[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55409-55412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results, Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To 
Revoke in Part

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On March 8, 2004, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel bar from India (69 FR 10666). This review 
covers seven manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. The period of review is February 1, 2002, through 
January 31, 2003. We are rescinding 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 determined to revoke the antidumping 
duty order with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., 
and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Kalbaugh, Office of AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This review covers the following seven manufacturers/exporters: 
Chandan Steel Limited (Chandan); Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd. (FACOR); 
Isibars Limited (Isibars); Mukand, Ltd. (Mukand); Jyoti Steel 
Industries (Jyoti); Venus Wire Industries Limited; and Viraj Alloys, 
Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (collectively 
``Viraj'').
    On March 8, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
bar (SSB) from India. See 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, 69 FR 10666 (Mar. 8, 2004) (Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
In April 2004, we received case briefs 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)), Chandan, and Viraj, and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and 
Viraj.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

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

[[Page 55410]]

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 order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2002, through January 31, 
2003.

Partial Rescission of Review

    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 or 
Mukand and both of these parties 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. (See Preliminary Results, 69 FR 
at 10667).

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the 
review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the 
POR at prices below their costs of production (COPs) within the meaning 
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these 
final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary 
Results, except as discussed in the accompanying ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, AD/CVD Operations, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, dated September 7, 2004.
    We found 20 percent or more of Venus's and Viraj's sales of a given 
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the 
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these 
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.
    Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Venus 
and Viraj made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. 
Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used 
the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, pursuant 
to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Facts Available

    In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was 
appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following 
producer/exporters: Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti. We find that it 
continues to be appropriate to apply facts available to these 
respondents. 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, as provided in subsection 782(i) of the 
Act, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As 
in the preliminary results, the Department must use facts otherwise 
available with regard to Isibars pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(B) of the Act. For Chandan and Jyoti, as in the preliminary results, 
the Department finds that we must resort to facts otherwise available 
in reaching our final results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), 
and (C) of the Act.
    See Preliminary Results 69 FR 10668-10670, for a detailed 
discussion of the facts regarding each of these respondents, as well 
the Decision Memo at Comment 1 for further discussion of the use of 
facts available for Chandan.

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, neither Isibars or Jyoti argued that it was incapable of 
providing the information the Department requested, and we found that 
the necessary records were within Chandan's control (see the Decision 
Memo at Comment 1). 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 also fundamental to 
the dumping analysis, and the missing information was within the 
respondents' control, 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 segment 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 recently completed 
segment of the proceeding. See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 47543 (Aug. 
11, 2003) (2001-2002 SSB AR Final). See also Extruded Rubber

[[Page 55411]]

Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 12752, 12762-3 (Mar. 16, 1998).) We continue to find that 
the information upon which this margin is based has sufficient 
probative value to satisfy the requirements of section 776(c) of the 
Act. See Preliminary Results, 69 FR 10670.

Revocation

    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 normal value (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).
    In the preliminarily results, we found that the request from Viraj 
met all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We continue to find that 
this is the case for Viraj. With regard to the criteria of subsection 
19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show that Viraj 
sold SSB at not less than NV 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 2001-2002 
SSB AR Final, 68 FR 47543, 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 
determine that it 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. Thus, we 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. 
Additionally, we find that the continued application of the antidumping 
order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See the Decision 
Memo at Comment 3. Therefore, we 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we 
are terminating 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 U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund any cash deposits for 
such entries.
    The petitioners have requested that the Department not revoke the 
order with respect to Viraj pending the resolution of outstanding 
litigation. However, we disagree with the petitioners because the 
evidence currently before us shows that Viraj has met each of the 
criteria set forth in 19 CFR 351.222. See the Decision Memo at Comment 
3 for further discussion.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in 
the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which 
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a 
complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the 
Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the 
relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist for the period February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel Limited......................................        21.02
Isibars Limited............................................        21.02
Jyoti Steel Industries.....................................        21.02
Venus Wire Industries Limited..............................         0.06
Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd. and Viraj                  0.00
 ImpoExpo, Ltd.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 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.
    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). To 
determine whether Venus's per-unit 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 export prices.

[[Page 55412]]

    For Chandan, Isibars, and Jyoti, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries at the rates indicated above.
    The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP 
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because we have revoked the order with respect to Viraj's exports 
of subject merchandise, we will order the Customs Service 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 following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of SSB 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 the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above (except 
for Venus, where no cash deposit will be required); (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 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) 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.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: September, 7, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo

Comments

    1. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available (AFA) for Chandan.
    2. Use of Total AFA for Viraj.
    3. Revocation for Viraj.
    4. Cost of Production (COP) Data for VFL.
    5. Depreciation Expenses for Viraj.
    6. Interest Expenses for Viraj.
    7. Waived Interest Expenses for Viraj.
 [FR Doc. E4-2188 Filed 9-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P