[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 43 (Monday, March 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10977-10982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-924]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India with respect
to Chandan Steel Ltd. This review covers sales of stainless steel bar
from India to the United States during the period February 1, 2003,
through January 31, 2004. We have preliminarily found that sales have
been made below normal value by Chandan Steel Ltd. We invite interested
parties to comment on these preliminary results.
We are also rescinding this administrative review with respect to
Ferro Alloys Corp., Ltd.; Isibars Ltd.; Mukand, Ltd.; Venus Wire
Industries Ltd; and the Viraj Group, Ltd. (Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; Viraj
Forgings, Ltd.; and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.).
DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown or Julie Santoboni, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4987 and (202) 482-4194, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published a notice in the Federal Register providing opportunity for
interested parties to request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India. See
Notice of Opportunity to Request Review of Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR
5125 (February 3, 2004).
The Department received requests for an administrative review from
Chandan Steel Ltd. (Chandan); Ferro Alloys Corp., Ltd. (FACOR); Isibars
Ltd. (Isibars); Mukand, Ltd. (Mukand); Venus Wire Industries Limited
(Venus); and Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.
[[Page 10978]]
and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (collectively referred to as the Viraj Group)
on February 27, 2004.
The Department initiated an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSB from India for the above-named companies
on March 26, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 69 FR
15788 (March 26, 2004). We issued questionnaires to each of these
companies on March 30, 2004.
On April 15, 2004, 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)) requested that the
Department conduct a verification of all the respondents. Venus,
Mukand, FACOR, Isibars, and the Viraj Group withdrew their requests for
an administrative review on April 19, 2004, and May 3, 2004. For
further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of
this notice, below.
On May 3, 2004, we received a response to section A of the
Department's questionnaire from Chandan. Chandan reported that it only
had export sales of stainless steel bright bar (SSBB), and that its
home market sales of stainless steel hot-rolled bar (SSHR) were less
than 5 percent of the volume of its U.S. sales of SSBB. In addition,
Chandan reported preliminary data on SSB sales made to its largest
third-country markets. On May 18, 2004, Chandan submitted a response to
sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire, containing complete
sales databases for Chandan's largest third-country markets: Australia,
Belgium, and Brazil. On June 14, 2004, the petitioners filed comments
on Chandan's sections A-C responses, and recommended that the
Department select Belgium as the third-country comparison market for
normal value (NV), alleging that Chandan made more sales to Belgium
than to Australia of merchandise identical to merchandise it sold in
the United States.
On June 29, 2004, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Chandan
requesting the quantity and value of its home market sales of SSBB and
SSHR, and the certifications required by 19 CFR 351.303(g). We received
Chandan's response on July 6, 2004. In that response, Chandan reported
that its home market sales of SSHR were of defective merchandise and
that it did not sell defective merchandise in its export markets. On
July 12, 2004, the Department issued an additional supplemental
questionnaire requesting that Chandan revise its home market data and
report its home market sales of SSHR. We received Chandan's revised
home market sales data on July 27, 2004.
On August 11, 2004, in response to Chandan's revised home market
data, the petitioners alleged that Chandan's home market sales of SSHR
were unsuitable for comparison purposes because the bar was defective
and fundamentally different from the bar sold in the United States. As
a result, the petitioners reiterated their recommendation that Belgium
be selected as the comparison market. Simultaneously, they made a
timely allegation that Chandan's third-country sales were made below
the cost of production (COP).
On August 17, 2004, Chandan requested that the Department exclude
certain stainless steel flat-bars from the antidumping duty order. The
petitioners submitted comments in opposition to Chandan's scope
exclusion request on August 19, 2004.
On September 24, 2004 we selected Australia as the third-country
comparison market after determining that Chandan's home market was not
viable. See the September 24, 2004, memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from
Team entitled, ``Selection of Comparison Market for Chandan''
(Comparison Market Memo). We chose Australia because it was the largest
market by volume and the composition of merchandise sold to Australia
provided a greater number of similar product matches for sales to the
United States.
Also, on September 24, 2004, the Department found that, because of
the complexity of assessing home market viability, choosing the
appropriate third-country market, and the late filing of a cost
allegation by the petitioners, it was not practicable to complete this
review within the time period prescribed. Accordingly, we extended the
time limit for completing the preliminary results of this review to no
later than February 28, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 57265 (September 24, 2004).
We found that the petitioners' allegation of sales below cost
provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Chandan's
comparison market sales were made at prices below COP, within the
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Consequently, on October 5, 2004,
we initiated a COP investigation of Chandan's comparison market sales
during the period of review (POR). See the October 5, 2004 memorandum
to Susan Kuhbach from Team entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Allegation of Sales Below the
Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, Ltd.'' Accordingly, we notified
Chandan that it must respond to section D of the antidumping duty
questionnaire.
On October 1, 2004, we issued an additional supplemental
questionnaire to Chandan addressing issues raised by sections A-C of
its response. We received Chandan's supplemental A-C and section D
questionnaire responses on November 12, 2004. Chandan's November 12,
2004 response was severely deficient; as a result, we requested a
revised submission that Chandan submitted on November 16, 2004.
In the November 16, 2004 submission, the law firm that had been
certifying and filing Chandan's submissions stated that it did not
represent Chandan in the current administrative review. On November 22,
2004, we requested clarification of the relationship between the law
firm and Chandan in the current proceeding. See November 22, 2004
letter from Ryan Langan, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement,
Office 1 to Mr. Peter Koenig. Subsequently, we determined that the law
firm had failed to file a formal notice of appearance and an official
request for adminsitrative protective order (APO) access. The
Department afforded the law firm an opportunity to make such filings,
but the Department received no response. Therefore, the Department
ceased all correspondence with the law firm and corresponded directly
with Chandan.
The Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires in
December 2004 and January 2005. We received responses between December
2004 and February 2005.
On January 28, 2005, the petitioners commented on Chandan's January
5, 2005, response. In those comments, the petitioners noted the
following problems: (1) Failure to provide adequate cost information on
a finish-specific basis; (2) failure to provide clear information about
Chandan's affiliate in the United States, Chandan USA; and (3) failure
to provide importer of record and entered value information. The
petitioners argued that, due to these deficiencies, the Department
should either use partial facts available, adverse facts available or
the Belgian sales as the
[[Page 10979]]
comparison market values. On February 18, 2005, we received comments
from the petitioners regarding Chandan's February response.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order of shipments of SSB. SSB means
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut-to-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 the order is dispositive.
Scope Exclusion
On August 9, 2004, we received a scope exclusion request from
Chandan. In that request, Chandan sought to exclude certain stainless
steel flat-bars from the scope. Specifically, Chandan sought to exclude
stainless steel hot rolled flat-bars with sizes ranging from \3/4\'' x
\1/8\'' to 8'' x 3'' (19.05 mm x 3.18 mm to 203.20 mm x 76.20 mm), with
a uniform solid cross section the length of the bar in rectangular
shape. Chandan explained that the bars were not manufactured in the
United States and that the stainless steel flat-bar applications were
different from those of stainless steel bar.
On August 19, 2004, the petitioners requested that the Department
reject Chandan's exclusion request because Chandan failed to prove the
necessary elements for a scope exclusion ruling as outlined in 19 CFR
351.225(c). Furthermore, the petitioners provided evidence from
domestic producers of stainless steel hot rolled flat-bars that such
bars are produced in the United States, in direct contradiction to
Chandan's claims.
On February 11, 2005, we returned Chandan's scope exclusion
request, with instructions to refile, because it failed to follow the
scope exclusion requirements outlined in section 351.225(c) of the
Department's regulations. See February 11, 2005, letter from Ryan
Langan, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1 to Chandan
Steel Ltd., in c/o Mr. Pravin Jain. Specifically, Chandan failed to
provide, as required by section 351.225(c)(1) of the Department's
regulations, a detailed description of the product, its current HTSUS
numbers and technical uses, citations to any applicable statutory
authority, and factual information supporting the request.
Period of Review
The period of review is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above in the ``Background'' section of this notice, Venus,
Mukand, FACOR, Isibars, and the Viraj Group withdrew their requests for
an administrative review on April 19, 2004, and May 3, 2004. Because
the petitioners did not request an administrative review for any of
these companies and the requests to withdraw were made within the time
limit specified under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this
administrative review as it pertains to these companies.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SSB by Chandan to the United States
were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP) and
constructed export price (CEP), as appropriate, to the NV, as described
in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs and
CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the
foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course
of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section
below.
Product Comparisons
When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the
Act, we considered all products produced by Chandan as described in the
``Scope of the Order'' to be the foreign like product. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the
ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by
Chandan in the following order: general type of finish, grade,
remelting process, type of final finishing operation, shape, and size.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
Chandan reported that all of its sales of SSB to the United States
during the POR were EP sales. According to Chandan, these sales were
made to unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to the date
of importation. However, the record is unclear with respect to
Chandan's U.S. sales distribution processes to these companies, the
identity of all the companies involved, and the relationship, if any,
to Chandan. The record does indicate, however, that Chandan made
certain U.S. sales through an affiliate in the United States, i.e.,
Chandan USA, to unaffiliated customers. In addition, Chandan reported
extra expenses for the sales made through Chandan USA. These extra
expenses appear to be incurred by an unaffiliated party in the United
States and are related to that party's activities in the United States
on behalf of Chandan. According to information provided by Chandan, the
unaffiliated party is later reimbursed for those extra expenses by
Chandan through Chandan USA.
For these preliminary results, we are treating sales through
Chandan's U.S. affiliate as CEP sales. As noted above, Chandan has an
affiliated entity (Chandan USA) in the United States that appears to be
the entity that makes the first sale in the United States to an
unaffiliated customer, and Chandan appears to incur expenses that are
related to economic activity in the United States. We intend to seek
further information about these sales prior to our final results of
review.
[[Page 10980]]
Export Price
We calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for
those sales Chandan made directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States prior to the date of importation. We based EP on packed,
CFR prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.
We made deductions from the EP starting price, where appropriate,
for foreign inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of
export, marine insurance, and international freight in accordance with
section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
Constructed Export Price
As stated above, we treated those sales made through Chandan's U.S.
affiliate, Chandan USA, as CEP sales. We calculated CEP in accordance
with 772(b) of the Act, based on packed, CIF and CFR prices to
Chandan's unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign
inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of export, marine
insurance, and international freight. In accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated
with economic activity in the United States including: commissions,
credit expenses, and extra expenses incurred in the United States.
Additionally, we made an adjustment for profit in accordance with
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
Selection of Comparison Market
Because Chandan's home market sales were of defective merchandise,
we based NV on sales to one of Chandan's third country markets. See
Comparison Market Memo. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.404, we selected Australia as the third-country
comparison market.
Citing 19 CFR 351.404(e)(1), the petitioners have argued that
Belgium, not Australia, is the most appropriate third-country
comparison market. The petitioners claim that the Department erred in
selecting Australia as the third-country comparison market when it
determined the number of potential matches in the Australian market by
examining size ranges, rather than the number of matches of identical
size. The petitioners assert that using a specific size would result in
a higher percentage of identical matches in Belgium. Furthermore, the
petitioners argue that the Department must calculate Chandan's NV using
identical model matches because, when looking at the most recent third-
country databases supplied by Chandan, there still are significant
differences regarding the product characteristics. The petitioners
state that, assuming that size ranges are an adequate measure for
product matching, there are significantly more similar sales matches
based on grade, shape, finish, and diameter between sales to the United
States and to Belgium than there are between sales to the United States
and sales to Australia or Brazil.
We considered all the criteria under 19 CFR 351.404(e) in
determining the appropriate third-country comparison market including:
(1) Whether the foreign like product exported to a particular third
country is more similar to the subject merchandise exported to the
United States than is the foreign like product exported to other third
countries; (2) whether the volume of sales to a particular third
country is larger than the volume of sales to other third countries;
and (3) other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate.
We found that Australia is Chandan's largest third-country market
by volume. When we compared the sales made to the United States to
those made to the third-country markets reported by Chandan, we were
able to identify a greater number of similar matches of U.S. sales to
Australian sales, than to Belgian sales. This is the same approach the
Department uses in its margin analysis. Therefore, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.404(e), we have chosen Australia as the appropriate third-
country market.
Cost of Production
As stated above in the ``Background'' section of this notice, the
petitioners submitted a below-cost allegation. We found that the
petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that Chandan's third-country sales were made at prices below
the COP, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. See the
October 5, 2004 memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach entitled
``Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Chandan Steel,
Ltd.'' As a result, we initiated an investigation to determine whether
Chandan made comparison market sales during the POR at prices below
their COPs.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative
expenses (G&A), and interest expenses. For purposes of these
preliminary results, we have relied on the COP data submitted by
Chandan. Before the final results, we intend to seek additional
information from Chandan about its finishing costs.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP
to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product during the
POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine
whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. For purposes of
this comparison, we used COPs exclusive of selling and packing
expenses. The comparison market prices were exclusive of any applicable
movement charges, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: (1)
Within an extended period of time in substantial quantities; and (2) at
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP,
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we
determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard
those sales of that product, because we determine that in such
instances the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities''
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine
whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1)(B) and (2)(D) of the Act.
We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent
of Chandan's comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP.
In addition, such sales were made within an extended period of time and
did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of
time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining above-
cost sales as the basis for determining NV in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 10981]]
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.;
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order
to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in
the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution
system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), including
selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, (i.e., NV based on
either home market or third country prices \1\) we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only
the selling expenses reflected in the price after the deduction of
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP
or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at
a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it
practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from
the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining
whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price
comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department
shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the
Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61733.
Chandan reported one level of trade in both U.S. and third-country
markets. We found no difference between the relevant selling activities
of the CEP LOT and the third-country LOT. In addition, we found that
the only difference in selling activities between the third-country LOT
and the EP LOT was that there were commissions incurred on some U.S.
sales but none on third-country sales. This difference was not
substantial. Therefore, we find that selling activities were performed
at the same relative level of intensity in both markets, and that the
EP and CEP levels of trade were the same as the third-country LOT.
Accordingly, all sales comparisons are at the same LOT for Chandan and
an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.
Calculation of Normal Value
Price to Price Comparisons
We based NV on packed FOB, CIF, and CFR prices to Chandan's third-
country unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, including: Foreign inland freight
from the plant/warehouse to the port of export, marine insurance, and
international freight.
We also reduced the starting price for comparison market packing
costs incurred on the comparison market sales, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased NV to include U.S. packing
expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). We made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, where appropriate, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition,
we made an adjustment to NV to account for commissions paid on some
U.S. sales but not on sales in the third country, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.410(e). As the offset for U.S. commissions, we used third-
county indirect selling expenses to the extent of the lesser of the
commission or the indirect selling expenses. In addition, we made
adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.411.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all
information to be used in making our final results.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping
margin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/producer/exporter margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel Ltd........................................... 10.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Department will issue the final results of the administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results.
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. According to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), for those sales with a reported entered value, we will
calculate 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. Chandan did not to report
entered value for the importers it identified. Therefore, to estimate
entered value, we deducted from gross unit price international freight,
marine insurance, and document clearing expenses. If, at the final
results, we find that determining assessment rates on an ad valorem
basis is not appropriate, we will do so on a per unit assessment basis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total
dumping margins for
[[Page 10982]]
each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the
review period.
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of SSB from India, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will
be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if
the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for
previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, or the 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. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915,
66921 (Dec. 28, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 28, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-924 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P