[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47892-47900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-814]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from Ugine and ALZ France S.A. (U&A 
France), (the Respondent), and Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel, 
Inc., North American Stainless, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union, and Zanesville Armco 
Independent Organization (collectively, the Petitioners), the U.S. 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip 
in coils (SSSS) from France for the period July 1, 2002, through June 
30, 2003. The Department preliminarily determines that U&A's sales of 
SSSS in the United States were made at less than normal value (NV). 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 U&A 
France's merchandise during the period of review. The preliminary 
results are listed in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of 
Review,'' infra.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sebastian Wright or Mark Hoadley, 
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5254 and 202-482-3148.

Background

    On July 27, 1999, the Department published the amended final 
determination and antidumping duty order on SSSS from France in the 
Federal Register. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from France, 64 FR 40562 (July 27, 1999) 
(Antidumping Duty Order). On July 2, 2003, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils from France for the period July 1, 2002, 
through June 30, 2003. See Notice of Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 68 FR 39511 (July 2, 2003). On 
July 30, 2003, the Petitioners requested that the Department conduct a 
review of U&A France's sales or entries of merchandise subject to the 
Department's antidumping duty order on SSSS from France. On July 31, 
2003, U&A France, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise, also 
requested that the Department conduct a review of U&A France's sales or 
entries of subject merchandise for the POR. On August 22, 2003, in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 
2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50750 
(August 22, 2003). On September 10, 2003, the Petitioners also filed a 
timely request for a duty absorption review in accordance with section 
751(a)(4) of the Act, and section 351.213(j)(1) of the Department's 
regulations.
    On September 8, 2003, the Department issued a questionnaire to U&A 
France. On September 24, 2003, U&A France requested an extension in 
which to file its response to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire. On September 26, the Department issued a letter granting 
U&A France an extension for Section A responses to October 14, 2003. On 
October 14, 2003, U&A France filed its response to Section A.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which 
it sells the merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a 
complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is 
not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market 
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy 
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section 
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like 
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. 
Section E requests information on further manufacturing.

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

[[Page 47893]]

    On October 8, 2003, U&A France requested an extension until 
November 14 in which to file its response to Sections B, C, D, and E of 
the Department's questionnaire. On October 10, 2003, the Department 
sent U&A France a letter granting a partial extension until October 31, 
2003, for submitting Sections B, C, D, and E.
    On October 20, 2003, the Department sent a letter to U&A France 
requesting duty absorption information. On October 24, 2003, U&A France 
sent a letter to the Department requesting a second extension on 
Sections B, C, D, and E of the Department's questionnaire. On October 
29, the Department sent U&A France a letter granting an extension until 
November 21 for the submission of Sections B, C, D, and E of the 
questionnaire. On November 19, 2003, the Department sent U&A France a 
second letter requesting duty absorption information. On November 21, 
2003, U&A France submitted its responses to Sections B, C, D, and E of 
the Department's questionnaire. On November 26, 2003, the Petitioners 
submitted their comments on U&A France's response to Section A of the 
Department's questionnaire. On December 2, 2003, U&A France submitted 
information on packing.
    On December 22, 2003, the Department sent U&A France a supplemental 
Section A questionnaire. On December 24, 2003, U&A France sent the 
Department a letter requesting an extension of two weeks in which to 
submit its responses to the supplemental Section A questionnaire. On 
December 29, 2003, the Department sent a letter to U&A France granting 
the requested two-week extension.
    On January 13, 2004, the Petitioners submitted their comments to 
U&A France's responses to sections B, C, D, and E of the Department's 
questionnaire. On January 14, 2004, the Petitioners sent the Department 
a letter to supplement their January 13, 2004, letter.
    On January 14, 2004, U&A France sent the Department a second 
request for an extended deadline for supplemental Section A. On January 
16, 2004, the Department sent a letter to U&A France granting a partial 
extension of two weeks for the deadline to the supplemental Section A 
questionnaire. On January 30, 2004, U&A France sent another request for 
the Department to further extend the deadline for supplemental Section 
A by three days. On January 30, 2004, the Department sent U&A France a 
letter granting this extension for supplemental Section A, extending 
the deadline to February 6, 2004.
    On February 3, 2004, the Department sent U&A France a letter 
requesting information on downstream sales of subject merchandise. On 
February 10, 2004, U&A France submitted its response to the 
Department's February 3, 2004, letter regarding downstream sales. On 
March 24 and March 25, 2004, the Department sent requests for 
supplemental information to U&A France's responses to Sections B and C 
of the questionnaire. On April 8, 2004, U&A France sent the Department 
a letter requesting an extension until April 21 in which to submit its 
responses to supplemental Sections B and C. On April 9, the Department 
sent a letter to U&A France extending the deadline for supplemental 
Sections B and C, as well as information on downstream sales, to April 
21, 2004.
    On April 19, 2004, the Department sent U&A France a supplemental 
questionnaire for sections D and E. On April 21, 2004, U&A France 
submitted its responses to supplemental sections B and C of the 
Department's March 24 and March 25 questionnaires. On April 23, 2004, 
U&A France sent the Department a letter requesting an extension of the 
deadline for supplemental Sections D and E. On April 26, 2004, the 
Department granted U&A France's deadline extension request. On May 10, 
2004, U&A France sent a letter requesting an additional deadline 
extension for supplemental Sections D and E. On May 11, 2004, the 
Department sent a letter to U&A France granting the extension request 
and establishing a new deadline of May 19, 2004.
    On May 10, 2004, the Respondent submitted information regarding the 
country-of-origin of U&A France's merchandise. On July 1, 2004, the 
Petitioners responded to U&A France's submission. On July 19, 2004, U&A 
France submitted comments on the Petitioners' July 1 submission. These 
comments are discussed in the section titled ``Country of Origin,'' 
infra.
    On February 26, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for 
the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review. 
See Notice of Extension of Time Limit of the Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 2002-2003: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from France, 69 FR 8936 (February 26, 2004).

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered by this antidumping duty order are certain 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at 
subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 
\2\, 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 
7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 
7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 
7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 
7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 
7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 
7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 
7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 
7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 
7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 
7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 
7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and CBP purposes, the Department's written 
description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 
7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 
7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.

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

[[Page 47894]]

    Excluded from the order are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that 
is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate (i.e., 
flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or 
more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, 
rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) 
razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of 
stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in 
coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or 
less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and 
certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor 
blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, ``Additional U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. 
This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, 
by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 
percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This 
steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, 
silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent 
or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, 
with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and 
for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a 
tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 
170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 
460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce 
specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\6\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \7\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Successorship

    Ugine S.A., an entity involved in the production and sale of 
subject merchandise in the United States, changed its name early in 
this POR to Ugine & ALZ France S.A. We conducted

[[Page 47895]]

a successorship review during the prior POR (in order to issue 
assessment instructions) and concluded that U&A France is the successor 
to Ugine for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law. See 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 47051, 
47052 (August 7, 2003); Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 2003).

Country of Origin

    U&A France urges the Department to exclude certain U.S. and home 
market sales made during the POR because these sales are outside the 
scope of this order. The Respondent argues that the Department should 
not include sales of merchandise that are hot-rolled in Belgium and 
then annealed and pickled in France, but which are not cold-rolled in 
France (HRAP), because this merchandise is of Belgian origin and not 
within the scope of the order. The Respondent explains that it produces 
stainless steel slab in France. The stainless steel slabs are then 
transported to Belgium where they are hot rolled pursuant to a ``toll 
processing arrangement.'' The Respondent contends that the hot-rolling 
in Belgium is substantial transformation which changes the country of 
origin for the subject merchandise from France to Belgium. The 
Respondent notes that the Department has previously determined that 
hot-rolling stainless steel slabs constituted substantial 
transformation which changed the country of origin. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from the U.K. 64 FR 30688 (June 9, 1999) (SSSS 
U.K.). In SSSS U.K., the Department determined that British stainless 
steel slabs which were hot-rolled in Sweden and subsequently returned 
to the United Kingdom for finishing were outside the scope of the 
investigation because the hot-rolling process constituted substantial 
transformation.
    The Respondent also contends that the tolling arrangement between 
U&A France and the Belgian hot-roller has no bearing on the country of 
origin of the subject merchandise. The Respondent asserts that country 
of origin is not determined by reference to the ownership of the 
material. The Respondent notes that in SSSS U.K., the Department did 
not consider the tolling arrangement between the U.K. and Swedish 
companies in arriving at its country-of-origin decision, nor did it in 
the context of a scope ruling. See Final Scope Ruling on Antidumping 
Order on Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, (December 19, 1996) (Polyvinyl 
Alcohol Scope Ruling). The Respondent argues that in Polyvinyl Alcohol 
Scope Ruling, the Department did not consider the tolling relationship 
in making its determination that the merchandise had been substantially 
transformed.
    The Petitioners counter that the Department should include the HRAP 
merchandise within the scope of this order because the merchandise is 
of French origin. The Petitioners say that the Department is not 
required to dissect each stage of production to determine substantial 
transformation. The Petitioners argue that the Act gives the Department 
discretion to consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the 
production of the merchandise to determine country-of-origin issues. 
The Petitioners contend that the Department has the discretion to 
perform the substantial transformation test in a manner that compares 
how much of the production process of the subject merchandise occurred 
in France and how much occurred at the affiliated producer in Belgium. 
The Petitioners argue that the overall value of the finished SSSS 
exported from France is attributable to activity in France and 
controlled by the French producer.
    The Petitioners argue that the Department should consider the 
following seven factors under its totality of the circumstances review 
to determine the country of origin of the HRAP merchandise: (1) U&A 
France maintains ownership and control of the product at all times; (2) 
U&A France purchases only a hot-rolling service from the Belgium 
affiliate and the transfer of funds to pay for this service is an 
intra-company transfer within the Arcelor Group; (3) U&A France and the 
Belgian affiliate are collapsible entities under the Department's 
regulations and can be treated as a single unit of production for the 
purpose of establishing the locus of production; (4) the hot-rolled 
product is an intermediate product that has no commercial purpose 
except to become finished hot- or cold-rolled SSSS; (5) the SSSS 
becomes subject merchandise only after the annealing and pickling 
occurs in France; (6) the hot-rolling in Belgium contributes only 
minimally to the total cost of production of the finished SSSS product; 
and (7) the final product is sold by U&A France to French affiliates. 
The Petitioners argue that these seven factors considered as a whole 
are sufficient to enable the Department to find that the HRAP 
merchandise is subject merchandise.
    The Petitioners also argue that the SSSS U.K. case on which the 
Respondent relies is not dispositive of this case because, in the SSSS 
U.K. case, the SSSS slab was sold to the Swedish hot-roller. According 
to the Petitioners, this fact distinguishes the SSSS U.K. case from the 
present case, because in the former, the Respondent did not maintain 
control of the merchandise as U&A France does is this case.
    Next, the Petitioners contend that the Department's 1994 policy 
memorandum concerning tolling methodology and country of origin does 
not support the Respondent's arguments regarding the HRAP merchandise. 
See Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Compliance, Through Paul L. Joffe, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, To Susan G. Esserman, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, Discussion Memorandum: A Proposed Alternative to 
Current Tolling Methodology in the Current Antidumping (AD) Review of 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, (December 12, 1994) (Tolling Memorandum). 
The Petitioners say that the Tolling Memorandum was focused primarily 
on respondent selection and the selection of the correct seller's 
price, and not on determining what constitutes substantial 
transformation in the context of tolling. Accordingly, the Petitioners 
contend that the Tolling Memorandum does not prevent the Department 
from making tolling or other factors relevant considerations in whether 
a product is substantially transformed in the tolling country.
    For purposes of these preliminary results, we have considered the 
record evidence and arguments submitted by the Petitioners and the 
Respondent, addressing the treatment of U&A France's HRAP merchandise. 
As summarized above, the Petitioners and the Respondent have commented 
on how the Department should examine the HRAP material in light of the 
scope of the order, the Department's tolling regulation, and 
substantial transformation. Considering the specific facts surrounding 
this case, we preliminarily find that Department should classify the 
HRAP merchandise as Belgian merchandise, outside the scope of the order 
in this case. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results, we 
have excluded sales of the HRAP merchandise from our analysis. However, 
we will continue to analyze the record evidence and arguments raised by 
the parties for purposes of the final results.

[[Page 47896]]

Affiliation of Parties

    Arcelor S.A. (Arcelor) owns 98.97 percent of Usinor S.A. (Usinor). 
U&A France, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Usinor. 
Additionally, Arcelor owns 99.43 percent of Arbed S.A. (Arbed), and 
95.03 percent of Aceralia Corporaci[oacute]n Sider[uacute]rgica S.A. 
(Aceralia). Imphy Ugine Precision (IUP), which re-rolls merchandise 
purchased from U&A France, is also a subsidiary (wholly owned) of 
Usinor.\8\ See Section A Response of Ugine & ALZ France S.A., dated 
October 14, 2003, at 17 (Section A Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the purposes of this review, we consider IUP and U&A 
France to be one respondent and have collapsed their responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U&A France and IUP made sales through two affiliated U.S. 
companies, Arcelor Stainless USA, Inc. (Arcelor Stainless USA) and 
Rahns Specialty Metals, Inc. (Rahns), respectively. Arcelor Stainless 
USA and Rahns made sales to an affiliate, Hague Steel Corporation 
(Hague), and also to unaffiliated customers. Hague then resold subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated customers both with and without further 
processing. Arcelor Stainless USA and Hague are wholly owned by Ugine 
Gueugnon, LLC, which in turn is wholly owned by Usinor USA Holding, 
LLC. Usinor USA Holding, LLC is wholly owned by J&L Specialty Steel, 
LLC, which is wholly owned by Arcelor USA Holding. Arcelor USA Holding 
is owned by Usinor, and several other companies, which are all wholly 
owned by Arcelor. Id.
    We note that these facts constitute only minor changes to the 
ownership structure of these companies in this POR--most of the facts 
are virtually identical to those of the last review. As a result, the 
Department preliminarily determines that there is no reason to revisit 
our affiliation determinations from the previous review. See 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 47049 
47051-52 (August 7, 2003) (French SSSS 3rd Preliminary).

Normal Value Comparisons

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

Transactions Reviewed

A. Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to determine 
whether there were sufficient 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 U&A 
France's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because U&A France's aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market was viable.

B. Arm's-Length Test

    U&A France reported that it made sales in the home market to 
affiliated end users and resellers during the POR. Sales to affiliated 
customers in the home market not made at arm's-length were excluded 
from our analysis (with the exception of one company, PUM, discussed 
infra). To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length, we 
compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, 
discounts and packing. Where identical merchandise was not sold to 
unaffiliated customers, we based the comparisons on sales of the most 
similar merchandise. Where prices to the affiliated party were on 
average between 98 and 102 percent of the price to the unrelated party, 
we determined that sales made to the related party were at arm's-
length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 
2002). In our home market NV calculation, we have included U&A France's 
sales to certain of its affiliated customers because these entities 
passed the Department's arm's-length test criteria. Conversely, certain 
other affiliated customers did not pass the arm's-length test, and 
therefore sales to these affiliates have been excluded from our home 
market NV calculation.
    For the two resellers not passing the arm's-length test, U&A France 
did not provide downstream sales information. For one of these two 
resellers (``Bernier''), the Department eliminated the sales from 
consideration because U&A France had satisfactorily explained that they 
were unable to obtain the downstream information. Specifically, U&A 
France explained that Bernier had been sold to a competitor during the 
POR, and that it was no longer in a position to compel Bernier to 
cooperate. See Supplemental Questionnaire Response of Ugine & ALZ 
France S.A., dated February 10, 2004, at 3 (Feb. 10th Supplemental). 
For the second reseller (``PUM''), however, the Department 
preliminarily determines that it is appropriate to apply adverse facts 
available for the missing downstream sales information.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: 
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act; (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the 
Act, we preliminary find that the use of facts available is warranted 
for PUM's downstream sales information. In the September 8, 2003 
Section A questionnaire, the Department requested that U&A France 
report downstream sales for all affiliated resellers. On March 25, 
2004, the Department sent U&A France a letter again requesting the 
downstream sales for all three affiliated resellers. On April 21, 2004, 
U&A France submitted a response to that letter, reiterating the 
arguments in its Section A Response, and in the Feb. 10th Supplemental, 
that resales by these three affiliated customers need not be reported. 
In its response, U&A France argued that one reseller had passed the 
arm's-length test, that one, Bernier, was no longer under its control, 
and that sales by PUM were insignificant and would not be used as 
matches for U.S. sales. U&A France also claimed that it would be 
difficult to collect all of the information requested by the 
Department. It did not provide any of the requested downstream sales 
information in the database provided with that submission, nor did it 
include that information in the final revised home market database it 
submitted on May 19, 2004.
    To date, U&A France has not provided the downstream sales by any 
affiliated reseller. However, as discussed above, PUM is the only 
remaining reseller for which downstream sales should have

[[Page 47897]]

been reported. Therefore, consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) 
of the Act, because U&A France withheld information that had been 
requested by the Department and failed to provide such information in a 
timely manner, the Department is applying facts otherwise available. In 
addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the Department 
may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as 
facts otherwise available. U&A France explicitly refused to provide 
downstream information for PUM, claiming that to do so would be overly 
burdensome given the insignificant volume of this reseller's sales 
compared to the aggregate home market sales volume, and that the 
product sold by this reseller would not be matched to products sold in 
the United States. See Feb. 10th Supplemental, at 4, and Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response of Ugine & ALZ France S.A., dated April 21, 
2004, at 1-5 (April 21st Supplemental). Because U&A France explicitly 
refused to provide the requested downstream sales by PUM, the 
Department preliminarily determines that, in accordance with section 
776(b) of the Act, the application of partial adverse facts available 
is appropriate. This situation is different than that of Bernier, U&A 
France's other reseller, that failed the arm's-length test. For 
Bernier, U&A France no longer had the control necessary to compel 
cooperation. For PUM, however, U&A France did not claim that its 
control over PUM was anything less than complete, or that it was 
otherwise unable to obtain the requested downstream sales information. 
U&A France chose not to provide the information simply because it could 
not see any reason for doing so that would justify the effort.
    As adverse facts available, we will use the higher of the price 
charged to PUM (the ``upstream'' price) or the price charged for the 
most similar product purchased in the home market by an unaffiliated 
customer.\9\ In selecting this information as adverse facts available, 
we took into consideration the small volume of the sales involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In past reviews of this order, we have used only the price 
charged for the most similar product purchased in the home market by 
an unaffiliated customer. See, e.g., French SSSS 3rd Preliminary, 68 
FR at 47055. However, the arm's-length test has changed since the 
initiation of the last review. The Department now rejects sales to 
affiliates if the average price is lower than 98 percent or higher 
than 102 percent of the average price to unaffiliated customers for 
the same products. Thus, we must now take into consideration the 
fact that the price paid for the most similar product by an 
unaffiliated customer might be higher or lower than the price paid 
by the affiliate. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 
(November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Date of Sale

    As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department normally will use 
the respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date 
better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer 
establishes the essential terms of sale. For U.S. sales, U&A France 
reported either invoice date, date of entry, or shipment date as the 
date of sale, depending on the distribution channel. The Department 
preliminarily finds that invoice date is the correct date of sale for 
U.S. sales.
    For home market sales, U&A France reported invoice date as the date 
of sale, except for one distribution channel with ``sales for which the 
invoice was issued after shipment,'' for which it reported shipment 
date as the date of sale. It also explained what terms of sale are 
established after shipment for these sales. These terms, established 
after shipment, have some effect on the material terms of sale, namely 
quantity. In addition, according to U&A France, sales revenue is not 
recognized until the invoices are issued for these sales. Moreover, 
sales through this channel constitute a clear minority of home market 
sales, and the Department's preference is to use only one sales date 
per market. Thus, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the 
correct date of sale for all home market sales.

Product Comparisons

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

Normal Value

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

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production in the 
most recently completed segments of this proceeding on SSSS from 
France, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by 
U&A France in its home market were made at prices below the cost of 
production (COP), pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 
2003). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
conducted a COP analysis of home market sales by U&A France as 
described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of U&A France's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), including interest 
expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by U&A 
France in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

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

[[Page 47898]]

C. Results of the COP Test

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

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

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

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price (EP) is 
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to 
be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of 
the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first 
sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the 
date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter 
of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or 
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.
    For purposes of this review, U&A France classified all of its 
reported sales of SSSS as CEP sales. During the review period U&A 
France made sales to the United States through its three U.S. based 
affiliates, Arcelor Stainless USA, Rahn, and Hague, which then resold 
the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, because U&A 
France's U.S. sales were made by Arcelor Stainless USA, Rahn, and Hague 
after the subject merchandise was imported into the United States, it 
is appropriate to classify these sales as CEP sales.
    We calculated the CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. 
We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We also made deductions 
for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight from plant 
to distribution warehouse, international freight, marine insurance, 
U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from 
warehouse/plant to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. warehouse expenses, 
other U.S. transportation expense, wharfage expenses, and customs 
duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States, including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying 
costs, credit, warranty expenses, commissions and other indirect 
selling expenses.
    For products that were further manufactured by Hague after 
importation, we adjusted for all costs of further manufacturing in the 
United States, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. In 
calculating the cost of further manufacturing for Hague, we relied upon 
the further manufacturing information provided by U&A France.
    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 (including further manufacturing costs), based on the 
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and 
home market. We also adjusted the starting price for billing 
adjustments, discounts, rebates, and freight revenue.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV 
if we are unable to find a home market match of identical or similar 
merchandise that is not disregarded due to the cost test. Where 
appropriate, we make adjustments to CV in accordance with section 
773(a)(8) of the Act. We deduct from CV the weighted-average home 
market direct selling expenses. For these preliminary results, we did 
not have to rely on CV for NV.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

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

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV using sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP sales. However, if the 
selected comparison market sales are at a different LOT than the CEP 
sales, and a consistent pattern of price differences is manifested 
between the sales on which NV is based and other home market

[[Page 47899]]

sales at the same LOT as the export transaction, we make a LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 
sales, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT, 
and there is no basis for determining a consistent pattern of price 
differences, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). To determine 
whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine 
selling functions between the producer and the unaffiliated or 
affiliated customer (if the arm's-length test is passed) for home 
market sales, and between the producer and the affiliated customer for 
CEP sales.
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by U&A France, we 
examined all types of selling functions reported in the questionnaire 
responses. Based on a comparison of such selling functions performed in 
the home market distribution channels, we preliminarily determine that 
U&A France sold merchandise at one LOT in the home market during the 
POR.
    U&A France only reported CEP sales in the U.S. market. Because all 
of U&A France's CEP sales in the U.S. market were made through Arcelor 
Stainless USA, Rahn, and Hague, and the selling functions performed in 
these channels were similar, we preliminarily determine that there was 
one LOT in the U.S. market. For these CEP sales, fewer and different 
selling functions were performed for CEP sales than for sales at the 
home market LOT. For example, selling functions included in the home 
market LOT, but not in the CEP LOT, include some functions of strategic 
planning and marketing, all customer sales and contact, some functions 
of production planning and order evaluation, some functions of warranty 
claim analysis, all technical services, all sales-related 
administrative support, and arranging transportation to the final 
customer. See Section A Response, at Appendix 8.A. In other words, as 
explained in U&A France's Section A Response, U&A France performed very 
few selling activities for the U.S. sales because most selling 
functions were performed by the U.S. sales affiliates (e.g., Arcelor 
Stainless USA, Rahn, and Hague) and associated expenses were reported 
in one of the U.S. indirect selling expenses variables. Accordingly, we 
found that sales at the home market LOT were at a more advanced stage 
of distribution compared to the CEP sales.
    However, because the available data does not provide a basis for 
determining a LOT adjustment, we adjusted NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) 
of the Act (the CEP offset provision). We note that in all prior 
administrative reviews of this order, where similar situations existed, 
we also granted a CEP offset. See, e.g., Notice of Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 4171 (January 28, 2003); 
and, French SSSS 3rd Preliminary, 68 FR at 47054-55. See also Stainless 
Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 32501, 32506-07 (June 10, 2004).

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, in accordance with section 
773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the official 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act 
directs the Department to use the daily exchange rate in effect on the 
date of sale in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, 
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with 
the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that 
a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a 
benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods 
from France; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 8915, 8918 (March 6, 1996); Policy Bulletin 96-1: 
Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 6, 1996). The benchmark is 
defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. 
When we determine a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for 
the daily rate.

Duty Absorption

    On September 10, 2003, the Petitioners requested that the 
Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed 
during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the 
Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review 
initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or 
exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. Because this review was initiated four 
years after the publication of the order, and affiliated parties acted 
as importer of record for some or all of U&A France's U.S. sales, we 
must make a duty absorption determination in this segment of the 
proceeding within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
    On October 20, 2003, the Department requested evidence from U&A 
France that unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping 
duties to be assessed on entries during the review period. We 
established a due date of November 10, 2003. We received no response. 
On November 19, 2003, the Department sent U&A France a second letter 
reminding them of the earlier request and asking that the requested 
information be submitted by November 25, 2003. Again we received no 
response. In both letters, we advised U&A France that a failure to 
respond might result in the application of facts available.
    In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the respondent during the POR on sales for which they or their 
affiliates were importer of record, we presume that the duties will be 
absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than NV. This 
presumption can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an agreement between 
the respondent/importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the 
unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on 
the subject merchandise. In this case, however, U&A France did not 
respond to the Department's two requests for information. Accordingly, 
based on the record, we cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States will pay the ultimately assessed duty. Therefore, 
we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by U&A 
France during the POR on those sales at less than fair value for which 
its affiliates were the importers of record. See, e.g., Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 10659 (March 8, 2004).

Preliminary Results of Review

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

          Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U&A France..................................................       11.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47900]]

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

Assessment

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

Cash Deposits

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) 
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for U&A France will be that 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value 
(LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established in the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review 
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, which 
was 9.38 percent. See Antidumping Duty Order, 64 FR at 40565.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under regulation 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice is published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 29, 2004.
Jeffrey A. May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-18034 Filed 8-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P