[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30873-30874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8387]



[[Page 30873]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-820]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the 2004 - 2005 administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from France. The review 
covers one manufacturer/exporter, Ugitech S.A. (Ugitech). The period of 
review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.
    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 margin 
for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled ``Final 
Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Terre Keaton, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4136 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The review covers one manufacturer/exporter: Ugitech. The period of 
review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.
    On January 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from France (71 FR 3463) 
(Preliminary Results). We invited interested parties to comment on the 
preliminary results of review.
    Ugitech and the petitioners\1\ filed case briefs on March 1, 2006, 
and rebuttal briefs on March 8, 2006. Neither party requested a 
hearing. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners include the following companies: Carpenter 
Technology Corporation; Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible 
Materials Corporation; and Electroalloy Corporation, a Division of 
G.O. Carlson, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the term ``stainless steel bar'' 
includes 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 stainless steel bars 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 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), products that have been cut from stainless 
steel sheet, strip or plate, 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, 
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) from Stephen J. 
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David 
M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 
23, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which 
are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
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. 
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are 
identical in content.

Changes from the Preliminary Results

    Based on the information submitted and our analysis of the comments 
received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for 
Ugitech.
    Specifically, in the comparison market program, we corrected a 
programming error associated with the arm's-length test, which caused 
all of the sales to one home market customer, who was affiliated with 
Ugitech for only a portion of the POR, to be excluded from the 
comparison sales data base, rather than only those sales made while it 
was affiliated with Ugitech. In the margin program, we revised our 
calculation of the importer-specific assessment rate, which was 
improperly calculated due to a unit conversion error. (See page 2 of 
the Decision Memo).

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugitech S.A...........................................              9.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The 
Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the 
company subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of 
publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.106(c), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., is not less than 0.50 percent ad valorem). We 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject 
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all the 
U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value 
of the sales examined.

[[Page 30874]]

    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by the company 
included in these final results of review for which the reviewed 
company did not know its merchandise was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries at the ``All Others'' rate if there is no rate for the 
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full 
discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption 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 rate for Ugitech will be 
9.68 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, 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 merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 3.90 percent. This rate is the ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation. These deposit requirements 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)(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.
    This notice 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 written 
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: May 23, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix-List of Issues

Comment 1: Levels of Trade in the Home Market
Comment 2: Whether to Allow Certain Additions to the U.S. Sales Price
Comment 3: Whether to Collapse Certain Grade Codes for Product Matching
Comment 4: Whether to Recalculate U.S. Inventory Carrying Expenses for 
the Further Manufactured U.S. Sales
[FR Doc. E6-8387 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S