[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40318-40320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3713]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-808


Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from India. The review 
covers three companies for the period December 1, 2002, through 
November 30, 2003. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, we have made changes, including correction of a clerical 
error, in the margin calculations. The final weighted-average margins 
are listed below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this 
notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case at (202) 482-3174 or 
Minoo Hatten at (202) 482-1690, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 7, 2005, we published the preliminary results of review, 
extended the time limit for these final results, and invited parties to 
comment. Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent To Revoke Order In Part, 
and Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Review, 70 FR 1413 
(January 7, 2005) (Preliminary Results). We received case briefs from 
the petitioner,\1\ Chandan Steel, Ltd. (Chandan), and Viraj Alloys, 
Ltd., and VSL Wires, Ltd. (collectively Viraj). We received rebuttal 
briefs from Chandan, Viraj, and Isibars.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is Carpenter Technology Corp.
    \2\ Isibars is comprised of the following entities: Isibars 
Limited, Zenstar Impex, and Shaktiman Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd.
    The Department determined that several case and rebuttal briefs 
contained new factual information. In a separate memorandum, the 
Department outlined its rationale for either accepting or rejecting 
such information. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled 
Submissions of Untimely New Factual Information in the 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod from India, dated June 8, 2005. The Department 
requested that parties redact the new information rejected by the 
Department and any references to the information in the submissions 
and resubmit the documents.

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

[[Page 40319]]

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted this 
review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain SSWRs, which are 
hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, 
octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. SSWRs are made of alloy 
steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These 
products are only manufactured by hot-rolling, are normally sold in 
coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of SSWRs sold 
in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and 
pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
    The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 
7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs in the 
context of this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum'' from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 6, 2005 
(Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached 
to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues that the parties 
have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. 
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 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market

    As discussed in detail in the preliminary results, the Department 
disregarded certain home-market sales that Viraj sold at prices below 
the cost of production. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR 1422. For these 
final results, the Department disregarded home-market sales made by 
Viraj and Isibars at below-cost prices.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to our calculations that have changed the results for certain 
companies. Further, although we used total adverse facts available to 
establish a dumping margin for Isibars in the Preliminary Results, we 
explained in that notice that we would allow Isibars an opportunity to 
correct certain deficiencies in its cost data for the final results. 
Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, we issued Isibars an additional 
cost-of-production supplemental questionnaire. Isibars corrected its 
prior deficiencies, and we conducted a cost verification. We calculated 
a dumping margin for Isibars and released those calculations to the 
parties for comment on May 13, 2005. See Post-Preliminary Draft 
Analysis Memorandum of Isibars Limited for Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
from India Adm. Rev. 12/1/02 - 11/30/03, dated May 13, 2005.

Revocation of Order in Part

    On December 31, 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). With its request for revocation, 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 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 consecutive years forming the basis of the 
request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order 
if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, the 
company sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will 
consider the following: (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 Preliminary 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 SSWR at not less than NV during the current review period. In 
addition, Viraj sold SSWR at not less than NV in the two previous 
administrative reviews in which it was involved. See Stainless Steel 
Wire Rods From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 29923 (May 26, 2004) 
(covering the period from December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2002), 
and Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Notice of Amended Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 68 FR 38301 (June 27, 2003) (covering the period from December 
1, 2000, through November 30, 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 
duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we 
determine that Viraj qualifies for revocation of the order on SSWR 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to 
merchandise produced and exported by

[[Page 40320]]

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 December 1, 2003, and will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund any cash deposits for 
such entries.
    Although the petitioner has requested that the Department not 
revoke the order with respect to Viraj pending the resolution of 
outstanding litigation, the evidence currently before the Department 
shows that Viraj has met each of the criteria set forth in 19 CFR 
351.222. See the Decision Memorandum at comment 8 for further 
discussion of this issue.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period December 1, 
2002, through November 30, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Producer or Exporter                        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel, Ltd.............................................    2.10%
Isibars Limited, Zenstar Impex, and Shaktiman Steel Casting       27.20%
 Pvt. Ltd......................................................
The Viraj Group (Viraj Alloys, Ltd. and VSL Wires, Ltd.).......    0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer- or customer-specific 
assessment rates or amounts, as appropriate, for merchandise subject to 
this review. We will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly 
to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results of administrative review for all 
shipments of SSWR from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for 
merchandise exported by other producers or exporters that were reviewed 
or investigated previously, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 
the most recent rate published in the final determination or final 
results for which the producer or exporter received an individual rate; 
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 
review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation but 
the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established 
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject 
merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 
firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash-deposit rate 
shall be 48.80 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 54110 
(October 20, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect 
until the publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice 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 the 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely 
written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    These final results of administrative review and notice are issued 
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 
the Act.

    Dated: July 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX [hzbar] Issues in the Decision Memorandum

A. Issue with regard to Chandan
    Comment 1: Constructed-Value Profit Rate
B. Issues with regard to Isibars
    Comment 2: U.S. Movement Expenses
    Comment 3: Unreconciled Cost Difference
C. Issues with regard to Viraj
    Comment 4: Debt-Restructuring
    Comment 5: Review of Tax Returns at Verification
    Comment 6: Collapsing of VAL and VSL
    Comment 7: Request for Additional Sales and Cost Data
    Comment 8: Revocation
    Comment 9: Credit Expenses
    Comment 10: Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in the Country of 
Manufacture
    Comment 11: Direct Material Costs
    Comment 12: Costs of Affiliated Power Company
    Comment 13: VAL's Fixed Overhead Costs
    Comment 14: Interest Expenses
    Comment 15: G&A Expenses
    Comment 16: Duty Drawback
    Comment 17: Constructed-Value Profit Rate
    Comment 18: Clerical Error in the CEP-Profit Calculation
[FR Doc. E5-3713 Filed 7-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S