[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54023-54026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-810)


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the

[[Page 54024]]

preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The period of review is 
February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. We gave interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our 
analysis of the comment received, we have made certain changes for the 
final results. The final dumping margin for Chandan Steel, Ltd. is 
listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section of this 
notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland or Andrew McAllister, 
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) 482-1279 
and (202) 482-1174, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since the publication of the preliminary results of this review 
(see Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 
70 FR 10977 (March 7, 2005) (``Preliminary Results'')), the following 
events have occurred:
    On March 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') 
issued a supplemental questionnaire to the respondent in this review, 
Chandan Steel, Ltd. (``Chandan''). We received Chandan's response on 
March 21, 2005. On March 28, 2005, the Department received a submission 
from Chandan attempting to supplement its U.S. sales, and corresponding 
costs, for a group of stainless steel flat bar (``SSFB'') sales made to 
the United States during the period of review (``POR''). On April 4, 
2005, 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'') (collectively, the ``petitioners''), argued that Chandan's 
March 28, 2005, submission should be rejected by the Department on the 
basis that it was untimely filed. On May 12, 2005, the Department 
rejected Chandan's March 28, 2005, submission because the information 
and the data contained in the submission represented untimely filed 
factual information. See letter from Susan Kuhbach to Peter Koenig, 
counsel to Chandan Steel Ltd., dated May 12, 2005.
    In May and June of 2005, we conducted verification of the sales and 
cost of production (``COP'') information contained in Chandan's 
questionnaire responses at the company's production facilities located 
in Umbergaon, Gujarat, India. The verification report was issued on 
July 22, 2005. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales 
and Cost Responses of Chandan Steel, Ltd. in the 2003/2004 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India,'' 
(``SCVR'') dated July 22, 2005. The report is on file in the Central 
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (``CRU'').
    On June 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an extension of the time limit for the final results in the antidumping 
duty administrative review to no later than August 25, 2005, in 
accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''). See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 31425 (June 1, 2005).
    On July 29, 2005, we received a case brief from the petitioners. We 
did not receive a case or a rebuttal brief from Chandan.
    On August 24, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an extension of the time limit for the final results in the 
antidumping duty administrative review to no later than September 6, 
2005, in accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless Steel 
Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 49567 (August 24, 2005).

Scope of the Order

    Merchandise covered by the order is shipments of stainless steel 
bar (``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.
    On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that 
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel 
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this proceeding. See 
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless 
Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final 
Scope Ruling (May 23, 2005).

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the sales and cost information submitted by Chandan. We used 
standard verification procedures, including an on-site examination of 
Chandan's production facilities, and an examination of the relevant 
sales, cost, and financial records.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issue raised in the case brief submitted by the petitioners in 
this review is addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Bar from India'' from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 
6, 2005 (``Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this 
notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a description of the 
issue that the petitioners have raised and to which we have responded 
in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
the issue raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in 
this

[[Page 54025]]

public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum 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 Memorandum are identical in 
content.

A. Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
will apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party (A) withholds 
information requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) 
provides information which cannot be verified as provided by section 
782(i).
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide the party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency within the applicable 
time limits. If that party submits further deficient information, then, 
subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all 
or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. 
Section 782(e) of the Act provides further that the Department shall 
not decline to consider submitted information by an interested party 
that is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the 
applicable requirements established by the Department if (1) the 
information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties. Thus, if any one of these criteria is not met, the 
Department may decline to consider the information at issue in making 
its determination.
    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, on March 28, 
2005, the Department received a submission from Chandan with additional 
information and data with respect to sales of SSFB, which is covered 
under the scope of this order. On May 12, 2005, we determined that the 
information and data contained in the submission represented untimely 
filed factual information; therefore, we rejected this submission. See 
section 351.302(c)(2) of the Department's regulations. At verification, 
we verified the quantity of sales of SSFB to the United States. 
Additionally, we reviewed invoices for two of the sales of SSFB to the 
United States and confirmed that, according to the product 
characteristics, these sales should have been reported in Chandan's 
U.S. sales listing.
    In addition, at verification we found numerous errors and omissions 
with respect to Chandan's sales information contained in its comparison 
market (``CM'') and U.S. sales databases. Specifically, Chandan: (1) 
failed to report marine insurance expenses on certain U.S. sales and 
reported all marine insurance expenses in U.S. dollars rather than the 
currency in which they were incurred (i.e., rupees); (2) misreported 
foreign inland freight charges and international freight charges for 
certain U.S. and CM sales; (3) calculated credit expenses in both the 
U.S. and CM sales listings incorrectly; and (4) misclassified its 
fumigation expenses incurred on CM sales as indirect selling expenses 
rather than direct selling expenses in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.410(c) of the Department's regulations.
    Similarly, in verifying Chandan's cost information, we identified 
errors and information from Chandan's response that could not be 
supported. Specifically, Chandan (1) provided revised production 
quantities during the course of verification which precluded the 
Department from verifying this information; (2) could not support its 
billet cost allocation for certain raw materials such as chromium, 
nickel, and titanium to certain grades of SSB; (3) could not support 
its allocation of rolling costs; (4) could not support its allocation 
of costs at the bright bar stage of production; and (5) misreported the 
scrap value in offsetting its reported rolling and bright bar costs for 
certain grades of bright bar. See Decision Memorandum.
    For some of the deficiencies and omissions cited above, the 
Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an 
accurate and otherwise reliable margin for Chandan is not available on 
the record. Furthermore, the Department finds that Chandan failed to 
provide information requested by the Department in a timely manner and 
in the form required, significantly impeded the proceeding, and 
provided unverifiable information pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 
(D) of the Act. Although, in isolation, the aforementioned deficiencies 
may not have warranted the application of facts otherwise available, 
the multitude of missing and incorrect data, in conjunction with 
Chandan's inability to support much of its submitted cost data at 
verification and the fact that Chandan submitted the information 
regarding sales and cost data for SSFB after the established deadline, 
leads the Department to conclude that Chandan's sales and cost 
information does not meet the standards for consideration of 
information as outlined in section 782(e) of the Act. For these 
reasons, we find that the use of facts otherwise available is necessary 
for Chandan.

B. Adverse Facts Available

    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with a request for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. 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 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (``SAA''). 
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997) and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United 
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon'').
    In determining the appropriate facts available to assign to 
Chandan, we find that Chandan did not act to the best of its ability in 
this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. See 
Nippon 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83; see also Decision Memorandum. In not 
reporting its sales and cost data for SSFB at the time it provided its 
questionnaire responses for other categories of SSB, Chandan did not 
provide the Department with full and complete answers. With respect to 
discrepancies in its reporting of sales expenses, we note that Chandan 
did not put forth its maximum effort, resulting in numerous errors 
discovered by the Department at verification. With respect to its 
reporting of costs, although the

[[Page 54026]]

Department did not find inherent flaws in Chandan's cost methodology, 
we find that Chandan did not act to the best of its ability by virtue 
of its inadequate record keeping. We note that, for each stage of 
production (i.e., billet, rolling, and bright bar), Chandan failed to 
retain essential documentation to support its allocation methodologies.
    Therefore, we find that an adverse inference is warranted in 
selecting facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act further 
provides that the Department may use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA''), information derived from: (1) the petition, (2) a final 
determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review, or (4) any 
other information placed on the record.
    As AFA for Chandan, we have assigned a margin of 19.80 percent. 
This margin was calculated for Uday Engineering Works in the 2001 
antidumping duty new shipper review and represents the highest 
calculated weighted-average margin determined for any respondent in any 
segment of this proceeding. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final 
Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 
69721 (November 19, 2002) (``New Shipper Review Final Results'').
    Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See 19 CFR 351.308(d).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated dumping margin 
from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question 
the reliability of the margin for that time period. See Heavy Forged 
Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 
55581 (September 15, 2004), and attached Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 18.
    The highest calculated margin in the history of this proceeding is 
19.80 percent. See New Shipper Review Final Results. In this review, 
there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate 
as facts available. There are no calculated margins for any other 
respondents in this administrative review. Therefore, there is no 
reason to question the relevance of this margin for Chandan, and for 
the reasons stated above, we find that the 19.80 percent rate is 
corroborated to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with 
section 776(c) of the Act.

Final Results of the Review

    For the firm listed below, we find that the following percentage 
margin exists for the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 
2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exporter/Manufacturer                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel, Ltd..................................               19.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. For Chandan, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries at the rate indicated above. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days 
of publication of these final results of review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all 
shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption, effective on or after the publication date of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) 
of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed company will be 
the rate listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a 
company's weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the 
original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the 
cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the less than fair value investigation. See Stainless 
Steel Bar from India; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These cash deposit requirements 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

APPENDIX I

Comment in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Use of Total Adverse Facts Available for Chandan
[FR Doc. E5-4976 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S