[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 145 (Friday, July 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42802-42804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-428-830


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published its preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from 
Germany. The period of review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 
2005. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination 
of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final 
results. Consequently, the final results differ from the preliminary 
results. The final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in 
the section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Natalie Kempkey, 
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-
0182 or (202) 482-1698, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since the February 3, 2006, publication of the preliminary results 
in this review (see Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 5811 (February 
3, 2006) (``Preliminary Results'')), the following events have 
occurred:
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results of the 
review. On March 6, 2006, the respondent BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH, 
BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH 
Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (collectively, ``BGH'') filed a case brief and 
requested a hearing. On March 7, 2006, Carpenter Technology Corp., 
Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., and 
Electralloy Corp. (collectively, ``Petitioners'') filed a case brief. 
At the Department's request, BGH removed certain information from its 
case brief and submitted a redacted case brief on April 6, 2006. BGH 
also filed its rebuttal brief on April 6, 2006. Petitioners filed their 
rebuttal brief on April 7, 2006. The Department met with BGH in lieu of 
a hearing to discuss BGH's concerns regarding this final determination. 
See ``March 8, 2006 - Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel and Advisors for 
BGH Group, Inc.'' from Natalie Kempkey, Analyst, dated May 8, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of the 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. Stainless steel bar 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), angles, shapes 
and sections.
    The stainless steel bar subject to this review 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 the order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs filed by 
parties to this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar 
from Germany'' from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated July 17, 2006, (``Decision Memorandum''), 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an 
appendix is a list of the issues that 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 Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), located in 
Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition,

[[Page 42803]]

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.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar by BGH to the 
United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export 
price to normal value. Our calculations followed the methodologies 
described in the Preliminary Results, except as noted below and in the 
final results calculation memorandum cited below, which is on file in 
the CRU.

Export Price

     We have recalculated BGH's imputed U.S. credit expenses 
using a more appropriate U.S. dollar short-term interest rate.
     We have included in our analysis transactions that entered 
the United States during the period of review, but were sold prior to 
the period of review.

Normal Value

     We have reclassified home market commissions reported by 
BGH to a certain commission agent as indirect selling expenses, and, 
consequently have recalculated BGH's indirect selling expense ratio.
     We have included in our analysis additional home market 
sales to ensure an appropriate window period for the added U.S. sales.
     We have discontinued the preliminary adjustment to BGH's 
cost of manufacturing under the Transactions Disregarded Rule (19 
U.S.C. 1677b(f)(2)) with respect to affiliated scrap and alloy 
purchases
     We recalculated certain allocable common G&A expenses by 
removing both the lease G&A expenses and the lease depreciation 
expenses from the company's total expenses.
    These changes are discussed in the Decision Memorandum and in the 
Final Results calculation memoranda. See ``Final Results Calculation 
Memorandum for the BGH Group of Companies,'' dated July 17, 2006; see 
also Memorandum from Joseph Welton, Accountant, to Neal Halper, 
Director, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Final Results- BGH Group,'' dated July 17, 2006, 
which are on file in the CRU.

Final Results of the Review

    We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the 
period March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGH.................................................                0.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    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)(1), we have 
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates 
for merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement 
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or 
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer 
(or customer).
    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 companies 
included in these final results of review for which the reviewed 
companies did not know their 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 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).
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to 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 stainless steel bar from Germany 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 rate 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 16.96 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 
3159 (January 23, 2002) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless 
Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002).
    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 Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') 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 and this notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 42804]]


    Dated: July 17, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX I

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: The Department Should Assign Total Adverse Facts Available 
to BGH's Sales Information
Comment 2: The Department Should Assign Total Adverse Facts Available 
to BGH's Cost Information
Comment 3: BGH Mislead the Department Regarding Its Home Market Sales 
to BGH SL-Stahl GmbH
Comment 4: BGH Withheld Information Regarding Its Claimed Levels of 
Trade
Comment 5: BGH Incorrectly Claimed Home Market Commissions for Certain 
Sales
Comment 6: BGH Incorrectly Claimed Home Market Rebates on Certain Sales
Comment 7: The Department Should Reject BGH's Claim for Home Market 
Inland Freight Because BGH's Claim is for Non-Qualifying Expenses
Comment 8: BGH has Improperly Reported Its Home Market Warranty 
Expenses
Comment 9: BGH Improperly Classified Certain U.S. Sales as Export Price 
Sales, when Those Sales are Constructed Export Price Sales
Comment 10: BGH Has Understated its U.S. Credit Expenses
Comment 11: Affiliated Purchases of Scrap and Alloy Inputs
Comment 12: BOB's Common G&A Expenses
Comment 13: Company-Specific G&A Expense Ratios
Comment 14: The Department Erred in Rejecting Certain Portions of BGH's 
Case Brief

[FR Doc. E6-12057 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S