly and indirectly control both 
of these entities.
    Further, the Department preliminarily determines that VAL and VSL 
should be collapsed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), because both 
VAL and VSL have production facilities to produce similar or identical 
merchandise without substantial retooling and there is a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price or production.
    During the POR, for sales to the home market, VAL produced and 
retained title to stainless steel billets which are rolled by an 
unaffiliated subcontractor into stainless steel wire rod, via tolling 
arrangement. The subcontractor returns the non-annealed and non-pickled 
finished wire rod (``unfinished wire rod'') to VAL, who transfers it to 
VSL, who sells the subject merchandise in the home market. For sales to 
the U.S. market, VAL produced and retained title

[[Page 70772]]

to stainless steel billets which are rolled by the same unaffiliated 
sub-contractor via a tolling arrangement, into unfinished stainless 
steel wire rod. The subcontractor returns the unfinished wire rod to 
VAL, who transfers the title to VSL. VSL then pickles and anneals the 
unfinished wire rod, packages for export and ships the subject 
merchandise to the United States. See Viraj Collapsing Memorandum at 5. 
All sales of stainless steel wire rods in the Indian market and U.S. 
market are made by VSL. See Viraj Collapsing Memorandum at 5; 
Verification Report at 6.
    According to 19 CFR 351.401(h), the Department does not consider a 
subcontractor or toller as the producer of subject merchandise where 
that subcontractor or toller does not acquire ownership or sell the 
relevant merchandise. Thus, via its tolling arrangement with the 
unaffiliated subcontractor, VAL is considered a producer of SSWR, 
because the unaffiliated subcontractor does not acquire ownership of 
VAL's stainless steel billets/SSWR, nor does it control the sale of the 
SSWR, once it has been rolled. See 19 C.F.R. 351.401(h); Polyvinyl 
Alcohol from Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 32810, 32816 (June 16, 1998).
    Further, the Department also considers VSL a producer of SSWR. By 
virtue of the fact that VSL obtains title to VAL's unfinished SSWR and 
then finishes the production (i.e., anneals and pickles) of VAL's 
unfinished SSWR, VSL is a producer of SSWR. Thus, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(f)(1), VAL and VSL have production facilities for 
production of similar or identical products (i.e., unfinished SSWR and 
annealed and pickled SSWR), and substantial retooling of either 
facility to restructure manufacturing priorities would not be required. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea, 63 FR 40404, 40410 (July 29, 
1998)(The Department collapsed POSCO/Changwon, producers of subject 
merchandise with Dongbang, another producer of subject merchandise, 
despite the fact that the Dongbang only had the ability to anneal and 
pickle the subject merchandise).
    Additionally, the Department also finds that in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(f)(1), VAL has the capability to add finishing equipment 
(i.e., annealing and pickling equipment) to its production facilities 
without requiring substantial retooling. Specifically, the Department 
examined VAL and VSL's 2001-2002 financial statements and determined 
that VSL's plant and machinery gross fixed assets account for only a 
small percentage of VAL's plant and machinery gross fixed assets. See 
Viraj Collapsing Memorandum at 6; May 19, 2003 SQR at SQR-A-062 and 
SQR-A-025. Further, the Department also examined the total gross fixed 
assets of VAL and VSL and found that VSL's total gross fixed assets 
account for only a small percentage of VAL's total gross fixed assets. 
See Viraj Collapsing Memorandum at 6; May 19, 2003 SQR at SQR-A-062 and 
SQR-A-025. Thus, VAL could add VSL's annealing and pickling operations 
to its production process for SSWR for a small portion of its total 
plant and machinery value or its overall corporate value, either 
through an outright purchase of VSL or by purchasing annealing and 
pickling equipment of its own. Therefore, the Department believes that 
VAL and VSL would not need to engage in major retooling to shift 
production of SSWR from one company to the other.
    Finally, the Department preliminarily determines that VAL and VSL 
have enough common ownership and have intertwined their operations 
significantly enough to justify the conclusion that a significant 
potential for manipulation of price and production exists. Thus, the 
Department preliminarily determines that VAL and VSL should be 
collapsed. Specifically, (1) VAL and VSL share common shareholders, 
including the chairpersons and directors of VAL and VSL; (2) VAL acts 
as the sole supplier to VSL of unfinished wire rods; and (3) VSL makes 
all sales of SSWR in the home market and U.S. market. See Viraj 
Collapsing Memorandum at 7. Thus, both VAL and VSL are capable, through 
their sales and production operations, of manipulating prices or 
affecting production decisions. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(f), the Department preliminarily determines to collapse VAL and 
VSL as Viraj for the purposes of this review.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise from India to the 
United States by Mukand and Viraj were made at less than NV, we 
compared the export price (``EP'') and CEP, as appropriate, to the NV, 
as described in the ``Export Price/Constructed Export Price'' and 
``NV'' 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 EP and CEP transactions.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the Scope of the Review section above, which were 
produced and sold by Mukand and Viraj in the home market during the 
POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. 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.

Mukand

    Mukand submitted information on the record which claimed that all 
of its reported grades should be treated as distinct grades for 
calculation purposes. See Mukand's Sections B and C response dated 
April 7, 2003, at 7 & 41. For the purpose of accurately comparing 
subject merchandise, the Department requested that Mukand provide a 
chemical breakdown of each of its grades. After analyzing the data 
presented by Mukand, the Department has determined that there is 
insufficient record evidence to support Mukand's position that grade 
304LN is a distinct grade from 304L. Therefore, the Department has 
preliminarily determined to combine the above grades; specifically, the 
Department has determined that grade 304LN should be treated as grade 
304L.
    The grade chemistries provided on the record by Mukand indicate 
that the chemistry ranges reported by Mukand for grades 304L and 304LN 
are of a similar chemistry and composition; thus, Mukand's grades 304LN 
and 304L have been treated by the Department as one grade for purposes 
of the home market and U.S. sales programs.
    It is the Department's practice not to create additional categories 
unless the physical characteristics are significantly different from an 
existing known category. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 781 (January 7, 1998). Therefore, for the purposes of 
these preliminary results, the Department has determined to treat 
Mukand's grade 304LN as grade 304L.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of

[[Page 70773]]

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, as adjusted under subsections 
(c) and (d).
    For purposes of this review, Mukand has classified certain sales as 
EP sales and certain sales as CEP sales. Based on the information on 
the record, we are using both EP and CEP as defined in section 772(a) 
and (b) of the Act.
    For purposes of this review, Viraj has classified all sales as CEP 
sales. Based on the information on the record, we are using CEP as 
defined in section 772(b) of the Act.

Mukand

    The Department has determined that Mukand's EP sales are properly 
reported sales, because those sales were made in accordance with the 
definition of an EP sale. Mukand has classified those sales made by its 
wholly-owned affiliate, Mukand International Limited (``MIL''), which 
was based in the United Arab Emirates during the POR, as EP sales. For 
the reported EP sales, MIL sold directly to a U.S. customer, prior to 
importation. Based on the evidence on the record, the Department 
preliminarily determines that MIL's EP sales were made within the 
meaning of section 772(a) of the Act, and thus have been appropriately 
classified by Mukand as EP transactions.
    The Department based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. The Department made deductions for inland 
freight, international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and 
handling, and U.S. Customs duties in accordance with section 772(c)(2) 
of the Act.
    In addition, Mukand classified certain sales made in the United 
States after importation, in accordance with an agreement signed by MIL 
and its customer Precision Metals Services (``PMS'') (``the 
Agreement''), as CEP sales. Due to the proprietary nature of this 
agreement, please refer to Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Agency Sales Analysis, dated 
December 12, 2003 (``Agency Sales Memorandum''), for a detailed 
explanation. According to Mukand, the agreement was signed, prior to 
the POR, after several shipments of subject merchandise were rejected 
by PMS after the subject merchandise had been imported into the United 
States and stored at PMS' warehouse in the United States. During the 
POR, several downstream sales of the subject merchandise were made to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers by PMS in accordance with the terms of the 
Agreement. Based on the evidence on the record, the Department 
preliminarily determines that MIL's CEP sales were made within the 
meaning of section 772(b) of the Act, and thus have been appropriately 
classified by Mukand as CEP transactions.
    Additionally, based on the evidence on the record, the Department 
has preliminarily determined that given the unique terms and 
circumstances of these sales, those sales classified by Mukand as CEP 
sales should also be treated as sales made through an agent, with PMS 
as the agent. See Agency Sales Memorandum.
    Citing the Final Results, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire on May 29, 2003, requesting that Mukand report the sales 
prices and expenses incurred on the reported agency sales to which 
Mukand provided the Department with a Section C questionnaire response 
on July 11, 2003. However, after a thorough examination of this 
response and the accompanying sales database, the Department identified 
several deficiencies in the response and sales database, requiring the 
Department to issue an 18 page supplemental questionnaire on August 12, 
2003. Despite providing Mukand a chance to correct the deficiencies in 
the response, Mukand informed the Department that PMS would not submit 
a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. See Letter 
from Mukand, dated September 15, 2003; Agency Sales Memorandum.
    By not providing the agency sales information requested by the 
Department, in a database format that provides specific prices and 
expenses for these agency sales, Mukand has prevented the Department 
from calculating an accurate dumping margin. Further, in the Final 
Results, the Department made it clear to Mukand that the Department 
would further examine these sales in subsequent reviews. See Final 
Results at Comment 2. Moreover, the Department applied facts available 
to Mukand's CEP/agency sales in the last review, noting that it had 
requested the downstream sales data from Mukand late in the review 
process. See Final Results at Comment 2. Thus, Mukand had notice that 
the Department would further examine any reported CEP/agency sales in 
this review and the possible consequences of not supplying the 
Department with the requested information.
    However, despite this knowledge, Mukand and PMS failed to respond 
to the Department's request to remedy the deficiencies in their 
response to the Department's request for the downstream sales prices 
and expenses for the CEP/agency sales. Thus, because Mukand was aware 
of the fact that the Department would examine its reported CEP/agency 
sales and the potential consequences of not responding to the 
Department's request, and because, unlike in the last review, the 
Department made this request several months before the preliminary 
determination, the Department has preliminarily determined to apply 
facts available to these sales (i.e., Mukand's CEP/agency sales), 
because Mukand and PMS have withheld certain information requested by 
the Department and did not act to the best of its ability to comply 
with the Department's request. See sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(b) of 
the Act.
    Consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(b) of the Act, Mukand 
and PMS withheld information that had been requested by the Department 
and did not act to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's request for information, justifying the use of adverse 
facts available in reaching the applicable determination. Therefore, 
the Department has preliminarily determined that the use of adverse 
facts available for the prices and expenses incurred for Mukand's 
agency sales in the U.S. market, in accordance with section 776(b) of 
the Act. Facts available, the Department has applied the corroborated 
``all others'' rate of 48.8% to Mukand's reported CEP sales.

Viraj

    For purposes of this review, Viraj has classified all of its sales 
as CEP sales. Based on the information on the record, we are using CEP 
as defined in section 772(b) of the Act.
    Viraj has classified those sales made by VSL through Viraj USA Inc. 
(``VUI''), an affiliated reseller in the United States that is 100% 
owned by VFL, as CEP sales. VSL makes the shipment from India on an Ex-
Dock Duty Paid (``EDDP'') basis to VUI. VUI clears the goods through 
U.S. customs and oversees customer delivery. Then VUI sells the goods 
to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, who makes payment to VUI.

[[Page 70774]]

    Based on the record evidence, the Department preliminarily 
determines that VSL's U.S. sales through VUI were made ``in the United 
States'' within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act, and thus have 
been appropriately classified by Viraj as CEP transactions.
    The Department calculated CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, based on the packed EDDP prices to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. The Department made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included, where appropriate, brokerage and handling, inland 
freight, international freight, U.S. customs duties, marine insurance, 
and customs clearance and delivery arrangements. In accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expense 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (bank charges and credit expenses) 
and indirect selling expenses.
    We recalculated Viraj's U.S. credit expenses to reflect U.S. 
Federal Reserve short-term rates in accordance with the Department's 
policy, because Viraj did not incur any short-term loans denominated in 
U.S. dollars, and the rate reported by Viraj was based on a rate quote 
that could not be substantiated. See Policy Bulletin 1998.2, Imputed 
Credit Expenses and Interest Rates, (February 23, 1998); Sales and Cost 
Verification of Viraj Alloys Limited (``VAL'') and VSL Wires, Limited 
(``VSL'') in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Stainless Steel 
Wire Rods from India, dated December 10, 2003 (``Verification Report'') 
at 14; Analysis Memorandum for Viraj Alloys Limited and VSL Wires 
Limited for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India for the Period December 1, 2001 
through November 30, 2002 (``Analysis Memorandum'') at 3. Additionally, 
the Department has denied Viraj's reported brokerage and handling 
expenses, because Viraj could not provide documentation substantiating 
its reported brokerage and handling expenses. See Verification Report 
at 13; Analysis Memorandum at 2; Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 67 FR 
35497 (May 20, 2002). Finally, as explained in the ``Duty Drawback'' 
section below, we are not making any adjustment for duty drawback.
    We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under 
sections 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, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total 
expenses for both the U.S. and home market.

Duty Drawback

Viraj
    In the previous two administrative reviews, the Department denied 
Viraj's request for an upward adjustment to the U.S. starting price 
based on duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. See 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 37391 (May 29, 2002); Final Results at 
26290. The Department denied the duty drawback adjustment because the 
reported duty drawback was not directly linked to the amount of duty 
paid on imports used in the production of merchandise for export as 
required by the Department's two-part test, which states there must be: 
(1) A sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and (2) a 
sufficient amount of raw materials imported and used in the production 
of the final exported product. See Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. United 
States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT Sept. 17, 1999). The Court of 
International Trade has upheld the Department's past decisions to deny 
respondent an adjustment for duty drawback because there was not 
substantial evidence on the record to establish that part one of the 
Department's test had been met. See Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 
162 F.Supp. 2d 656 (CIT August 15, 2001).
    Similarly, in the current review, the Department finds that Viraj 
has not provided substantial evidence on the record to establish the 
necessary link between the import duty and the reported rebate for duty 
drawback. Viraj has reported that it received duty drawback in the form 
of duty entitlement certificates which are issued by the Government of 
India to neutralize the incidence of basic custom duty on the import of 
raw materials used in the production of subject merchandise, but has 
failed to establish the necessary link between the import duty paid and 
the rebate given by the Government of India. See Viraj's April 4, 2003 
response at C-19. As in the previous review, Viraj was not able to 
demonstrate that the import duty paid and the duty drawback rebate were 
directly linked. Therefore, the Department is denying a duty drawback 
credit for the preliminary results of this review.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, we calculated NV as noted in 
the ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' 
sections of this notice.

1. Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a 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 the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product by 
Mukand and Viraj to the volume of each of their U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product by Mukand and Viraj were each greater than five percent of the 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we 
determined that sales in the home market provide a viable basis for 
calculating NV. We therefore based NV on home market sales to 
unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual commercial quantities and in 
the ordinary course of trade.
    For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in India, in the usual commercial 
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent 
possible, at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP as 
appropriate. After testing home market viability and whether home 
market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in 
the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Constructed Value 
(``CV'') Price Comparisons'' sections of this notice.
    Additionally, Viraj reported the home market sales of VSL. Since we 
have preliminarily determined to collapse the companies of Viraj, we 
included the home market sales of VSL as the basis of NV for Viraj.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

Mukand
    Because the Department disregarded certain Mukand sales made in the 
home market at prices below the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding 
and excluded such sales

[[Page 70775]]

from NV, the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that Mukand made sales in the home market at prices 
below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. See Final 
Results, 68 FR 26290; Department's letter to Mukand, dated May 14, 
2003; section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department 
requested that Mukand report its cost of production on May 14, 2003, to 
determine whether Mukand made home market sales during the POR at 
prices below their respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) 
of the Act. See Department's letter to Mukand, dated May 14, 2003.
Viraj
    Because the Department disregarded certain Viraj Group sales made 
in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding 
and excluded such sales from NV, the Department determined that there 
are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Viraj made sales in 
the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise 
in this review. See Final Results; section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
As a result, Viraj submitted its Section D questionnaire response to 
the Department on April 4, 2003.

3. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated cost 
of production (``COP'') based on the sum of Mukand and Viraj's costs of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general and administrative expenses 
(``SG&A''), including interest expenses, and packing costs. The 
Department relied on the COP data submitted by Mukand and Viraj in 
their original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses for this 
calculation.
Viraj
    For the preliminary results, the Department denied Viraj's claimed 
interest offset because we have determined that Viraj's claimed 
interest offsets that were not of a short-term nature. See Verification 
Report at 22. Thus, the Department has recalculated Viraj's interest 
expense. See Analysis Memorandum at 4.

4. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP for Mukand and Viraj's 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 less than the COP, we examined whether such 
sales were made: (1) In substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time; and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
cost with all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We compared the COP to 
home market prices, less any applicable billing adjustments, movement 
charges, discounts, and indirect selling expenses.

5. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the sales made by Mukand and Viraj of a given product were, 
within an extended period of time, 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 the sales made by Mukand and 
Viraj of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.406(b). In such cases, 
because we used 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. We compared the COP for subject merchandise to the reported 
home market prices less any applicable movement charges. Based on this 
test, we disregarded below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific 
product were at prices below the cost of production, we disregarded all 
sales of that product.

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. We calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of 
materials, fabrication employed by Mukand and Viraj in producing the 
subject merchandise, and SG&A, including interest expenses and profit. 
We calculated the COPs included in the calculation of CV as noted above 
in the ``Calculation of COP'' section of this notice. In accordance 
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expense and profit 
on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection 
with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the 
ordinary course of trade for consumption in India. For selling 
expenses, we used the actual weighted-average home market direct and 
indirect selling expenses. For CV, we made the same adjustments 
described in the COP section above.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

Mukand
    For those products comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
at or above the COP, we based NV on the home market prices to the home 
market customers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for inland 
freight from plant to distribution warehouse, and warehousing in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act. We made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for commissions, credit and interest 
revenue, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of 
the Act. We also made commission-offset adjustments, where applicable, 
for indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act.
    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 section 773(a)(6)(A), we 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. 
Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where the 
Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of contemporaneous 
matches in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
NV on CV.
Viraj
    For those products comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
at or above the COP, we based NV on the home market prices to the home 
market customers. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 
commissions and credit, where appropriate in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, 
for other discounts and indirect selling expenses in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    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

[[Page 70776]]

section 773(a)(6)(A), we 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. Finally, in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV 
on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on CV.

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 EP or CEP transaction. See 
also 19 CFR 351.412. 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. See 19 CFR 
351.412(2)(iii). For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. See 19 
CFR 351.412(2)(i). For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the affiliated importer. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(ii).
    To determine the LOT of a sale, we examine stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stage of marketing. See 
19 CFR 351.412(C)(2). 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 differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affect 
price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act 
(the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from Mukand and Viraj about the marketing stages involved 
in their respective U.S. and home market sales, including a description 
of the selling activities performed by Mukand and Viraj for each 
channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP, we 
considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the 
deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See 
Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 
(Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the 
same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the 
seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of 
trade that are different categories of sales, the functions and 
activities should be dissimilar.
    In the present review, while Mukand requested an LOT adjustment, 
Viraj did not; the Department nonetheless considered LOT adjustments 
for both Mukand and Viraj. To determine whether an adjustment was 
necessary for either company, in accordance with the principles 
discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution 
systems in both the United States and home markets, including the 
selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.

Mukand

    In the home market (``HM''), Mukand reported three levels of trade. 
See Mukand's Sections B and C questionnaire response, dated April 7, 
2003 (``Mukand's Sections B & C response'') at 18. Mukand sold through 
four channels of distribution in the HM. See Mukand's Sections B & C 
response, at 10. The Department has preliminarily determined that in 
each of these four channels of distribution, only minor differences in 
selling functions existed during the POR. See Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Level of 
Trade Analysis, dated December 12, 2003 (``LOT Memorandum''). Because 
the Department has preliminarily determined that only minor differences 
exist between selling functions in each of the four HM channels of 
distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the 
HM.
    For the U.S. market, Mukand reported one level of trade. See 
Mukand's Sections B & C response at 52. For its U.S. sales, Mukand 
reported two channels of distribution: EP sales made to order to an 
unaffiliated customer before importation; and CEP sales sold after 
importation. For details of these sales, see Agency Sales Memorandum. 
For its EP sales, Mukand's sales were made by its wholly-owned 
subsidiary, MIL, which was based in the United Arab Emirates during the 
POR, directly to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. For its CEP sales, PMS 
sold Mukand's subject merchandise after importation on an agency basis 
to unaffiliated customers in the United States. See Agency Sales 
Memorandum. We examined the claimed selling functions performed by MIL 
for all U.S. sales and have determined that MIL provided the same level 
of services for both its EP and CEP sales to the United States. See LOT 
Memorandum at 6.
    For EP sales in the U.S. market, Mukand provided the same level of 
services for both EP and NV sales with only minor differences. See LOT 
Memorandum at 6. After analyzing the selling functions performed for 
sales in the HM and EP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily 
determine that there is not a significant difference in the selling 
functions performed in the home market and U.S. market, and that these 
sales are made at the same LOT. See LOT Memorandum at 6.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT 
than CEP, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions between Mukand and its home market customers. We compared the 
selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed 
with respect to the CEP transactions, after deductions for economic 
activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to section 772(d) 
of the Act, to determine if the home market level of trade constituted 
a different level of trade than the CEP level of trade. After analyzing 
the selling functions performed for sales in the HM and CEP sales in 
the U.S. market, we preliminarily determine that there is no 
significant difference in the selling functions performed in the home 
market and U.S. market, and that these sales are made at the same LOT. 
See LOT Memorandum at 6.
    Mukand did not request a CEP offset. Nonetheless, in accordance 
with the principles discussed above, we examined information regarding 
the distribution systems in both the United States and the Indian 
markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and 
selling expenses to determine whether a CEP offset was necessary. In 
identifying levels of trade for CEP, we considered only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See LOT Memorandum. Based on 
our analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions 
performed for sales in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. 
market, we preliminarily find that there

[[Page 70777]]

is no significant difference in the selling functions performed in the 
home market and the U.S. market for CEP sales. See LOT Memorandum at 6. 
Thus, we find that Mukand's NV and CEP sales were made at the same LOT, 
and no LOT adjustment or CEP offset need be granted.

Viraj

    In accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined 
information regarding Viraj's distribution systems in both the United 
States and Indian markets, including selling functions, classes of 
customer, and selling expenses for Viraj.
    Viraj claimed three levels of trade in the home market. See Viraj 
Section B and C Questionnaire Response, dated April 4, 2003 (``Viraj 
Section B and C Response'') at B-13. Additionally, Viraj reported that 
it sold through one channel of distribution in the home market: 
directly to unaffiliated customers (``actual user'', ``trading 
company'', and ``distributors''). See Viraj Section B and C Response at 
B-6. For sales in the home market, Viraj reported that all of its sales 
are sold ex-works. See Viraj Section B and C Response at B-9. Viraj 
reported that it performs the following selling functions in the home 
market: price negotiations, order processing, and customer 
communication. See Viraj Section A Questionnaire Response, dated March 
18, 2003, at A-12. Because there is only one channel of distribution in 
the home market and identical selling functions are performed for all 
home market sales, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in 
the home market.
    Viraj claimed three levels of trade in the U.S. market. See Viraj 
Section B and C Response at C-13. Viraj reported that it sold through 
one channel of distribution in the U.S. market, directly from its mill 
to its U.S. affiliate (i.e., VUI). See Viraj Section B and C Response 
at C-6. The Department examined the selling functions and services 
performed by Viraj to its U.S. affiliate, VUI. We found that the 
selling functions (i.e., price negotiations, order processing, and 
customer communication) Viraj performs after the section 772(d) 
adjustment are the same for all of its U.S. sales. See Viraj Section A 
Questionnaire Response March 18, 2003 (``Viraj March 18, 2003 
Response'') at A-14. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Viraj 
has one LOT in the U.S. market based on its selling functions to the 
United States.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT 
than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chains of distribution between (1) Viraj and its 
home market customers and (2) Viraj and its affiliated U.S. reseller, 
VUI, after deductions for expenses and profits. Specifically, we 
compared the selling functions performed for home market sales with 
those performed with respect to the CEP transaction, after deductions 
for economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act, to determine if the home market level of 
trade constituted a different level of trade than the CEP level of 
trade.
    Viraj did not request a CEP offset. Nonetheless, in accordance with 
the principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the 
distribution systems in both the United States and Indian markets, 
including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling 
expenses to determine whether a CEP offset was necessary. For CEP 
sales, we found that Viraj provided many of the same selling functions 
and expenses for its sale to its affiliated U.S. reseller VUI as it 
provided for its home market sales, including price negotiation, order 
processing, and customer communication. Based on our analysis of the 
channels of distribution and selling functions performed for sales in 
the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find 
that there is no significant difference in the selling functions 
performed in the home market and the U.S. market for CEP sales. Thus, 
we find that Viraj's NV and CEP sales were made at the some LOT, and no 
LOT adjustment or CEP offset need be granted.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Isibars, Mukand, 
and Viraj for the period December 1, 2001 through November 30, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                   margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isibars Steel..............................................        48.80
Mukand Limited.............................................        18.67
Viraj Group................................................        17.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of 
publication, or the first working day thereafter. See 19 CFR 
351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, we would 
appreciate it if parties submitting written comments also provide the 
Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has 
calculated an assessment rate applicable to all appropriate entries. We 
calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value, or entered quantity, as 
appropriate, of the examined sales for that importer. Upon completion 
of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct BCBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication 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 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 each of the 
reviewed companies will be the rate listed in the final results of 
review (except that if the

[[Page 70778]]

rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for 
previously investigated companies not listed above, 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 LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be the ``all others'' rate of 48.80 percent, which is the 
all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 12, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-31354 Filed 12-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P