[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 174 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51595-51598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-810)


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The period of review is 
February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. This review covers sales of 
stainless steel bar from India with respect to eight producers/
exporters. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to 
comment on the preliminary results of this review. We have noted the 
changes made since the preliminary results below in the ``Changes Since 
the Preliminary Results'' section, below. The final results are listed 
below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander, 
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) 482-0182, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 
72 FR 10151 (March 7, 2007) (``Preliminary Results'') in the Federal 
Register.
    On March 14, 2007, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
respondent Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd (``Bhansali'') to correct 
information contained in the initial questionnaire responses. On March 
28, 2007, we received a timely response to this questionnaire from 
Bhansali. On April 5, 2007, we met with counsel for Carpenter 
Technology Corporation, Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of 
Crucible Materials Corporation, Electralloy Company, North American 
Stainless, Universal Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless 
(collectively, the ``petitioners'') to discuss the review-specific 
average rate applied at the Preliminary Results to the respondents that 
were not selected for individual examination in the review by the 
Department.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the Preliminary Results, the Department applied the 
review-specific, average rate to the following respondents: Isibars 
Limited, Grand Foundry, Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited, Snowdrop 
Trading Pvt. Ltd., Facor Steels, Ltd., and Mukand Ltd. See the 
Preliminary Results at 10157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2007, Bhansali submitted a listing of pre-verification 
corrections to its home market sales listing. On July 5, 2007, 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 4, 2007, 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, 72 FR 36668 
(July 5, 2007).
    On July 24, 2007, we notified interested parties that comments on 
the Preliminary Results were due on July 31, 2007, and rebuttal 
comments were due on August 10, 2007. See Memorandum to the File, 
``Briefing Schedule for Comments on the Preliminary Results in the 
2005/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar 
from India,'' dated July 24, 2007. On July 25, 2007, we requested that 
Bhansali and Venus submit revised sales and cost listings to the 
Department. We received revised home market sales listings from Venus, 
and revised sales and cost listings from Bhansali in August 2007.
    On July 31, 2007, we received case briefs from the petitioners and 
Bhansali. On August 2, 2007, we rejected Bhansali's case brief, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d)(i) of the Department's regulations, 
because it contained new and untimely filed information. On August 4, 
2007, we received a revised case brief from Bhansali. On August 6, 
2007, we received a rebuttal brief from Bhansali. On August 10, 2007, 
the petitioners and interested parties Facor Steels, Ltd. (``Facor'') 
and Mukand Ltd. (``Mukand'') filed rebuttal briefs. We did not receive 
comments from Venus. The Department did not receive a request for a 
public hearing from interested parties.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are 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

[[Page 51596]]

this order. See Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, 
``Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India and 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final Scope Ruling,'' dated May 
23, 2005, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') 
located in room B-099 of the main Department building. See also Notice 
of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the sales information contained in the questionnaire responses 
submitted by respondent Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus'') in 
Mumbai, India, in May 2007. The Department reported its findings on 
July 24, 2007. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales 
Responses of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. in the 2005/2006 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from 
India,'' (``Verification Report--Venus'') dated July 24, 2007.
    We also conducted verification of the sales and cost information 
contained in the questionnaire responses submitted by Bhansali in May 
2007. The Department reported its findings on July 24, 2007. See 
Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales and Cost Responses 
of Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. in the 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India,'' 
(``Verification Report--Bhansali'') dated July 24, 2007. These reports 
are on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main 
Department building (``CRU'').

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 2005, through January 
31, 2006.

Partial Rescission of Review

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded 
this review with respect to Akai Asian (``Akai''), Atlas Stainless 
(``Atlas'') and Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (``Meltroll'') pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department confirmed that Akai, Atlas, and 
Meltroll did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data. We did 
not receive comments on this issue. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Preliminary Results, we are 
rescinding this review with respect to Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll.

Affiliation

    As explained in the Preliminary Results, we have determined that 
Venus and its exporter Precision Metals are affiliated within the 
meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, and also that the two companies 
should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this 
administrative review. Therefore, we find that Venus and Precision 
Metals should receive a single antidumping duty rate. See Memorandum 
from Scott Holland to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, 
``Relationship of Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Precision 
Metals,'' dated February 28, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room 
B-099 of the main Department building.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the September 4, 2007, Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Bar from India (``Decision Memorandum''), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix 
is a list of the issues which 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 CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments 
received, we have made adjustments to the preliminary results 
calculations for Bhansali and Venus. Brief descriptions of the company-
specific changes are discussed below.

Bhansali

    Based upon the information obtained at verification, we are 
deducting billing adjustments from the gross unit price on certain home 
market sales. We are also reducing billing adjustments for the portion 
attributable to taxes included in the invoice price. We are deducting 
from U.S. gross unit price the per-unit certificate of origin expenses 
incurred on export sales. We are using the cost information provided by 
Bhansali in its March 28, 2007, submission for certain products that 
did not have cost data in the Preliminary Results.

Venus

    We are using Venus' revised home market sales listing submitted on 
August 13, 2007, which included the verified recalculated credit 
expenses.

Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an 
extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire 
POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we 
also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    For Bhansali and Venus, we found that, for certain products, more 
than 20 percent of comparison market sales were at prices less than the 
COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period 
of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made 
at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used 
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through 
January 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Exporter/Manufacturer                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.............                          2.01
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd............             0.03 (de minimis)
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to
 the Following Companies:\2\

[[Page 51597]]

 
        Isibars Limited...................
        Grand Foundry, Ltd................
        Sindia Steels Limited.............
        Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd.........
        Facor Steels, Ltd.................
        Mukand Ltd........................                          2.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated
  for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de
  minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
for all sales made by respondents for which they have reported the 
importer of record and the entered value of the U.S. sales, we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to 
the total entered value of those sales.
    Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S. 
sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the 
merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity of those sales. 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-specific ad valorem rates 
based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries 
of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR 
produced by the respondent for which it 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).
    For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping 
duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or 
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(c)(1)(i).
    For the companies requesting a review, but not selected for 
examination and calculation of individual rates, we calculated a 
weighted-average assessment rate based on all importer-specific 
assessment rates excluding any which are zero, de minimis or determined 
entirely on adverse facts available. See Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber 
Products from Canada, 70 FR 73437, 73440 (December 12, 2005). The 
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date 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 these final 
results of 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; (2) for merchandise 
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but 
covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a 
previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most 
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for 
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (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 Administrative Protective Orders

    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.


[[Page 51598]]


    Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX I

List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum

General Comments

Comment 1: Application of Review-Specific Rate to Non-Reviewed 
Companies
Comment 2: Treatment of Sales Made Above Normal Value

Comments Relating to Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.

Comment 3: Treatment of DEPB Application Charges
Comment 4: Comment on Verification: Correct Payment Date
Comment 5: Comment on Verification: Correct Gross Unit Price
Comment 6: Inclusion of Implied Interest on Non-Interest Bearing Loans
Comment 7: Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses
Comment 8: Treatment of Billing Adjustments

Comments Relating to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Comment 9: Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses
[FR Doc. E7-17749 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S