Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India, 10977-10982 [E5-924]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 43 (Monday, March 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10977-10982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


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

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India with respect 
to Chandan Steel Ltd. This review covers sales of stainless steel bar 
from India to the United States during the period February 1, 2003, 
through January 31, 2004. We have preliminarily found that sales have 
been made below normal value by Chandan Steel Ltd. We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results.
    We are also rescinding this administrative review with respect to 
Ferro Alloys Corp., Ltd.; Isibars Ltd.; Mukand, Ltd.; Venus Wire 
Industries Ltd; and the Viraj Group, Ltd. (Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; Viraj 
Forgings, Ltd.; and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.).

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown or Julie Santoboni, 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-
4987 and (202) 482-4194, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice in the Federal Register providing opportunity for 
interested parties to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India. See 
Notice of Opportunity to Request Review of Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 
5125 (February 3, 2004).
    The Department received requests for an administrative review from 
Chandan Steel Ltd. (Chandan); Ferro Alloys Corp., Ltd. (FACOR); Isibars 
Ltd. (Isibars); Mukand, Ltd. (Mukand); Venus Wire Industries Limited 
(Venus); and Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.

[[Page 10978]]

and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (collectively referred to as the Viraj Group) 
on February 27, 2004.
    The Department initiated an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on SSB from India for the above-named companies 
on March 26, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 
15788 (March 26, 2004). We issued questionnaires to each of these 
companies on March 30, 2004.
    On April 15, 2004, the petitioners (i.e., Carpenter Technology 
Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., 
Electralloy Corp., Slater Steels Corp., Empire Specialty Steel and the 
United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC)) requested that the 
Department conduct a verification of all the respondents. Venus, 
Mukand, FACOR, Isibars, and the Viraj Group withdrew their requests for 
an administrative review on April 19, 2004, and May 3, 2004. For 
further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of 
this notice, below.
    On May 3, 2004, we received a response to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire from Chandan. Chandan reported that it only 
had export sales of stainless steel bright bar (SSBB), and that its 
home market sales of stainless steel hot-rolled bar (SSHR) were less 
than 5 percent of the volume of its U.S. sales of SSBB. In addition, 
Chandan reported preliminary data on SSB sales made to its largest 
third-country markets. On May 18, 2004, Chandan submitted a response to 
sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire, containing complete 
sales databases for Chandan's largest third-country markets: Australia, 
Belgium, and Brazil. On June 14, 2004, the petitioners filed comments 
on Chandan's sections A-C responses, and recommended that the 
Department select Belgium as the third-country comparison market for 
normal value (NV), alleging that Chandan made more sales to Belgium 
than to Australia of merchandise identical to merchandise it sold in 
the United States.
    On June 29, 2004, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Chandan 
requesting the quantity and value of its home market sales of SSBB and 
SSHR, and the certifications required by 19 CFR 351.303(g). We received 
Chandan's response on July 6, 2004. In that response, Chandan reported 
that its home market sales of SSHR were of defective merchandise and 
that it did not sell defective merchandise in its export markets. On 
July 12, 2004, the Department issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire requesting that Chandan revise its home market data and 
report its home market sales of SSHR. We received Chandan's revised 
home market sales data on July 27, 2004.
    On August 11, 2004, in response to Chandan's revised home market 
data, the petitioners alleged that Chandan's home market sales of SSHR 
were unsuitable for comparison purposes because the bar was defective 
and fundamentally different from the bar sold in the United States. As 
a result, the petitioners reiterated their recommendation that Belgium 
be selected as the comparison market. Simultaneously, they made a 
timely allegation that Chandan's third-country sales were made below 
the cost of production (COP).
    On August 17, 2004, Chandan requested that the Department exclude 
certain stainless steel flat-bars from the antidumping duty order. The 
petitioners submitted comments in opposition to Chandan's scope 
exclusion request on August 19, 2004.
    On September 24, 2004 we selected Australia as the third-country 
comparison market after determining that Chandan's home market was not 
viable. See the September 24, 2004, memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from 
Team entitled, ``Selection of Comparison Market for Chandan'' 
(Comparison Market Memo). We chose Australia because it was the largest 
market by volume and the composition of merchandise sold to Australia 
provided a greater number of similar product matches for sales to the 
United States.
    Also, on September 24, 2004, the Department found that, because of 
the complexity of assessing home market viability, choosing the 
appropriate third-country market, and the late filing of a cost 
allegation by the petitioners, it was not practicable to complete this 
review within the time period prescribed. Accordingly, we extended the 
time limit for completing the preliminary results of this review to no 
later than February 28, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 
351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 57265 (September 24, 2004).
    We found that the petitioners' allegation of sales below cost 
provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Chandan's 
comparison market sales were made at prices below COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Consequently, on October 5, 2004, 
we initiated a COP investigation of Chandan's comparison market sales 
during the period of review (POR). See the October 5, 2004 memorandum 
to Susan Kuhbach from Team entitled, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Stainless Steel Bar from India: Allegation of Sales Below the 
Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, Ltd.'' Accordingly, we notified 
Chandan that it must respond to section D of the antidumping duty 
questionnaire.
    On October 1, 2004, we issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire to Chandan addressing issues raised by sections A-C of 
its response. We received Chandan's supplemental A-C and section D 
questionnaire responses on November 12, 2004. Chandan's November 12, 
2004 response was severely deficient; as a result, we requested a 
revised submission that Chandan submitted on November 16, 2004.
    In the November 16, 2004 submission, the law firm that had been 
certifying and filing Chandan's submissions stated that it did not 
represent Chandan in the current administrative review. On November 22, 
2004, we requested clarification of the relationship between the law 
firm and Chandan in the current proceeding. See November 22, 2004 
letter from Ryan Langan, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office 1 to Mr. Peter Koenig. Subsequently, we determined that the law 
firm had failed to file a formal notice of appearance and an official 
request for adminsitrative protective order (APO) access. The 
Department afforded the law firm an opportunity to make such filings, 
but the Department received no response. Therefore, the Department 
ceased all correspondence with the law firm and corresponded directly 
with Chandan.
    The Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires in 
December 2004 and January 2005. We received responses between December 
2004 and February 2005.
    On January 28, 2005, the petitioners commented on Chandan's January 
5, 2005, response. In those comments, the petitioners noted the 
following problems: (1) Failure to provide adequate cost information on 
a finish-specific basis; (2) failure to provide clear information about 
Chandan's affiliate in the United States, Chandan USA; and (3) failure 
to provide importer of record and entered value information. The 
petitioners argued that, due to these deficiencies, the Department 
should either use partial facts available, adverse facts available or 
the Belgian sales as the

[[Page 10979]]

comparison market values. On February 18, 2005, we received comments 
from the petitioners regarding Chandan's February response.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order of 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.

Scope Exclusion

    On August 9, 2004, we received a scope exclusion request from 
Chandan. In that request, Chandan sought to exclude certain stainless 
steel flat-bars from the scope. Specifically, Chandan sought to exclude 
stainless steel hot rolled flat-bars with sizes ranging from \3/4\'' x 
\1/8\'' to 8'' x 3'' (19.05 mm x 3.18 mm to 203.20 mm x 76.20 mm), with 
a uniform solid cross section the length of the bar in rectangular 
shape. Chandan explained that the bars were not manufactured in the 
United States and that the stainless steel flat-bar applications were 
different from those of stainless steel bar.
    On August 19, 2004, the petitioners requested that the Department 
reject Chandan's exclusion request because Chandan failed to prove the 
necessary elements for a scope exclusion ruling as outlined in 19 CFR 
351.225(c). Furthermore, the petitioners provided evidence from 
domestic producers of stainless steel hot rolled flat-bars that such 
bars are produced in the United States, in direct contradiction to 
Chandan's claims.
    On February 11, 2005, we returned Chandan's scope exclusion 
request, with instructions to refile, because it failed to follow the 
scope exclusion requirements outlined in section 351.225(c) of the 
Department's regulations. See February 11, 2005, letter from Ryan 
Langan, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1 to Chandan 
Steel Ltd., in c/o Mr. Pravin Jain. Specifically, Chandan failed to 
provide, as required by section 351.225(c)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, a detailed description of the product, its current HTSUS 
numbers and technical uses, citations to any applicable statutory 
authority, and factual information supporting the request.

Period of Review

    The period of review is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above in the ``Background'' section of this notice, Venus, 
Mukand, FACOR, Isibars, and the Viraj Group withdrew their requests for 
an administrative review on April 19, 2004, and May 3, 2004. Because 
the petitioners did not request an administrative review for any of 
these companies and the requests to withdraw were made within the time 
limit specified under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this 
administrative review as it pertains to these companies.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSB by Chandan to the United States 
were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP) and 
constructed export price (CEP), as appropriate, to the NV, as described 
in the ``Export Price,'' ``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

    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products produced by Chandan as described in the 
``Scope of the Order'' to be the foreign like product. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the 
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched 
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by 
Chandan in the following order: general type of finish, grade, 
remelting process, type of final finishing operation, shape, and size.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Chandan reported that all of its sales of SSB to the United States 
during the POR were EP sales. According to Chandan, these sales were 
made to unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to the date 
of importation. However, the record is unclear with respect to 
Chandan's U.S. sales distribution processes to these companies, the 
identity of all the companies involved, and the relationship, if any, 
to Chandan. The record does indicate, however, that Chandan made 
certain U.S. sales through an affiliate in the United States, i.e., 
Chandan USA, to unaffiliated customers. In addition, Chandan reported 
extra expenses for the sales made through Chandan USA. These extra 
expenses appear to be incurred by an unaffiliated party in the United 
States and are related to that party's activities in the United States 
on behalf of Chandan. According to information provided by Chandan, the 
unaffiliated party is later reimbursed for those extra expenses by 
Chandan through Chandan USA.
    For these preliminary results, we are treating sales through 
Chandan's U.S. affiliate as CEP sales. As noted above, Chandan has an 
affiliated entity (Chandan USA) in the United States that appears to be 
the entity that makes the first sale in the United States to an 
unaffiliated customer, and Chandan appears to incur expenses that are 
related to economic activity in the United States. We intend to seek 
further information about these sales prior to our final results of 
review.

[[Page 10980]]

Export Price

    We calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for 
those sales Chandan made directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States prior to the date of importation. We based EP on packed, 
CFR prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.
    We made deductions from the EP starting price, where appropriate, 
for foreign inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of 
export, marine insurance, and international freight in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2) of the Act.

Constructed Export Price

    As stated above, we treated those sales made through Chandan's U.S. 
affiliate, Chandan USA, as CEP sales. We calculated CEP in accordance 
with 772(b) of the Act, based on packed, CIF and CFR prices to 
Chandan's unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of export, marine 
insurance, and international freight. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated 
with economic activity in the United States including: commissions, 
credit expenses, and extra expenses incurred in the United States. 
Additionally, we made an adjustment for profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

Selection of Comparison Market

    Because Chandan's home market sales were of defective merchandise, 
we based NV on sales to one of Chandan's third country markets. See 
Comparison Market Memo. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.404, we selected Australia as the third-country 
comparison market.
    Citing 19 CFR 351.404(e)(1), the petitioners have argued that 
Belgium, not Australia, is the most appropriate third-country 
comparison market. The petitioners claim that the Department erred in 
selecting Australia as the third-country comparison market when it 
determined the number of potential matches in the Australian market by 
examining size ranges, rather than the number of matches of identical 
size. The petitioners assert that using a specific size would result in 
a higher percentage of identical matches in Belgium. Furthermore, the 
petitioners argue that the Department must calculate Chandan's NV using 
identical model matches because, when looking at the most recent third-
country databases supplied by Chandan, there still are significant 
differences regarding the product characteristics. The petitioners 
state that, assuming that size ranges are an adequate measure for 
product matching, there are significantly more similar sales matches 
based on grade, shape, finish, and diameter between sales to the United 
States and to Belgium than there are between sales to the United States 
and sales to Australia or Brazil.
    We considered all the criteria under 19 CFR 351.404(e) in 
determining the appropriate third-country comparison market including: 
(1) Whether the foreign like product exported to a particular third 
country is more similar to the subject merchandise exported to the 
United States than is the foreign like product exported to other third 
countries; (2) whether the volume of sales to a particular third 
country is larger than the volume of sales to other third countries; 
and (3) other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate.
    We found that Australia is Chandan's largest third-country market 
by volume. When we compared the sales made to the United States to 
those made to the third-country markets reported by Chandan, we were 
able to identify a greater number of similar matches of U.S. sales to 
Australian sales, than to Belgian sales. This is the same approach the 
Department uses in its margin analysis. Therefore, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.404(e), we have chosen Australia as the appropriate third-
country market.

Cost of Production

    As stated above in the ``Background'' section of this notice, the 
petitioners submitted a below-cost allegation. We found that the 
petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that Chandan's third-country sales were made at prices below 
the COP, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. See the 
October 5, 2004 memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach entitled 
``Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, 
Ltd.'' As a result, we initiated an investigation to determine whether 
Chandan made comparison market sales during the POR at prices below 
their COPs.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
expenses (G&A), and interest expenses. For purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have relied on the COP data submitted by 
Chandan. Before the final results, we intend to seek additional 
information from Chandan about its finishing costs.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product during the 
POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine 
whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. For purposes of 
this comparison, we used COPs exclusive of selling and packing 
expenses. The comparison market prices were exclusive of any applicable 
movement charges, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing 
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: (1) 
Within an extended period of time in substantial quantities; and (2) at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we 
determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard 
those sales of that product, because we determine that in such 
instances the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine 
whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1)(B) and (2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Chandan's comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP. 
In addition, such sales were made within an extended period of time and 
did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of 
time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining above-
cost sales as the basis for determining NV in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

[[Page 10981]]

 Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), 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) (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 section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, (i.e., NV based on 
either home market or third country prices \1\) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Where NV is based on 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 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 61733.
    Chandan reported one level of trade in both U.S. and third-country 
markets. We found no difference between the relevant selling activities 
of the CEP LOT and the third-country LOT. In addition, we found that 
the only difference in selling activities between the third-country LOT 
and the EP LOT was that there were commissions incurred on some U.S. 
sales but none on third-country sales. This difference was not 
substantial. Therefore, we find that selling activities were performed 
at the same relative level of intensity in both markets, and that the 
EP and CEP levels of trade were the same as the third-country LOT. 
Accordingly, all sales comparisons are at the same LOT for Chandan and 
an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.

 Calculation of Normal Value

Price to Price Comparisons

    We based NV on packed FOB, CIF, and CFR prices to Chandan's third-
country unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, including: Foreign inland freight 
from the plant/warehouse to the port of export, marine insurance, and 
international freight.
    We also reduced the starting price for comparison market packing 
costs incurred on the comparison market sales, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased NV to include U.S. packing 
expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). We made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, where appropriate, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, 
we made an adjustment to NV to account for commissions paid on some 
U.S. sales but not on sales in the third country, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.410(e). As the offset for U.S. commissions, we used third-
county indirect selling expenses to the extent of the lesser of the 
commission or the indirect selling expenses. In addition, we made 
adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs 
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the 
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411.

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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all 
information to be used in making our final results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping 
margin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel Ltd...........................................       10.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.

Assessment Rate

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. According to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), for those sales with a reported entered value, we will 
calculate 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. Chandan did not to report 
entered value for the importers it identified. Therefore, to estimate 
entered value, we deducted from gross unit price international freight, 
marine insurance, and document clearing expenses. If, at the final 
results, we find that determining assessment rates on an ad valorem 
basis is not appropriate, we will do so on a per unit assessment basis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total 
dumping margins for

[[Page 10982]]

each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the 
review period.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective 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 for by section 751(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will 
be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within 
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for 
previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, or the less than fair value (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 merchandise; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to 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, 
66921 (Dec. 28, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    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 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: February 28, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-924 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P