[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53468-53470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24699]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-808]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On June 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium. See Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 27097 (June 8, 2009) (Preliminary 
Results). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise: ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. (AMS Belgium). The 
period of review (POR) is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to the Preliminary Results. For the final dumping margins see 
the ``Final Results of Review'' section below.

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang or George McMahon at (202) 
482-1168 or (202) 482-1167, respectively; Office of AD/CVD Operations 
3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 8, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the seventh administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on SSPC from Belgium. See Preliminary Results. 
Since the Preliminary Results, a case brief was timely filed by AMS 
Belgium on July 8, 2009 (AMS case brief). The petitioners \1\ did not 
submit a case brief or rebuttal brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this case include: Allegheny Ludlum 
Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 
3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, and the United 
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, the 
petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issues raised in the case brief by AMS Belgium are addressed in 
the memorandum titled, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Results of the Seventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium (2007-2008)'', 
from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (October 6, 2009) 
(Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list 
of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this 
notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit 
(CRU), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce main building and can be 
accessed directly at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or 
without other elements. The subject plate products are

[[Page 53469]]

flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in 
thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled 
or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed 
(cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified 
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope 
of this order are the following: (1) Plate not in coils; (2) Plate that 
is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled; (3) Sheet and strip; and (4) Flat bars.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00,71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is 
dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the calculations for the final dumping margin. The changes 
made since the Preliminary Results are listed under the ``List of 
Issues,'' which is appended to this notice. The changes are discussed 
in detail in the memorandum to the File Through James Terpstra from Joy 
Zhang and titled, ``Analysis Memorandum for ArcelorMittal Stainless 
Belgium N.V. for the Final Results of the Seventh Administrative Review 
of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (SSPC) from Belgium,'' dated October 
6, 2009 (Final Sales Analysis Memorandum).

Facts Available

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we found that it was 
appropriate to resort to facts otherwise available with an adverse 
inference to account for a certain selling expense \2\ and U.S. other 
transportation expenses. The respondent, AMS Belgium, raised several 
issues in its case brief regarding the Department's application of 
facts otherwise available with an adverse inference with respect to the 
certain selling expense and the U.S. other transportation expenses. See 
the Decision Memorandum for a discussion of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Due to the proprietary nature of this particular expense, 
see the Department's discussion of this expense in the proprietary 
version of the Department's Final Sales Analysis Memorandum, dated 
October 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered the issues raised by AMS Belgium. With respect 
to the certain selling expense, the Department maintains its decision 
from the Preliminary Results that facts otherwise available with an 
adverse inference are warranted for these final results. Id. With 
respect to the U.S. other transportation expenses (data field name: 
USOTHR1U) reported by AMS Belgium, we have reconsidered the information 
provided and have changed our position, as outlined in the Preliminary 
Results, in which we applied facts otherwise available with an adverse 
inference for this expense. Specifically, during the sales 
verification, the company officials presented the Department with a 
calculation for this expense that was incorrect due to the weight basis 
applied therein. After reviewing AMS Belgium's case brief and our sales 
verification report and exhibits with respect to the calculation of 
USOTHR1U, we agree with AMS Belgium that we made a ministerial error in 
our two sample calculations of the per-unit USOTHR1U referenced in the 
Preliminary Results. Final Sales Analysis Memorandum. We find that AMS 
Belgium's recalculated USOTHR1U values provided at the constructed 
export price (CEP) verification for these two sample sales are correct. 
Accordingly, for the final results, we will use the actual USOTHR1U 
value that we collected at the CEP verification. See Sales Verification 
Exhibit 19; see also AMS case brief at Appendix 1.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted- average margin exists for the period May 1, 2007, through 
April 30, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V..........................       6.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each 
respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative 
review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the 
final results are above 4. minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to 
assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.
    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period 
were minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent 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). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 
greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable 
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of 
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an 
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than minimis 
and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-unit 
assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
    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 Proceeding Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    We have been enjoined from liquidating entries of the subject 
merchandise produced and exported by

[[Page 53470]]

Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V. (U&A Belgium). Therefore, we do not intend to 
issue liquidation instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) for entries made during the period May 1, 2007, through April 30, 
2008, until such time the preliminary injunction issued on January 16, 
2009, is lifted.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of SSPC from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final 
results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For AMS Belgium, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) 
if the exporter is not a finn 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 established for the most recent period; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
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 subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the 
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 9.86 percent ad 
valorem, the ``all-others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 
1999). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

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 APOs

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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 sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 6, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Issues

    Comment 1: Whether the Department Incorrectly Converted 
Inventory Carrying Costs (DINVCARU).
    Comment 2: Whether to Exclude Certain Sales Transactions from 
the U.S. Sales Listing.
    Comment 3: Whether to Use Facts Otherwise Available for U.S. 
Other Transportation Costs (USOTHR1U).
    Comment 4: Whether to Use Facts Otherwise Available for Failing 
to Report a Certain Selling Expense.
    Comment 5: Whether to Use AMS Belgium's Reported U.S. Warranty 
Expense.
    Comment 6: Whether to Offset Negative Margins.

[FR Doc. E9-24699 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M