[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 46 (Friday, March 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12382-12387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. 
The period of review is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. 
This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from two producers/
exporters. We preliminarily find that sales of the subject merchandise 
have been made below normal value. Also, we are rescinding this 
administrative review with respect to a third producer/exporter. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results 
no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or 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) 482-3853 
and (202) 482-1279, respectively.

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, 1995). On February 2, 2007, 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, 
2006, through January 31, 2007. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007).
    On February 27, 2007, we received a timely request for review from 
Venus Wire Industries Private Limited (``Venus''). On February 28, 
2007, we received a timely request for review from D.H. Exports Pvt. 
Ltd. (``DHE''), Chandan Steel Ltd. (``Chandan''), Facor Steels, Ltd. 
(``Facor''), Mukand Ltd. (``Mukand''), and Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. 
Ltd. (``Sunflag''). On March 7, 2007, we received a letter from Mukand 
and Facor withdrawing their requests for review. On March 20, 2007, we 
received a letter from Venus withdrawing its request for review.
    On March 28, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we initiated an administrative 
review on Chandan, DHE, and Sunflag. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 
2007) (``Initiation Notice'').
    On March 28, 2007, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the respondents. The respondents submitted their 
initial responses to the antidumping questionnaire in May, June, 
August, and September 2007. The petitioners \1\ submitted comments on 
the questionnaire responses in May, June, July, September, October, and 
November 2007; and February 2008. We issued supplemental questionnaires 
to the respondents to clarify or correct information contained in the 
initial questionnaire responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, 
Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 25, 2007, we received a letter from Chandan withdrawing its 
request for administrative review.
    On June 19, 2007, the petitioners alleged that DHE made sales below 
the cost of production (``COP''). The petitioners submitted information 
to supplement their June 19, 2007, below-cost allegation on June 21, 
2007. We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that sales by DHE in the home market had 
been made at prices below the COP, and initiated a sales-below-cost 
investigation on July 24, 2007. See Memorandum from Chris Zimpo, Office 
of Accounting, to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, Office 1, AD/
CVD Operations, ``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated July 24, 2007 (``DHE 
Sales-Below-Cost Memorandum''). On July 24, 2007, we requested that DHE 
respond to the Section D COP section of the Department's original 
questionnaire. DHE filed its response to Section D on September 3, 
2007.
    On June 22, 2007, the petitioners alleged that Sunflag made sales 
below the COP. We found that the petitioners' allegation provided a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales by Sunflag in the 
home market had been made at prices below the COP and initiated a 
sales-below-cost investigation on June 25, 2007. See Memorandum from 
Devta Ohri, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Susan Kuhbach, 
Senior Office Director, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, ``Petitioners' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Sunflag Iron & 
Steel Co. Ltd.,'' dated July 25, 2007 (``Sunflag Sales-Below-Cost 
Memorandum''). On July 25, 2007, we requested that Sunflag respond to 
the Section D COP section of the Department's original questionnaire. 
Sunflag filed its response to Section D on August 29, 2007.
    On October 18, 2007, the Department found that, due to the 
complexity of the issues in this case, including affiliation and COP, 
and outstanding supplemental responses, it was not practicable to 
complete this review within the time period prescribed. Accordingly, we

[[Page 12383]]

extended the time limit for completing the preliminary results of this 
review to no later than February 28, 2008, in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension 
of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 60639 (October 25, 2007).
    On February 8, 2008, the petitioners filed a request asking the 
Department to apply total adverse facts available pursuant to section 
776 of the Act against Sunflag on the allegation that Sunflag has 
withheld information regarding numerous affiliated parties, many of 
which petitioners claim are directly or indirectly involved with 
subject merchandise. In addition, the petitioners argued that even for 
those companies that Sunflag has previously acknowledged as being 
affiliated parties, Sunflag has failed to disclose the involvement of 
these companies with subject merchandise. The Department plans to issue 
a supplemental questionnaire following the preliminary results to 
examine this issue further.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are 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 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 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 in room 1117 of the main Department building. 
See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references 
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In 
addition, all references to the Department of Commerce's regulations 
are to 19 CFR 351 (2007).

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    The Department's regulations state that the Department will rescind 
an administrative review if the party that requested the review 
withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the 
notice of initiation of the requested review. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 
As noted above, the Department initiated this antidumping duty 
administrative review on March 28, 2007. See Initiation Notice. On May 
25, 2007, we received a letter from Chandan withdrawing its request for 
administrative review. Chandan's withdrawal request was within 90 days 
of initiation. Accordingly, we are rescinding this administrative 
review with respect to Chandan.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSB by Sunflag to the United States 
were made at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to normal 
value (``NV''). To determine whether sales of SSB by DHE to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared constructed export price 
(``CEP'') to NV. See ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. 
transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign-like product, 
where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as 
discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by 
the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be 
foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) 
of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume 
of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign-like product to the volumes of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. See the ``Normal Value'' section, below, for further 
details.
    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the home market based on the following 
criteria: (1) General type of finish, (2) Grade, (3) Remelting, (4) 
Type of final finishing operation, (5) Shape, and (6) Size. This was 
consistent with our practice in the original investigation. See 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 
FR 39733-35 (August 4, 1994); unchanged in the final. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). Where there were no 
home market sales of foreign-like product that were identical in these 
respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. 
products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market 
based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. 
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the 
producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an

[[Page 12384]]

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as 
adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act 
defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold 
in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for 
the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a 
seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 
772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
    (A) DHE
    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after 
importation into the United States. We based CEP on packed CIF and C&F 
duty-paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We 
identified the starting price and made deductions for movement 
expenses, including domestic inland freight, international freight, 
marine insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties, and 
other transportation expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct and 
indirect selling expenses. We re-calculated DHE's indirect selling 
expenses based upon information submitted by DHE for its affiliate in 
the United States. See Memorandum from the Team to the File 
``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for D.H. Exports Pvt. 
Ltd.,'' dated February 28, 2008 (``DHE Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum''). Lastly, we made an adjustment for profit in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    (B) Sunflag
    We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because CEP 
methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, CFR 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where 
appropriate, warehousing charges at the port of loading, inland freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise to the Indian port, inland 
insurance expenses, domestic brokerage and handling expenses, and 
international freight. See Memorandum from the Team to the File 
``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Sunflag Iron & Steel 
Co. Ltd.,'' dated February 28, 2008 (``Sunflag Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum'').

Duty Drawback

    Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that EP or CEP shall be 
increased by among other things, ``the amount of any import duties 
imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which 
have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject 
merchandise to the United States.'' The Department determines that an 
adjustment to U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when 
a company can demonstrate that: (1) The ``import duty and rebate are 
directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another;'' and (2) ``the 
company claiming the adjustment can show that there were sufficient 
imports of the imported raw materials to account for the drawback 
received on the exported product.'' Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United 
States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999).
    DHE claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on its participation 
in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement Passbook Program. The 
Department finds that DHE has not provided substantial evidence on the 
record to establish the necessary link between the import duty and the 
reported duty drawback. Therefore, because DHE has failed to meet the 
Department's requirements, we are denying DHE's request for a duty 
drawback adjustment for the preliminary results. See DHE Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum.
    Sunflag did not claim a duty drawback adjustment.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign-like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP and CEP. 
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act contemplates that quantities 
(or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less 
than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States.
    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign-like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    DHE and Sunflag reported that their home market sales of SSB during 
the POR were more than five percent of their sales of SSB to the United 
States. Therefore, DHE's and Sunflag's home markets were viable for 
purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, DHE and Sunflag reported their 
home market sales.
    To derive NV for the respondents, we made the adjustments detailed 
in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices'' 
section below.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\4\ including selling 
functions,\5\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final 
user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have 
many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur somewhere along 
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each 
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the 
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \5\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the LOT(s) in a particular market. 
For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the 
common selling functions into four major categories: sales process 
and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and 
warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either comparison 
market or third

[[Page 12385]]

country prices),\6\ we consider the starting prices before any 
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling expenses 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Where NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), we 
determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 
derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign-like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP 
or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at 
a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from 
the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make an LOT 
adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61745 (November 19, 1997).
    In this review, we determined the following, with respect to the 
LOT, for each respondent.
    (A) DHE
    We obtained information from DHE regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed for each channel of 
distribution. DHE did not request an LOT adjustment. Our LOT findings 
are summarized below.
    DHE reported that it sells to manufacturers and trading companies 
in the home market, and to trading companies in the United States. DHE 
reported that it made CEP sales in the U.S. market through a single 
channel of distribution: sales of DHE-produced SSB to its U.S. 
affiliate Liaison Stainless Inc. (``LSI''). Therefore, we find that all 
CEP sales constitute one LOT.
    With respect to the home market, DHE reported a single LOT and a 
single channel of distribution (i.e., factory direct sales) through 
which it sold SSB to unaffiliated customers. According to DHE, its 
direct sales to manufacturers and trading companies constitute one 
distinct LOT in the home market.
    Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for home market sales are either 
performed at the same degree of intensity as, or vary only slightly 
from, the selling functions performed on U.S. sales. Specifically, we 
found that the sales process, freight and delivery, advertising 
activities, technical service and warranty service are performed by DHE 
at the same level of intensity in both the U.S. and home markets. With 
respect to warehouse/inventory maintenance, we found that there is a 
difference in intensity between U.S. and home markets which is not a 
sufficient basis to determine separate LOTs between the two markets. 
Therefore, we find that the U.S. LOT is similar to the home market LOT 
and an LOT adjustment or CEP offset is not necessary. See section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    (B) Sunflag
    We obtained information from Sunflag regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed for each channel of 
distribution. Our LOT findings are summarized below.
    Sunflag reported three channels of distribution and a single LOT in 
the home market. Sunflag reported a single channel of distribution and 
a single LOT in the U.S. market. Sunflag claimed that its sales in both 
markets were at the same LOT. Sunflag did not request an LOT 
adjustment. See December 20, 2007, Supplemental Questionnaire Response 
(``SQR'') at 019, see also January 24, 2008, SQR at 005.
    In the first home market channel of distribution (channel 1), 
Sunflag reported direct sales to end users and traders. See May 14, 
2007, Section A Questionnaire Response at A-12. Sunflag indicated that 
channel 1 sales comprised the majority of its sales in the home market. 
Id. In the second home market channel of distribution (channel 2), 
Sunflag reported a small quantity of sales through its yards 
(distribution warehouses). Id. In the third home market channel of 
distribution (channel 3), Sunflag reported a very small quantity of 
sales through a consignment agent. Id. In the single channel of 
distribution for U.S. sales, Sunflag reported direct sales to end users 
and traders on a packed, CFR basis.
    Sunflag reported that its prices did not vary based on channel of 
distribution or customer category. Id. at A-16. Sunflag reported that 
the channels of distribution are only used for the sake of logistics 
convenience. According to Sunflag, if at all, domestic prices vary with 
respect to each other based on the grade, type, market opportunities 
available, and competitor dynamics, not by channel of distribution or 
customer category. Id.
    We examined the information reported by Sunflag regarding its sales 
processes for its home market and U.S. sales, including customer 
categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. 
Specifically, we considered the extent to which, for instance, sales 
process/marketing support, freight/delivery, inventory maintenance, and 
quality assurance/warranty service varied with respect to the different 
customer categories and channels of distribution across the markets. We 
concluded that the home market channels of distribution comprise one 
LOT. We also evaluated the U.S. channel of distribution and concluded 
that it also comprises one LOT. Next, we compared the U.S. LOT to the 
home market LOT. Sunflag reported that it sold to similar categories of 
customer (e.g., primarily end users and traders) in both the home 
market and the U.S. market. In Sunflag's home market channels of 
distribution, Sunflag reported similar selling activities, with the 
exception of commission expenses for channel 3 (consignment agent) 
sales, which comprised a very small quantity of Sunflag's home market 
sales. In all markets and channels of distribution, Sunflag reported 
similar levels of sales/marketing support, freight/delivery, inventory 
maintenance. Sunflag provided no quality assurance/warranty services in 
any of its channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find 
that Sunflag's sales in the home market and the United States were made 
at the same LOT.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    As discussed above, the petitioners provided a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that sales by DHE and Sunflag in their home markets 
had been made at prices below the COP within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act and we initiated sales-below-cost investigations on 
July 24, 2007, and July 25, 2007, respectively. See DHE Sales-Below-
Cost Memorandum, see also Sunflag Sales-Below-Cost Memorandum.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign-like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
(``G&A'') expenses, financial expenses, and comparison market packing 
costs, where appropriate. We note that Sunflag did

[[Page 12386]]

not report costs for grades 304L, 316, and 316L in its February 8, 
2008, cost database. Thus, these sales (1.6 percent of Sunflag's home 
market sales database) are not being used in these preliminary results. 
While we do not think the lack of costs for these grades affects the 
model matching, we intend to issue a supplemental questionnaire 
following the preliminary results to obtain Sunflag's costs for these 
grades of SSB for use in the final results. We relied on the COP data 
submitted by DHE and Sunflag except where noted below:
2. Individual Company Adjustments
    (A) DHE
    For DHE, we increased the direct material costs for each grade of 
merchandise sold by the difference between the raw material purchase 
prices incorporated in the reported COPs and the related raw material 
purchase prices for the final two months of the POR. See DHE 
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum.
    (B) Sunflag
    Sunflag did not report its cost for bright bar Grade 416 in its 
cost database. However, based on record information from Sunflag, we 
were able to construct Sunflag's cost to convert black bar to bright 
bar. Therefore, we added these conversion costs to Sunflag's Grade 416 
black bar costs to derive Sunflag's bright bar costs for Grade 416 
(which is the CONNUM sold in the United States). See Sunflag 
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's 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 of that model were made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Because we compared prices to the POR-
average COP, 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. In such 
cases, for both DHE and Sunflag, we disregarded these below-cost sales 
of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    For DHE and Sunflag, we calculated NV based on ex-factory or 
delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted movement 
expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In 
addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in cost 
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as 
for differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made 
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling 
expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions 
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the 
``commission offset''). Specifically, where commissions were granted in 
the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward 
adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the amount of the commission 
paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the 
comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward 
adjustment to NV following the same methodology. We made adjustments to 
Sunflag's home market data, as discussed below.
    We recalculated Sunflag's home market imputed credit expenses using 
the Department's standard formula. For certain home market sales, we 
increased the gross unit prices by the amount that the customer 
overpaid to Sunflag for Sunflag's reported inland freight expenses. We 
recalculated Sunflag's reported indirect selling expenses applying the 
Department's standard formula. See Sunflag Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
    For the firms listed below, we find that the following weighted-
average percentage margins exist for the period February 1, 2006, 
through January 31, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Exporter/Manufacturer                        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd........................................      10.21
Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.................................       6.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which 
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A 
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an 
electronic version included.
Assessment Rates
    For DHE and Sunflag, if these preliminary results are adopted in 
the final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For 
these companies, the Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final 
results of review.
    For the company rescinded from this review, Chandan, 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). The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these 
preliminary results of review.
    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

[[Page 12387]]

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 
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent) 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.
    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 will apply 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).
Cash Deposit Requirements
    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of SSB from India 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 the reviewed companies will be the 
rate established in the final results of this administrative review 
(except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin 
is de minimis); (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than 
fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; and (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 
covered in this or any previous reviews, or the original LTFV 
investigation, 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 and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, shall be 12.45 percent, the all-others rate 
established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994).
Notification to Importers
    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties.
    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 28, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-4245 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P