[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29916-29918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Intent To Partially 
Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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 for the period 
February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. The Department intends to 
rescind this review with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, 
Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL 
Wires, Ltd., after concluding that there were no entries of merchandise 
subject to the order during the period of review.

DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India. See Antidumping Duty 
Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 
(February 21, 2005). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a 
notice in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for interested 
parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on SSB from India for the period of review (``POR'') February 1, 
2005, through January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 4, 
2006, we received a timely request for administrative review from 
Isibars Limited (``Isibars''). On February 28, 2006, timely review 
requests were received from Facor Steels Limited (``Facor''); Mukand 
Limited (``Mukand''); and Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy 
Company, Crucible Specialty Metals, North American Stainless, Universal 
Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the 
``petitioners''). The petitioners requested an administrative review of 
the following companies because, according to the request, the 
petitioners believed these firms were manufacturing and/or exporting 
the subject merchandise to the United States: the ``Viraj Group, 
including but necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj 
Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, 
and VSL Wires, Ltd.''; Akai Asian; Atlas

[[Page 29917]]

Stainless (``Atlas''); Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (``Bhansali''); 
Grand Foundry, Ltd. (``Grand Foundry''); Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 
(``Meltroll''); Sindia Steels Limited (``Sindia''); Snowdrop Trading 
Pvt. Ltd. (``Snowdrop''); and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. 
(``Venus'').
    On April 5, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department initiated an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India 
with respect to Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, 
Isibars, Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop, Venus, and conditionally 
initiated an administrative review with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd. 
(``VAL''), Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (``VIL''), Viraj Forgings, Ltd. 
(``VFL''), Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., 
(collectively, the ``Viraj entities'').\1\ See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral 
of Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006) (``Initiation 
Notice''). In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that, 
although the Department revoked the order in part with respect to 
entries of the merchandise subject to the order produced and exported 
by Viraj (Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, 
Ltd.), the Department was conditionally initiating a review with 
respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, 
Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., pending 
further information from the requestor as to sales of subject 
merchandise not covered by the revocation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For this Federal Register notice, we use the terms 
``Viraj,'' ``the Viraj Group'' and ``the Viraj entities'' 
interchangeably. Moreover, this notice pertains only to the 
Department's intent to rescind the current administrative review 
with respect to the Viraj entities. Therefore, this notice will not 
discuss developments in the administrative review with respect to 
Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, Isibars, 
Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop, and Venus.
    \2\ The Department revoked the order in part, with respect to 
entries of merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by 
``Viraj,'' a collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; 
Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The revocation was 
effective February 1, 2003. See Stainless Steel Bar From India; 
Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
in Part, and Determination to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409, 55410-11 
(September 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    Merchandise covered by the order is 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 this order 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).

Post-Initiation Developments

    On April 6, 2006, the Department requested that, in light of the 
previous revocation determination, the petitioners clarify the specific 
producers or exporters for which they were seeking review and, for each 
company, whether they were requesting a review as to merchandise 
produced by that company, or only merchandise exported by that company. 
Moreover, the Department indicated that absent adequate clarification, 
it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to the 
Viraj Group. See April 6, 2006, letter from Julie H. Santoboni, Program 
Manager, to the petitioners.
    On April 7, 2006, the petitioners responded to the Department's 
request for further information stating that they were seeking a review 
of any of the listed companies (i.e., the Viraj Group) in their 
capacity as either a producer or exporter (or both, with the exception 
of VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise subject to the order during the 
POR. Furthermore, the petitioners urged the Department to seek 
information as to whether the named companies shipped merchandise 
subject to the order to the United States during the POR. The 
petitioners also referred to the changes in operation among the various 
Viraj entities that the Department recognized in pre-revocation 
reviews.
    Therefore, in light of the revocation and the petitioners' request, 
we determined that it was appropriate to ascertain whether there were 
suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order during the POR 
from the Viraj entities. We examined shipment data obtained from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') and placed these data on the 
record on May 9, 2006. See Memorandum to the File, ``U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection Data,'' dated May 9, 2006. Based on this information, 
we determined that there are no suspended entries of merchandise 
subject to the order involving any of the Viraj entities for the POR. 
See Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, Office Director to Stephen J. 
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, ``2005-2006 Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar from India--
Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group Companies,'' dated May 18, 
2006.
    In April 2006, the Department issued a request for information from 
all of the respondents in this review concerning the quantity and value 
of the merchandise subject to the order shipped to the United States 
during the POR. On May 1, 2006, the Viraj entities submitted the 
requested quantity and value information to the Department.

Intent to Partially Rescind the Administrative Review

    Section 751(a) of the Act instructs the Department that, when 
conducting administrative reviews, it is to determine the dumping 
margin for entries during the period. Further, according to 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review in 
whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer if it 
concludes that, during the POR, there were no entries, exports, or 
sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be. The Department 
has interpreted the statutory and regulatory language as requiring 
``that there be entries during the period of review upon

[[Page 29918]]

which to assess antidumping duties.'' See Granular 
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan: Notice of Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 44088, 44088 (August 1, 
2005). In Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1368 (Fed. 
Cir. 2003), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the 
Department's practice of rescinding annual reviews when there are no 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR. See also Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 63067, 63068 (November 7, 2003) (stating 
that ``the Department's interpretation of its statute and regulations, 
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, supports 
not conducting an administrative review when the evidence on the record 
indicates that respondents had no entries of subject merchandise during 
the POR'').
    Because there were no entries of merchandise subject to the order 
during the POR from any of the Viraj companies named in the notice of 
initiation, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect 
to Viraj. Thus, the statute, the regulations, previous administrative 
decisions, and case law all support rescission of the administrative 
review in this case. Therefore, the Department intends to rescind the 
administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may comment on the Department's notice of intent 
to rescind the administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities 
not later than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. Rebuttal comments, must be filed not later than 
10 days after the time limit for filing the initial comments. Comments 
will be considered in the Department's preliminary results, which are 
currently due October 31, 2006.
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 18, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E6-7970 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P