[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29923-29925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11913]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-808)


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

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

ACTION: Notice of final results and partial rescission of antidumping 
duty administrative review of stainless steel wire rods from India.

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

SUMMARY: On December 19, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary results 
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel wire rods from India. See Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 70765 (December 19, 2003) (``Preliminary 
Results''). This review covers Viraj Alloys Limited (``VAL'') and VSL 
Wires Ltd. (``VSL'')(collectively ``Viraj''), Isibars Limited 
(``Isibars''), and Mukand Limited (``Mukand''), manufacturers and 
exporters of subject merchandise to the United States. Panchmahal Steel 
Limited (``Panchmahal'') was originally a respondent in this review, 
but the Department rescinded the review of Panchmahal based on the 
timely withdrawal of the only request for review of the company. See 
Preliminary Results. The period of review is December 1, 2001 through 
November 30, 2002.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received regarding Viraj, we 
have made changes from the preliminary results of review. Therefore, 
the final results differ from the Preliminary Results with respect to 
the weighted-average dumping margin for Viraj. The final weighted-
average dumping margin for the reviewed firms is listed below in the 
section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Herzog (Mukand), Kit Rudd 
(Viraj), Eugene Degnan (Isibars), and Jon Freed (Panchmahal), Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: 202-482-1102, or 202-482-4271, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 19, 2003, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results and partial rescission of its 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
wire rods from India. See Preliminary Results. We invited parties to 
comment on our preliminary results of review. We received Viraj's case 
briefs on January 27, 2004. We received Mukand's and Isibars' case 
briefs on January 28, 2004. We received a brief from the petitioner 
alleging new factual information contained in Mukand's, Isibars' and 
Viraj's case briefs on February 2, 2004. We received rebuttal briefs to 
all three of the respondent's briefs from petitioner, dated February 6, 
2004. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), the Department directed 
Mukand, Isibars and Viraj to resubmit their briefs and omit certain new 
factual information that was not raised in a timely manner. See the 
Department's letter dated February 24, 2004, rejecting Mukand, Viraj 
and Isibars' case briefs. Mukand, Isibars and Viraj resubmitted new 
case briefs redacting the new information on February 26, 2004. We 
received a letter from the petitioner on March 5, 2004, requesting the 
Department to complete and clarify the official record of the review by 
bringing additional information into the official record. We received 
Viraj's submission containing this new information on March 30, 2004. 
We received the complete public version of Viraj's submission on April 
7, 2004. We have now completed the administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').

Scope of Review

    The merchandise under review is certain stainless steel wire rods 
(``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

[[Page 29924]]

SSWR sold in the United States are round in cross-section shape, 
annealed and pickled. The most common size 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
    The SSWR subject to this review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes (as of March 1, 2003, renamed the U.S. Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection), the written description of the 
merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the 
merchandise is covered by the review.

Facts Available

    In the instant review, for the preliminary results, the Department 
applied adverse facts available in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act to Isibars because Isibars failed to provide or withheld 
information the Department requested. See Preliminary Results, 68 FR at 
70767. The Department received inadequate responses to the 
questionnaire and multiple supplemental questionnaires from Isibars and 
could not verify the incomplete information that Isibars did provide, 
which is necessary for the margin analysis. See Preliminary Results, 68 
FR at 70767. Further, in accordance with sesction 776(a) of the Act, 
the Department applied partial adverse facts available to certain 
Mukand sales because Mukand failed to provide or withheld information 
requested by the Department. See Preliminary Results, 68 FR at 70773. 
Since we have received no new information since the preliminary results 
that contradicts the decision made in the preliminary results of 
review, we continue to apply adverse facts available with respect to 
Isibars and partial adverse facts available with respect to certain 
Mukand sales.

Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined in the 
Statement of Administrative Act (``SAA'') as ``information derived from 
the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final 
determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review 
under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. 
The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. The SAA also states that independent 
sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. 
Id. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information used.
    We have corroborated to the extent practicable, the adverse facts 
available rate we have applied in this review. See Corroboration 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2001-2002 Administrative Review 
of Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, dated May 17, 2004, 
(``Corroboration Memo''). In order to corroborate this rate, the 
Department compared the petition's quoted and adjusted export prices 
(``EP'') and home market price quotes, which serve as the basis for 
normal value (``NV''), to U.S. Customs data, and the Sections B and C 
databases provided in this administrative review by Mukand and Viraj, 
where appropriate. See Corroboration Memo at 2 and 3. Comparing the 
U.S. Customs data and Mukand, we found that the EP prices in the 
petition were higher than the EP prices provided in the U.S. Customs 
data and the EP prices provided by Mukand. Further, the NV price per 
pound as reported in the petition was similar to the home market prices 
reported by Mukand. See Corroboration Memo at 3.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, 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 adverse best information available (the 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).
    There is no information on the record indicating that the rate used 
would be inappropriate Further, the rate used is currently applicable 
to all exporters subject to the ``All Others'' rate.
    As the petition rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine 
that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines 
that the petition rate is corroborated for the purposes of this 
administrative review and may reasonably be applied to Isibars and 
certain Mukand sales as a total adverse facts available rate. 
Accordingly, we determine that the petition rate is in accord with 
section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information be corroborated 
(i.e., have probative value).
    Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate the highest 
rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding to Isibars' 
exports based on Isibars' failure to provide information and 
reconciliations as requested by the Department, and certain Mukand 
sales. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 
25707 (May 3, 2000).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (``Decision Memorandum'') from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 17, 2004, 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which 
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in 
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision 
Memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of 
the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://

[[Page 29925]]

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Sales Below Cost

    We disregarded sales that failed the cost test for Mukand and Viraj 
during the course of the review. We initiated a sales below the cost of 
production investigation with respect to Isibars. See the Department's 
June 3, 2003 letter to Isibars initiating sales below cost of 
production investigation. However, because Isibars did not provide the 
Department with a complete cost database, the Department could not 
conduct the dumping analysis, including the sales below cost 
investigation. For a complete discussion of Isibars' incomplete cost 
information see Comment 1 of the Decision Memorandum.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in 
the margin calculations for Viraj. The changes to the margin 
calculations are listed below:
Viraj
 The Department has revised the general and administrative and 
net interest expense ratios based on the 2002-2003 financial 
statements. See Comment 5.
 The Department has revised Viraj's brokerage and handling 
expenses as partial adverse facts available due to Viraj's inability to 
substantiate these expenses. See Comment 6.
 The Department has revised the U.S. direct selling expenses to 
account for an exchange rate conversion. See Comment 8.
 The Department has revised Viraj's cost of production 
(``COP'') calculation to account for rolling labor charges. See Comment 
9.
 The Department has revised the calculation of home market 
imputed credit expenses to account for sales transactions with multiple 
pay dates. See Comment 12.
 The Department has revised the U.S. credit rate used to 
calculate U.S. imputed credit in accordance with Import Administration 
Policy Bulletin 98-2. See Comment 13.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the 
period December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Weighted-Average
          Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viraj.............................................                  0.0%
Mukand............................................                18.67%
Isibars...........................................                48.80%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates 
for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication 
of these final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the 
resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the 
subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the 
relevant order during the review period. For duty-assessment purposes, 
we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the 
dumping margins calculated for each importer by the total entered value 
of sales for each importer during the period of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of stainless steel wire rods from India entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rates for Viraj, Mukand, and Isibars will be the rates shown 
above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any 
previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate 
will be the ``all others'' rate, which is 48.80 percent.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 17, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1

Issues in the Decision Memorandum

A. Issues with regard to Isibars
Comment 1: Facts Available
B. Issues with regard to Mukand
Comment 2: Collapsing of Grades
Comment 3: Agency Sales
Comment 4: Use of Partial Facts Available
C. Issues with regard to Viraj
Comment 5: New Information
Comment 6: Brokerage and Handling Expenses
Comment 7: Difference in Merchandise Adjustment
Comment 8: U.S. Direct Selling Expenses
Comment 9: Direct Labor
Comment 10: Net Interest Expenses
Comment 11: Home Market Credit Expense
Comment 12: Home Market Interest Rate
Comment 13: U.S. Credit Expense
Comment 14: Duty Drawback
[FR Doc. 04-11913 Filed 5-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S