[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32517-32522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13376]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-808]


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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
plate in coils (steel plate) from Belgium covering the period of review 
(POR) May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. This review covers one 
producer/exporter of subject merchandise, Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. 
(AS Belgium).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We determined that AS Belgium (otherwise known as Aperam) is 
the successor-in-interest to Arcelor Mittal Stainless Belgium N.V. 
(AMS Belgium) in an antidumping changed circumstances review. See 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 77 FR 21963 (April 
12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have preliminarily determined that, during the POR, AS Belgium 
and its affiliate, Aperam Stainless Services and Solutions USA (Aperam 
USA) made U.S. sales that were below normal value (NV). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties 
on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days 
after publication of the preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska or Eric Greynolds, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
8362 or (202) 482-6071, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 2, 2011, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order for the POR.\2\ On May 
31, 2011, the Department received a timely request for an 
administrative review of this antidumping duty order from the 
respondent, AS Belgium. On June 28, 2011, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of initiation of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Belgium 
covering one respondent, AS Belgium.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 24460 (May 2, 2011).
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
37781 (June 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2011, the Department sent the initial questionnaire 
covering sections A through D to AS Belgium. We received AS Belgium's 
response to section A of the Department's questionnaire on August 15, 
2011, section C on September 13, 2011, and sections B and D on 
September 26, 2011. On November 8, 2011, the Department sent to AS 
Belgium the first supplemental questionnaire for sections A-C and 
received the response on December 13, 2011. On November 15, 2011, the 
Department sent to AS Belgium a supplemental questionnaire for section 
D and received the response on December 14, 2011. On January 25, 2012, 
the Department issued the second supplemental section A-D 
questionnaire. We received the response on February 8, 2012.
    On February 28, 2012, the Department issued a memorandum to all 
interested parties to comment on the selection of an alternative source 
for determining Constructed Value (CV) profit and selling expenses with 
respect to AS Belgium for the preliminary results of review. On March 
13, 2012, the Department received comments on the selection of an 
alternative source for determining CV profit and selling expenses. On 
March 20, 2012, the Department received rebuttal comments from 
petitioners \4\ on AS Belgium's response and petitioners' request for 
verification based upon good cause. Between March and April 2012, AS 
Belgium and petitioners made numerous submissions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Petitioners are Alleghany Ludlum Corporation, North American 
Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Arco 
Independent Organization, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union, (AFL-CIO/CLC).
    \5\ On March 22, 2012, AS Belgium submitted comments on 
petitioners' March 20, 2012 rebuttal comments. On March 23, 2012, 
petitioners submitted further comments on AS Belgium's March 20, and 
March 22, 2012 letters. On March 26, 2012, AS Belgium submitted 
comments on petitioners' March 23, 2012, letter. On April 3, 2012, 
AS Belgium submitted further comments on petitioners' March 20, and 
March 23, 2012, letters. On April 3, 2012, petitioners submitted 
comments in advance of the preliminary results on AS Belgium's 
September 7, 2011, Section B and September 13, 2011 Section C 
questionnaire responses (QR) and reinstated their request for 
verification as based upon good cause. On April 6, 2012, petitioners 
submitted further comments on AS Belgium's letter dated April 3, 
2012. On April 12, 2012, the Department received further comments 
from petitioners related to the selection of an alternative source 
for determining CV profit and selling expenses with respect to AS 
Belgium. On April 16, 2012, petitioners submitted comments on AS 
Belgium's April 13, 2012 letter. On April 18, 2012, petitioners 
submitted a letter addressing AS Belgium's April 13, 2012 
submission. On April 20, 2012, AS Belgium submitted comments in 
response to the letter filed by petitioners on April 18, 2012, 
arguing that there is no good cause for verification or collection 
of new information. On April 24, 2012, petitioners submitted a 
renewed request for verification of AS Belgium's data. On April 24, 
2012, AS Belgium submitted a letter in response to petitioners' 
letter of April 12, 2012. On April 27, 2012 AS Belgium submitted a 
letter in response to petitioners' recent submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 5, 2011, the Department published a notice extending 
the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the 
administrative review from January 31, 2012, to May 30, 2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Notice of 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 75870 (December 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners in their pre-preliminary submissions dated April 3, 
April 6, April 12, April 18, and April 24, 2012, raised the issue of 
bundled sales and targeted dumping. First, they allege that AS 
Belgium's sales patterns and

[[Page 32518]]

customer structure in both the home market and the U.S. market provide 
evidence that the sales of subject merchandise were priced in bundles 
with non- subject merchandise during the POR. Petitioners urge the 
Department to investigate further whether AS Belgium was engaged in 
bundled pricing during the POR. Second, petitioners note that they 
conducted their own targeted dumping analysis of AS Belgium's U.S. 
sales using the Department's targeted dumping methodology as applied in 
Steel Nails and Wood Flooring.\7\ Based on their own analysis, 
petitioners argue that the Department should conduct a targeted dumping 
analysis and employ monthly average-to-transaction comparisons in place 
of monthly average to average comparisons without offsets should the 
Department find that the record supports its allegation of targeted 
dumping.\8\ AS Belgium objects to the petitioners' allegations of 
bundled sales and targeted dumping in its submissions dated April 13, 
April 16, April 20, April 24, and April 27, 2012, and argues that 
petitioners failed to submit evidence in support of their allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Steel Corporation's Allegation of Targeted Dumping, 
dated May 9, 2012, at 1-8 (citing Certain Steel Nails from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 33,977 (June 16, 2008), and accompany Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8 (Steel Nails); Multilayered 
Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 
18, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 4 (Wood Flooring).
    \8\ See id. at 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these preliminary results of review the Department did not have 
adequate time to consider these comments in their entirety. In 
calculating the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin, the 
Department applied the calculation methodology adopted in Final 
Modification for Reviews. \9\ In particular, the Department compared 
monthly weighted-average export prices with monthly weighted-average 
normal values and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the 
calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin.\10\ Application of 
this methodology in these preliminary results affords parties an 
opportunity to meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation 
of this recently adopted methodology in the context of this 
administrative review. The Department intends to continue to consider, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(3)(c), whether another method is appropriate 
in this administrative review in light of both parties' pre-preliminary 
comments and any comments on the issue that parties may include in 
their case briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) 
(Final Modification for Reviews).
    \10\ See id. at 8102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 
in coils. Stainless steel is 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 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 (e.g., 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, 7219.12.00.02, 
7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.21, 
7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.51, 
7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.66, 
7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80, 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, and 7220.90.00.60. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise subject to this order is 
dispositive.

Scope Rulings

    On December 3, 2008, in response to a request by Ugine & Alz 
Belgium, N.V., the Department issued a final scope ruling that found 
that stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium with a nominal 
thickness of 4.75mm, regardless of the actual thickness, are within the 
scope of the order. See the Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Scope Ruling,'' 
(December 3, 2008), a public document available in room 7046 of the 
Central Records Unit in the Main Commerce Building.

Period of Review

    The POR is May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we considered all products produced by the 
respondent that are covered by the description contained in the ``Scope 
of the Order'' section above and were sold in the home market during 
the POR, to be the foreign like product for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the 
initial antidumping questionnaire we provided to AS Belgium. See the 
Department's Antidumping Duty Questionnaire dated June 30, 2011. Where 
there were no sales of similar merchandise in the home market made in 
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to constructed value.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise from Belgium were 
made in the United States at less than NV, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.414(c)(1) and (d), we compared Constructed Export Price (CEP) to 
the NV of the foreign like product in the appropriate corresponding 
calendar month where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section of 
this notice.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in Final 
Modification for Reviews 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012). In 
particular, the Department compared monthly weighted-average export 
prices (or constructed export prices) with monthly weighted-average 
normal values and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the 
calculation of the weighted average dumping margin.

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

[[Page 32519]]

Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, 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 AS Belgium's 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume 
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because AS Belgium's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. 
Moreover, there is no evidence on the record indicating a particular 
market situation in the exporting company's country that would not 
permit a proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 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 stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department will use the 
respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date 
better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer 
established the essential terms of sale. AS Belgium reported the 
invoice date as the date of sale for both the U.S. market and the home 
market because the date of invoice reflects the date on which the 
material terms of sale were finalized. For more information, see the 
Preliminary Cost Memo and Memorandum to the file from Jolanta Lawska, 
International Trade Analyst, ``Calculation Memorandum for Aperam 
Stainless Belgium N.V. for the Preliminary Results of the 10th 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium 
(Prelim Sales Calc Memo), dated May 23, 2012.
    For purposes of this review, AS Belgium classified all of its 
export sales of steel plate to the United States as CEP sales. During 
the POR, AS Belgium made sales in the United States through its U.S. 
affiliate, Aperam USA, which then resold the merchandise to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States. The Department calculated 
CEP based on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the starting price, net of discounts, for movement 
expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty and brokerage, 
and warehousing) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.401(e). In addition, because AS Belgium reported CEP sales, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the 
starting price, credit expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect 
selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, incurred in the 
United States and Belgium and associated with economic activities in 
the United States.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 
based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold 
for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities 
and in the ordinary course of trade. In addition, because the NV level 
of trade (LOT) is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP 
LOT, and available data provide no appropriate basis to determine a LOT 
adjustment between NV and CEP, we made a CEP offset pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See ``Level of Trade'' section, below.
    AS Belgium had no sales of subject merchandise in the home market 
to affiliated customers.

Cost of Production Analysis

    In the last administrative review of the order completed prior to 
the initiation of this review, the Department determined that AS 
Belgium sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of 
producing the merchandise and, as a result, we excluded such sales from 
the calculation of normal value. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
74 FR 53468 (October 19, 2009). Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that AS Belgium's sales of the foreign like product under 
consideration for the determination of normal value in the instant 
review may have been made at prices below COP. Pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of the 
respondent's sales in the comparison market.

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

    We conducted a COP analysis of AS Belgium's sales pursuant to 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act to determine whether any home market sales 
were made at prices below COP. We calculated AS Belgium's COP on a 
product-specific basis, based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses, interest expenses, and the costs of all 
expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. We relied on the COP 
information AS Belgium submitted in its response to our cost 
questionnaire. We examined the cost data for AS Belgium and determined 
that our quarterly cost methodology is not warranted and, therefore, we 
have applied our standard methodology of using annual costs based on 
the reported data. See Memorandum to Neal Halper from Stephanie Arthur, 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Preliminary Results of Review,'' (Prelim Cost Calc Memo), dated May 
23, 2012.

Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we compared the weighted-
average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the 
foreign like product, to determine whether these sales were made at 
prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined 
the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting 
from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, 
rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses 
which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.

Results of 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 do not disregard any below- cost sales of that product because we 
determine that the below- cost sales are 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 
determine such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Based on the results of the COP 
test, there were no above- cost sales for matching purposes. Further, 
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

[[Page 32520]]

costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purpose of this administrative 
review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product. Because we 
find that there were no above- cost sales for matching purposes, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1), we based NV on CV for this company.

Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) and Price to Constructed Value 
Comparisons

    Section 773(b)(1) of the Act provides that where no sales made in 
the ordinary course of trade remain after conducting the COP test, NV 
shall be based on CV. Accordingly, we are using CV because we find that 
there were no above- cost sales for matching purposes.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the 
sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost 
of materials, fabrication and general expenses based on the methodology 
described in the Cost of Production Analysis section above. However, 
there are no sales made in the ordinary course of trade that we can use 
to calculate selling expenses and profit for CV pursuant to section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we looked to the three alternatives 
established in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act to determine these 
amounts. The statute does not establish a hierarchy for selecting among 
the alternative methodologies provided in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the 
Act for determining selling expenses and profit. See Statement of 
Administrative Action Accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
Vol. 1, at 840 (1994). The first such alternative, under section 
773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, provides for the use of actual amounts 
incurred and realized by the specific exporter or producer in 
connection with the production and sale of merchandise that is in the 
same general category of products as the subject merchandise. This 
option is not available to us for these preliminary results because 
there is no information on the record to permit a calculation of 
selling expenses and profit specific to a category of products in the 
same general category as the subject merchandise sold by AS Belgium. 
Another statutory alternative, set forth in section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of 
the Act, is the use of the weighted average of the actual amounts 
incurred and realized by the other exporters or producers that are 
subject to the investigation or review. This alternative is not 
available to the Department, because AS Belgium is the sole respondent 
in this review. Alternative (iii) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act 
specifies that selling expenses and profit may be calculated based on 
any other reasonable method, except that the amount for profit may not 
exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or producers in 
connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of 
merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the 
subject merchandise (i.e., the ``profit cap'').
    As alternatives (i) and (ii) are not viable options, we determined 
CV selling expenses and CV profit for AS Belgium in this review 
pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, using the selling 
expense and profit ratios that were calculated for AS Belgium's home 
market sales in the 2007-2008 administrative review, the most recently 
completed review for this respondent. We are applying option (iii) 
without quantifying a ``profit cap'' because we do not have information 
allowing us to calculate the amount normally realized by exporters or 
producers (other than the respondent) in connection with the sale, for 
consumption in the foreign country, of the merchandise in the same 
general category. For a more detailed discussion regarding CV profit 
and CV selling expenses, see Prelim Sales Calc Memo. See also Certain 
Orange Juice From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping 
Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 18794 (April 13, 2010) and Certain Orange 
Juice From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in 
Part, 75 FR 50999 (August 18, 2010) (OJ From Brazil).
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale 
in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 
comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting comparison market direct selling expenses from CV. See 19 CFR 
351.410(c).

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. 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, 61732 
(November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). 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), including selling 
functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of 
selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), in identifying LOTs for export 
price (EP) and comparison-market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third-country prices), we consider the starting prices before 
any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit 
under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Where NV is based on 
CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 
derive SG&A expenses, and profit for CV, where possible.
    When the Department is unable to match U.S. 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 a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate From South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-
33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from the 
respondent, AS Belgium, regarding the marketing stages involved in 
making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description 
of the selling activities performed by AS Belgium for each channel of 
distribution. See AS Belgium's August 15, 2011, questionnaire response 
at pages 15-20 and Exhibit A-13. In the U.S. market, AS Belgium 
reported sales made through one LOT corresponding to two channels of 
distribution. AS Belgium

[[Page 32521]]

made sales to the United States by AS Belgium's affiliated trading 
company, Aperam USA, through AS Belgium's European affiliates, Aperam 
Stainless Services & Solutions International (Aperam International) and 
Aparam Stainless Europe S.A. (Aperam Europe). See AS Belgium's August 
15, 2011, Section A Questionnaire Response at pages 13, 19 and 23. We 
have determined that these sales are CEP sales. AS Belgium's two U.S. 
channels of distribution are: (1) Direct shipment sales in which the 
merchandise was shipped directly from Aperam USA to the final customer; 
and (2) sales from inventory maintained by Aperam USA. See AS Belgium's 
August 15, 2011, submission at Exhibit A-11.
    AS Belgium requested that a CEP offset should be made in 
calculating the normal value because according to AS Belgium, the 
selling activities in the home market are at a more advanced level of 
trade than the selling activities in the U.S. market. Our analysis of 
these selling functions performed by AS Belgium in the United States 
shows that the selling activities and services do not vary according to 
the channel of distribution. Id. We find that there is no variation in 
type or level of services provided by AS Belgium for the channels of 
distribution in the United States. AS Belgium provides comparable 
services for the two channels of distribution in the United States, 
which only differ based on whether the sale is shipped directly to the 
final customer or to Aperam USA's inventory. Therefore, based on the 
lack of differentiation between the type and level of activities 
associated with AS Belgium's sales into the two distribution channels, 
we preliminarily determine that there is only one LOT in the U.S. 
market. See Prelim Sales Calc Memo.
    With respect to the home market, AS Belgium reported certain 
customer categories in a single channel of distribution. We examined 
the selling functions performed for certain customer categories and 
found that the selling activities and services do not vary by customer 
category. See Prelim Sales Calc Memo. Therefore, we preliminarily 
conclude that AS Belgium's sales in the home market constitute one LOT.
    We analyzed the differences among the reported selling activities 
which demonstrated that AS Belgium's sales in the home market were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. Finally, 
we compared the U.S. and home market LOTs. As a result of our 
comparison, we preliminarily determined that AS Belgium's home market 
LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT.
    We then considered whether we could make a LOT adjustment. In this 
case, AS Belgium only sold at one LOT in the comparison market; 
therefore, there is no information available to determine a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
the comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, in 
accordance with the Department's normal methodology as described above. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(d). Further, we do not have record information which 
would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on the respondent's 
sales of other products, and there are no other respondents or other 
record information on which such an analysis could be based. 
Accordingly, because only one LOT exists in the home market we could 
not make a LOT adjustment. However, because the LOT in the comparison 
market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the 
CEP transactions, we made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). For further 
explanation of our LOT analysis, see Prelim Sales Calc Memo.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that for the 
period May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011, the following dumping 
margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Producer/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arcelor Stainless Belgium (AS Belgium).....................        10.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs may be filed no later than 
35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 
who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rate

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine and 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 de 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 de 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). If AS Belgium's weighted-average dumping margin is above de 
minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an 
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's 
examined sales to the total entered value of the sales in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\12\ 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 de minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we

[[Page 32522]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for 
Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-to-average 
comparisons using only the transactions associated with that 
importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for AS Belgium, we divided the 
total dumping margin by the total net value for AS Belgium's sales 
during the POR.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
steel plate from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for AS Belgium will 
be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash 
deposit rate will be zero; (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 final results 
in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (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 final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 
and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 9.86 percent, the all-others rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice 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 increase the 
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of 
antidumping duties reimbursed.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-13376 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P