[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 45 (Monday, March 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10666-10674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5135]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review, and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India with respect 
to Chandan Steel Limited; Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd.; Isibars Limited; 
Mukand, Ltd.; Jyoti Steel Industries; Venus Wire Industries Limited; 
and the Viraj Group, Ltd. (Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; Viraj Forgings, Ltd.; 
and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd). This review covers sales of stainless steel 
bar to the United States during the period February 1, 2002, through 
January 31, 2003.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value by three of the respondents in this proceeding, Chandan 
Steel Limited, Isibars Limited, and Jyoti Steel Industries. In 
addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with 
respect to Ferro Alloys Corp., Ltd. and Mukand, Ltd. because they 
withdrew their requests for review within the time limit specified 
under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Finally, we have preliminarily determined 
to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to the Viraj Group, 
Ltd. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
this review, we will instruct Customs and Border Protection to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Strollo or Irina Itkin, Office 
2, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0629 
or (202) 482-0656 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 3, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice in the Federal Register (68 FR 5272) of the 
opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on February 26, 2003, the 
Department received a request for an administrative review from Venus 
Wires Industries Ltd. (Venus), an Indian producer/exporter of SSB in 
India. On February 27, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), 
the Department received a request for an administrative review from the 
petitioners (i.e., Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty 
Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., Slater 
Steels Corp., Empire Specialty Steel and the United Steelworkers of 
America (AFL-CIO/CLC)), for the following producers/exporters of 
stainless steel bar in India: Chandan Steel Limited (Chandan), Isibars 
Limited (Isibars), Jyoti Steel Industries (Jyoti), Venus, and the Viraj 
Group, including but not necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys, Ltd. 
(VAL), Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (VFL), Viraj ImpoExpo Ltd., Viraj Smelting, 
and Viraj Profiles (collectively, Viraj). Finally, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on February 28, 2003, the Department received 
additional requests to conduct an administrative review from four 
Indian exporters (i.e., Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd. (FACOR), Isibars, 
Mukand, Ltd. (Mukand), and Viraj). As part of its request, Viraj also 
requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order with 
regard to its sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(b).
    On March 25, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India for the 
following companies: Chandan, FACOR, Isibars, Jyoti, Mukand, Venus, and 
Viraj. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 14394 
(Mar. 25, 2003). We issued questionnaires to each of these companies on 
April 4, 2003.
    On April 7, 2003, and May 9, 2003, respectively, Mukand and FACOR 
withdrew their requests for review. For further discussion, see the 
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    In May 2003, we received responses to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire from Chandan, Isibars, Jyoti, Venus, and Viraj. (Because 
Isibars improperly filed its section A questionnaire response, we did 
not place this information on the record until August 11, 2003.)
    Also in May 2003, respectively, we issued supplemental section A 
questionnaires to Chandan and Venus. We received responses to those 
supplemental questionnaires on May 30 and June 24, 2003, respectively.
    In May and June 2003, we received responses to sections B and C of 
the questionnaire from Chandan, Isibars, Jyoti, Venus, and Viraj. 
(Because Isibars improperly filed its sections B and C questionnaire 
responses, we did not place this information on the record until August 
11, 2003.)
    In June 2003, we received section D responses from Isibars and 
Venus.
    On June 23, 2003, the petitioners submitted timely allegations that 
Chandan and Viraj made sales below the cost of production (COP). With 
respect to Viraj, we found that the petitioners' allegation provided a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market by 
Viraj had been made at prices below the COP. Consequently, on July 1, 
2003, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), we initiated an investigation to determine whether Viraj 
made home market sales during the period of review (POR) at prices 
below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See the 
July 1, 2003, memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team entitled, 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bar from 
India: Analysis of the Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost 
of Production for Viraj ImpoExpo Ltd.'' (sales below cost allegation 
memo--Viraj). Accordingly, we notified Viraj

[[Page 10667]]

that it must respond to Section D of the antidumping duty 
questionnaire. On July 29, 2003, we received Viraj's response to the 
Department's section D questionnaire.
    Regarding Chandan, the petitioners alleged that Chandan's sales in 
its largest third-country market were made at prices below their COP, 
even thought Chandan's home market was viable. Because we did not 
intend to rely on Chandan's third-country sales as the basis for normal 
value (NV), we did not analyze the petitioners' allegation of sales 
below the COP in the third country market.
    In June 2003, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Chandan, 
Jyoti, and Viraj. We received responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires in June and July 2003.
    In July 2003, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires to 
Chandan, Isibars, Jyoti, and Venus. We received responses to these 
questionnaires from Chandan, Jyoti, and Venus in July and August 2003. 
We did not receive a response from Isibars to its supplemental 
questionnaire. For further discussion, see the ``Facts Available'' 
section of this notice below.
    On July 21, 2003, in response to Chandan's revised section B 
submission, the petitioners made a timely allegation that Chandan made 
home market sales below the COP. We found that the petitioners' 
allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales 
in the home market made by Chandan had been made at prices below the 
COP.
    On July 29, 2003, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 
initiated an investigation to determine whether Chandan made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below the COP, within the meaning 
of section 773(b) of the Act. See the July 29, 2003, memorandum to 
Louis Apple from the Team entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Analysis of the Petitioner's 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, 
Ltd.'' Accordingly, we notified Chandan that it must respond to Section 
D of the antidumping duty questionnaire. We received Chandan's response 
to section D of the Department's questionnaire on September 2, 2003.
    On August 4, 2003, the Department found that due to the large 
number of respondents, and the time required to review and analyze the 
responses once they were received, it was not practicable to complete 
this review within the time allotted. Accordingly, we published an 
extension of time limit for the completion of the preliminary results 
of this review to no later than February 28, 2004, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Stainless 
Steel Bar from India; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results 
in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 45793 (Aug. 4, 2003).
    On August 11, 2003, we requested that Jyoti provide corrected cost 
data such that difference in merchandise (difmer) adjustments would be 
possible, if required. We received Jyoti's response to its difmer 
supplemental questionnaire on August 19, 2003.
    In August 2003, we issued to Chandan, Jyoti, and Venus additional 
supplemental questionnaires. We received responses to these 
supplemental questionnaires in August and September 2003.
    Based on Jyoti's supplemental section B response, on October 2, 
2003, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation that Jyoti made 
home market sales below the COP. We found that the petitioners' 
allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales 
in the home market by Jyoti had been made at prices below the COP. 
Consequently, on October 15, 2003, pursuant to section 773(b) of the 
Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Jyoti made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below the COP, within the meaning 
of section 773(b) of the Act. See the October 15, 2003, memorandum to 
Louis Apple from the Team entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Analysis of the Petitioner's 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Jyoti Steel 
Industries.'' Accordingly, we notified Jyoti that it must respond to 
Section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire.
    In October 2003, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Chandan 
and Viraj. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires 
in November 2003.
    We received Jyoti's response to the Department's section D 
questionnaire on November 10, 2003.
    In January 2004, we issued Chandan a final supplemental 
questionnaire. We also received Chandan's response to this supplemental 
questionnaire in January 2004.
    On January 23, 2004, we determined that Jyoti's submissions 
contained serious deficiencies which could not be remedied given the 
time constraints of this administrative review. Consequently, we 
determined that it was not appropriate to either issue Jyoti an 
additional supplemental questionnaire in this administrative review or 
to conduct verification of Jyoti's responses, and we notified Jyoti of 
these decisions accordingly. For further discussion, see the ``Facts 
Available'' section of this notice below.
    From January 27, 2004, through February 6, 2004, we conducted 
verification of Viraj's responses at Viraj's offices in Mumbai, India.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of SSB. SSB means 
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either 
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their 
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other 
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or 
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or 
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have 
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the 
rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do 
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, 
shapes, and sections.
    The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, on April 7, 2003, and May 9, 2003, respectively, 
Mukand and FACOR withdrew their requests for an administrative review. 
Because the petitioners did not request an administrative review of 
either FACOR

[[Page 10668]]

or Mukand and both FACOR and Mukand withdrew their requests within the 
time limit specified under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding our 
review with respect to these companies.

Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part

    On February 28, 2003, Viraj requested revocation of the antidumping 
duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). In a subsequent submission, Viraj 
provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e).
    The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While 
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must 
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure 
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation 
requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit 
the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the 
subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period 
and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV 
in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold commercial 
quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States in each of 
the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement 
to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes 
that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject 
merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of 
such a request, the Department will consider: (1) Whether the company 
in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a 
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the company has 
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long 
as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the 
subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the continued 
application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
    We preliminarily determine that the request from Viraj meets all of 
the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of 
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations 
show that Viraj sold SSB at not less than normal value during the 
current review period. See dumping margins below. In addition, Viraj 
sold SSBs at not less than NV in the two previous administrative 
reviews in which it was involved (i.e., Viraj's dumping margin was zero 
or de minimis). See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 47543 (Aug. 11, 2003) 
(2001-2002 SSB AR Final), covering the period February 1, 2001, through 
January 31, 2002, and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India, 67 FR 53336 
(Aug. 15, 2002), covering the period February 1, 2000, through January 
31, 2001.
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we 
preliminarily determine that Viraj sold the subject merchandise in the 
United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years 
cited by Viraj to support its request for revocation. See the March 1, 
2004, memorandum to the file from Michael Strollo entitled, ``Analysis 
of Commercial Quantities for Viraj Group Ltd.'s Request for 
Revocation,'' which is on file in room B-099 of the Department's 
Central Records Unit, Room B-099. Thus, we preliminarily find that 
Viraj had zero or de minimis dumping margins for its last three 
administrative reviews and sold in commercial quantities in each of 
these years. Also, we preliminarily determine that application of the 
antidumping order to Viraj is no longer warranted for the following 
reasons: (1) The company had zero or de minimis margins for a period of 
at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed to 
immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it 
has resumed making sales at less than fair value; and (3) the continued 
application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Viraj qualifies for 
revocation of the order on SSB pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and 
that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by 
Viraj should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in 
our final results, we will revoke this order in part for Viraj and, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension 
of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that is entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 
2003, and will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund 
any cash deposits for such entries.

Facts Available

A. Application of Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is appropriate 
as the basis for the dumping margins for the following producer/
exporters: Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides that if an interested party: (1) Withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, 
subject to subsections 782(c) and (e) of the Act; (3) significantly 
impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or (4) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department 
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.
1. Isibars
    On May 27, 2003, and June 20, 2003, Isibars submitted responses to 
sections A/B/C and D of the Department's questionnaire, respectively. 
Because these responses contained significant and pervasive 
deficiencies, on July 11, 2003, and August 7, 2003, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Isibars. At the request of Isibars, we 
granted the company over five weeks to respond to these questionnaires. 
Despite the fact that Isibars had sufficient time to respond, it failed 
to do so.
    We find that Isibars' questionnaire responses contain pervasive and 
significant deficiencies rendering its submissions so incomplete that 
they cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination. See 
section 782(e) of the Act. For example, Isibars, inter alia: (1) Failed 
to substantiate ownership and control of both Isibars and its 
affiliates; (2) failed to reconcile the total sales value reported in 
the U.S. sales listing to its 2002 and 2003 financial statements; (3) 
failed to reconcile the total sales value reported in the home market 
sales listing to its 2001, 2002, and 2003 financial statements; (4) 
failed to demonstrate that sales to affiliated parties were reported 
correctly in the home market sales listing; (5) reported home market 
sales of significantly different volumes and values in the section B 
response than the aggregate volume and value of home market sales in 
the section A response; (6) failed to confirm that stainless steel 
black bars were reported in both the quantity and value of sales in 
both the home market and the United States; (7) failed to adequately 
describe the selling functions performed by Isibars and its affiliates 
in either the home or U.S. markets; (8) incorrectly reported the dates 
of sale and payment for certain home market transactions; (9) reported 
size incorrectly; (10) failed to

[[Page 10669]]

include a narrative description of several product codes listed in the 
database submitted to the Department; (11) failed to report costs based 
upon the correct fiscal year; (12) failed to report unique costs for 
each control number; (13) failed to substantiate various cost 
allocations; (14) failed to provide several cost reconciliations, the 
most important being a reconciliation of the financial statements to 
the general ledger; and (15) failed to provide all worksheets 
substantiating its calculations. For a complete list of the 
deficiencies in Isibars' responses, see the supplemental questionnaires 
issued to this company on July 11, 2003, and August 7, 2003.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
(1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department (2) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested (3) significantly impedes a determination under the 
antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e), use facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. As discussed above, Isibars' 
information was so incomplete that it could not be used by the 
Department. As such, the Department must use facts otherwise available 
with regard to Isibars pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the 
Act.
2. Jyoti
    As noted above, Jyoti responded to the Department's questionnaire 
on May 27, 2003. Because this questionnaire response contained 
substantial errors and omissions, we issued Jyoti six supplemental 
questionnaires. In four of these supplemental requests, we required 
Jyoti to recalculate its manufacturing costs reported as part of its 
difmer adjustment. Although we afforded Jyoti ample time to respond to 
each of these six requests, Jyoti's submissions were not only 
incomplete, they were largely unresponsive to the Department's explicit 
instructions.
    As a result of Jyoti's failure to provide adequate difmer data, the 
petitioners were unable to use Jyoti's submissions as the basis for a 
sales below COP allegation until October 2003, more than four months 
after the Department received Jyoti's initial sections B and C 
response.
    Nonetheless, in October 2003, the petitioners provided adequate 
reason for the Department to believe or suspect that sales in the home 
market by Jyoti had been made at prices below the COP. On November 14, 
2003, Jyoti submitted a wholly inadequate response to the Section D 
questionnaire, failing to remedy the deficiencies remaining in its cost 
reporting. As noted above, we had previously notified Jyoti of these 
deficiencies and required the company to remedy them. The most 
significant of these deficiencies are summarized below.
    Specifically, Jyoti: (1) Failed to provide costs on a POR weighted-
average basis; (2) failed to provide direct material costs on a POR 
weighted-average basis using the total raw materials consumed during 
the POR; (3) failed to account for physical differences (grade, size, 
and finish) in its labor and variable overhead costs; (4) failed to 
provide cost reconciliations including the reconciliation of total 
fiscal year costs from Jyoti's financial accounting system to the costs 
from audited financial statements, the reconciliation of total fiscal 
year cost of manufacturing from financial statements to the total per-
unit manufacturing costs submitted, reconciliation of differences 
between methodology used to report costs and Jyoti's normal record 
keeping, reconciliation of the cost of merchandise not under 
consideration, reconciliation of cost of merchandise under 
consideration but not sold to the United States and Hong Kong, 
reconciliation of reported general and administrative (G&A) expenses to 
the audited financial statements, and reconciliation of reported 
interest expenses to the audited financial statements; (5) improperly 
included costs incurred outside the POR (i.e., from the window periods 
before and after the POR) in its reported COP; (6) failed to provide a 
complete description of its production facilities and the products 
produced at each facility; (7) failed to provide sufficient detail 
regarding the inputs used to produce the subject merchandise (i.e., raw 
materials, labor, energy, subcontractor services, etc.); (8) failed to 
provide sufficient detail regarding its internal taxes; and (9) 
incorrectly calculated its reported G&A expenses on a market-specific 
basis instead of using data from its audited financial statements.
    In light of these deficiencies and omissions, we find that Jyoti's 
responses to the Department's requests for cost data were so incomplete 
that they could not serve as a reliable basis for reaching the instant 
determination. Specifically, we note that COP/constructed value (CV) 
data is vital to our dumping analysis, because: (1) It provides the 
basis for determining whether comparison market sales can be used to 
calculate normal value; and (2) in certain instances (e.g., when there 
are no comparison market sales made at prices above the COP), it is 
used as the basis of NV itself. In cases involving a sales-below-cost 
investigation, as in this case, lack of COP/CV information renders a 
company's response so incomplete as to be unuseable. See, e.g., Frozen 
Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 43650, 
43655 (Aug. 11, 1999); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Canada, 64 FR 
15457 (Mar. 31, 1999); Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 
76, 82 (Jan. 4, 1999); Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From 
Thailand, 63 FR 43661, 43664 (Aug. 14, 1998); and Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18396, 18401 (Apr. 15, 1997). See also 
section 782(e) of the Act.
    Despite the Department's attempts to obtain the missing 
information, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, Jyoti failed to 
rectify its deficiencies. Thus, the Department finds that we must 
resort to facts otherwise available in reaching our preliminary 
results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
3. Chandan
    As noted above, Chandan responded to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire on May 15, 2003, sections B and C on June 9, 2003, and 
section D on September 2, 2003. Because these questionnaire responses 
contained substantial errors and omissions, we issued Chandan seven 
supplemental questionnaires. Although we afforded Chandan ample time to 
respond to each of these seven requests, Chandan's submissions were not 
only incomplete, they were largely unresponsive to the Department's 
explicit instructions.
    In particular, on October 9, 2003, the Department issued Chandan a 
supplemental section D questionnaire requesting that it provide 
additional information or clarification on a number of issues, as well 
as the missing items from the prior cost response. Despite the fact 
that Chandan was granted almost a month in which to respond to this 
supplemental section D questionnaire, on November 5, 2003, Chandan 
submitted an inadequate response. Consequently, on January 14, 2004, we 
issued Chandan an additional supplemental questionnaire requesting

[[Page 10670]]

that it provide largely the same information identified previously. On 
January 26, 2004, Chandan again submitted a wholly inadequate response 
to the supplemental section D questionnaire. The most significant of 
these deficiencies are summarized below.
    Specifically, Chandan: (1) Failed to calculate certain costs based 
upon its internal costs, instead relying upon charges billed by a 
``toll-processor''; (2) failed to report unique costs for each type of 
finishing operation; (3) failed to report bright bar yield loss; (4) 
failed to provide correct cost size ranges; (5) failed to provide cost 
reconciliations including the reconciliation of total fiscal year cost 
of manufacturing from financial statements to the total per-unit 
manufacturing costs submitted, reconciliation of differences between 
methodology used to report costs and Chandan's normal record keeping, 
and reconciliation of cost of merchandise by market; (6) systematically 
failed to provide requested worksheets or other substantiation to 
justify its calculations and allocations; and (7) failed to fully 
allocate all costs.
    In light of these deficiencies and omissions, we find that 
Chandan's cost data was so incomplete that it could not serve as a 
reasonable basis for reaching the instant determination. As noted 
above, COP/CV data is vital to our dumping analysis, especially where, 
as here, the case involves a sales-below-cost-allegation.
    Despite the Department's attempts to obtain the missing 
information, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, Chandan failed to 
rectify its deficiencies. Thus, the Department must resort to facts 
otherwise available in reaching our preliminary results, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.

B. Adverse Facts Available

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 
30, 2002). Each of the respondents was notified in the Department's 
questionnaires that failure to submit the requested information by the 
date specified might result in use of facts available. Generally, it is 
reasonable for the Department to assume that Chandan, Isibars, and 
Jyoti possessed the records necessary for this administrative review 
and that by not supplying the information the Department requested, 
these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. In 
addition, none of the companies in this review argued that they were 
incapable of providing the information the Department requested. 
Accordingly, because Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti failed to submit 
useable sales and/or cost information which was not only specifically 
requested by the Department but was also fundamental to the dumping 
analysis, we have assigned these companies margins based on total 
adverse facts available (AFA), consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A), 
(B), and (C) and 776(b) of the Act.
    As AFA for Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti, we have used the highest 
rate ever assigned to any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. 
This rate is 21.02 percent. We find that this rate, which was the rate 
alleged in the petition and assigned in the investigation of this 
proceeding, is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the 
facts available rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high enough to 
encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding). (This 
margin was also assigned to Mukand in the most recent most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding. See 2001-2002 SSB AR Final.) See 
also Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12752, 12762-3 (Mar. 16, 1998).

C. Corroboration of Secondary Information

    As facts available in this case, the Department has used 
information derived from the petition, which constitutes secondary 
information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1). Section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate secondary information from independent sources reasonably 
at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. See 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.
    To corroborate the selected margin, we considered that we have 
corroborated the 21.02 percent petition rate in a prior review. See 
2001-2002 SSB AR Final, 68 FR 47543 and accompanying decision 
memorandum at Comment 1. In this review, we compared the selected rate 
(i.e., 21.02 percent) to individual transaction margins for companies 
in this administrative review with weighted-average margins above de 
minimis. We found that the selected margin falls within the range of 
individual transaction margins and that there were a significant number 
of sales, made in the ordinary course of trade, in commercial 
quantities, with margins near or exceeding 21.02 percent. On this 
basis, we determined that the selected margin was reliable as there is 
no evidence on the record of this review that would lead us to change 
our assessment of the reliability of the 21.02 rate.
    Accordingly, we consider the 21.02 percent margin to be 
corroborated in this review, and have assigned Chandan, Isibars, and 
Jyoti this rate as total AFA.

Collapsing

Viraj

    In this administrative review, in past administrative reviews of 
SSB from India, and in other antidumping proceedings before the 
Department, the Viraj Group Ltd. has responded to the Department's 
questionnaires on behalf of the affiliated companies comprising the 
Viraj Group, Ltd. (i.e., VAL, Viraj Impo/Expo, Ltd. (VIL), and VFL). 
See 2001-2002 SSB AR Final and accompanying decision memorandum at 
Comment 10; see also Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 26288-03 (May 15, 
2003); Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 
70765 (Dec. 19, 2003); Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India; 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 1040 (Jan. 8, 2003). In the 2001-2002 AR 
Final, the Department collapsed VAL, VIL and VFL because the record 
evidence demonstrated that VAL and VIL were able to produce similar or 
identical merchandise (i.e., the merchandise under review) during the 
POR and could continue to do so, independently or under existing 
agreements, without substantial retooling of their production 
facilities. The Department also found that there was a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price and production among VAL, VIL 
and VFL. Because the record evidence in this review is the same as the 
facts upon which the

[[Page 10671]]

Department relied in past administrative reviews, we continue to find 
that VAL, VIL and VFL are affiliated and should be treated as one 
entity for the purposes of this administrative review (i.e., collapsed) 
pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(f).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
cost information provided by Viraj. We used standard verification 
procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial 
records. Our verification results are outlined in Viraj's verification 
reports placed in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main 
Commerce building, room B-099.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of SSB from India to the United States 
were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP) or constructed 
export price (CEP) to NV, as described in the ``Export Price and 
Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2), we compared individual 
EPs and CEPs to weighted-average NVs, which were calculated in 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.

Product Comparisons

    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in 
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade (i.e., sales within the same month which passed the cost test), 
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the 
characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire, or CV, as appropriate.
    Also, in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first 
attempted to compare products produced by the same company and sold in 
the U.S. and home markets that were identical with respect to the 
following characteristics: type, grade, remelting process, finishing 
operation, shape, and size. Where there were no home market sales of 
the foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the 
merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with 
the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the 
characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. Where we were 
unable to match U.S. sales to home market sales of the foreign like 
product, we based NV on CV.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

Venus

    For all U.S. sales made by Venus, we used EP methodology, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record.
    We based EP on packed CIF and delivered duty paid prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handing, international 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, 
and other U.S. brokerage and handling expenses.

Viraj

    For all U.S. sales made by Viraj, we used CEP methodology, in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for those sales where the 
merchandise was 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, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, 
to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.
    We based CEP on packed, CIF, and ex-dock duty-paid prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handing, international 
freight, marine insurance, clearance expenses, and U.S. customs duties.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including indirect selling 
expenses. We revised indirect selling expenses to calculate POR 
expenses over POR sales. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, 
we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Viraj 
and its affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the 
United States and the foreign like product in the home market and the 
profit associated with those sales.

Duty Drawback

    Venus and Viraj claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on their 
participation in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement Passbook 
Program. Such adjustments are permitted under section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act.
    The Department will grant a respondent's claim for a duty drawback 
adjustment where the respondent has demonstrated that there is (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 Pipe Ltd. v. United States 
(Rajinder Pipes), 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999). In Rajinder 
Pipes, the Court of International Trade upheld the Department's 
decision to deny a respondent's claim for duty drawback adjustments 
because there was not substantial evidence on the record to establish 
that part one of the Department's test had been met. See also Viraj 
Group, Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-104 (CIT August 15, 2001).
    In this administrative review, Venus and Viraj have failed to 
demonstrate that there is a link between the import duty paid and the 
rebate received, and that imported raw materials are used in the 
production of the final exported product. Therefore, because they have 
failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are denying the 
respondents' requests for a duty drawback adjustment. See the March 1, 
2004, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the file entitled, 
``Calculations Performed for Venus Wire Industries Limited (Venus) for 
the Preliminary Results in the 2002-2003 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bars from India,'' (Venus 
preliminary results calculation memo) and the March 1, 2004, memorandum 
from Mike Strollo to the file entitled, ``Calculations Performed for 
Viraj Group, Ltd. (Viraj) for the Preliminary Results in the 2002-2003 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Bars from 
India,'' (Viraj preliminary results calculation memo) for further 
details.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is 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

[[Page 10672]]

foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market 
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a 
viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home 
market sales. We made adjustments to Viraj's reported data based on our 
findings at verification. See the Viraj preliminary results calculation 
memo.

B. Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Venus had made home 
market sales at prices below its COP in this review because the 
Department had disregarded home market sales that failed the cost test 
for this company in the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding in which Venus participated (i.e., the 1998-1999 
administrative review). As a result, the Department initiated an 
investigation to determine whether these companies had made home market 
sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. See 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 (Aug. 10, 2000). In addition, on June 23, 2003, the 
petitioners submitted a timely allegation that Viraj made home market 
sales below the COP. We found that the petitioners' allegation provided 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market 
by Viraj had been made at prices below the COP. See the sales-below-
cost allegation memo--Viraj.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A, and interest expenses, and 
home market packing costs, where appropriate (see the ``Test of Home 
Market Prices'' section below for treatment of home market selling 
expenses).
    We relied on the COP data submitted by the respondents, except 
where noted below:

Venus

    1. We adjusted Venus' G&A expense ratio to include donations and 
exclude G&A expenses incurred by Precision Metals, an affiliated Indian 
selling agent; and
    2. We adjusted Venus' interest expense ratio to exclude interest 
expenses incurred by Precision Metals.
    For a detailed discussion of these adjustments, see the Venus 
preliminary results calculation memorandum.

Viraj

    1. We based VAL's G&A and financing expenses on data from its 2002-
2003 financial statements, rather than its 2001-2002 financial 
statements as reported;
    2. We included the profit/loss on sales of motor cars in the 
calculation of VAL's G&A ratio;
    3. We included the current year portion of ammortization expenses 
associated with a change in VAL's depreciation methodologies. See the 
memorandum to Neal Halper from Ji Young Oh entitled, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final 
Results,'' dated August 4, 2003, placed on the record of this 
administrative review.
    4. We included all interest charges incurred by VIL during its 
2002-2003 fiscal year in the calculation of VIL's financing ratio.
    For a detailed discussion of the above-mentioned adjustments, see 
the Viraj preliminary results calculation memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during 
the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. The 
prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing 
adjustments, commissions, discounts and indirect selling expenses. We 
revised indirect selling expenses to calculate POR expenses over POR 
sales. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and (2) at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were 
at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales 
of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-
cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at 
prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model were made in 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time (as 
defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such 
sales were not made at prices which would permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative 
review, we disregarded these below-cost sales for both respondents and 
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of SSB for 
which there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course 
of trade, we compared EP to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of 
the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
selling, G&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We made the same 
adjustments to the CV costs as described in the ``Calculation of COP'' 
section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we based SG&A 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 
the foreign country.

C. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B), to the extent practicable, 
the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of 
trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they 
are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a 
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is 
a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 
1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the chain of distribution),\1\

[[Page 10673]]

including selling functions,\2\ class of customer (customer category), 
and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States and home market 
begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user 
or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many 
or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this 
chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each 
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the 
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, (i.e., NV based on 
either home market or third country prices \3\) we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only 
the selling expenses 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP 
or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at 
a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a level of trade 
adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 
61733.
    Both Venus and Viraj claimed that they made home market sales at 
one LOT. We analyzed the information on the record and found that both 
respondents performed essentially the same marketing functions in 
selling to all of their home market customers, regardless of customer 
category (i.e., end user and trading company). Therefore, we determined 
that both respondents made home market sales at one LOT.
    Regarding Venus's U.S. sales, Venus reported that it made U.S. 
sales at two LOTs (i.e., sales directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers 
and sales through an Indian affiliate, Precision Metals). We examined 
the selling functions this company performs and determined that 
additional selling functions were performed on certain U.S. sales. 
Specifically, we found that Venus performs an additional layer of 
selling functions on its sales through Precision Metals which are not 
performed on its direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers. Because 
these additional selling functions are significant, we find that 
Venus's sales through Precision Metals are at a different LOT than its 
direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers. Further, we find that 
Venus's direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers are at the same LOT 
as Venus's home market sales. Therefore, for these sales, no LOT 
adjustment is warranted. However, with respect to Venus' sales through 
its Indian affiliate, given that Venus sold at only one LOT in the home 
market, and there is no additional information on the record that would 
allow for a LOT adjustment, no LOT adjustment is possible for Venus.
    Viraj reported the same LOT and channel of distribution for all its 
sales in both India and the United States. The U.S. selling activities 
differ from the home market selling activities only with respect to 
freight and delivery. These differences are not substantial. Therefore, 
we find that the CEP level of trade is the same as the home market LOT 
and an LOT adjustment is not necessary. Moreover, because there is no 
evidence on the record to indicate that the selling functions for sales 
to Viraj's home market were made at a different LOT than its U.S. 
sales, we are not granting a CEP offset adjustment, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.412(f).

D. Calculation of Normal Value

1. Venus
    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for billing 
adjustments.\4\ We also made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments for credit expenses, commissions, and bank charges and bank 
interest expenses.\5\ Specifically, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.410(e), we offset the commissions incurred in one market but not 
the other with indirect selling expenses incurred in the other market 
by the lesser of the commission or the indirect selling expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Venus reported discounts in its home market sales listing. 
However, the information on the record indicates that these 
discounts are actually billing adjustments (i.e., adjustments to 
price). Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have treated 
Venus's reported discounts as billing adjustments and adjusted gross 
unit price accordingly. See the Venus preliminary results 
calculation memorandum.
    \5\ Venus reported bank interest expenses charged on payments 
from U.S. customers as actual U.S. credit expenses incurred in 
Indian rupees. We have reclassified these expenses as direct selling 
expenses. See the Venus preliminary results calculation memo for 
further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), for CV-to-EP comparisons, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments for credit expenses, commissions, and bank charges and bank 
interest expenses.
2. Viraj
    We based NV on the ex-factory starting prices to home market 
customers. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences 
in credit expenses and commissions. Specifically, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.410(e), we offset the commissions incurred in the home market 
with indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. market by the 
lesser of the commission or the indirect selling expense.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of 
the Act.
    For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made an adjustment, where 
appropriate, for differences in credit expenses and commissions, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. 
Specifically, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset the 
commissions incurred in the home

[[Page 10674]]

market with indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. market by 
the lesser of the commission or the indirect selling expense.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping 
margins:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel Limited......................................        21.02
Isibars Limited............................................        21.02
Jyoti Steel Industries.....................................        21.02
Venus Wire Industries Limited..............................         0.06
Viraj Group, Ltd...........................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because we are preliminarily revoking the order with respect to 
Viraj's exports of subject merchandise, if these results are unchanged 
in the final results of review, we will order CBP to terminate the 
suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2003, 
and to refund all cash deposits collected.
    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.
    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Venus and Viraj, for 
those sales with a reported entered value, we have calculated importer-
specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those sales.
    Regarding certain of Venus's sales, for assessment purposes, we do 
not have the information to calculate entered value because Venus was 
not the importer of record for the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we 
have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise 
in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de 
minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based 
on the CEPs and/or EPs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any 
entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 
0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to CBP.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of SSB from India, except those made by Viraj, entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the 
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 
percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (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, or the 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 12.45 percent, the ``All 
Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Bar from India, 59 FR 66915, 66921 (Dec. 28, 1994).
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 1, 2004.
James Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-5135 Filed 3-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P