Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 32573-32577 [E5-2863]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 106 (Friday, June 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32573-32577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2863]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-423-808


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: 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 (SSPC) from Belgium. For the period May 1, 2003, through 
April 30, 2004, we have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have 
been made 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 based on the difference 
between the constructed export price (CEP) and NV. See ``Preliminary 
Results of Review'' section of this notice. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page or Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1398 
or (202) 482-0780, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BACKGROUND

    On May 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSPC 
from Belgium (69 FR 24117). On May 28, 2004, and June 1, 2004, the 
Department received timely requests for an administrative review of 
this order from Petitioners , Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, 
Butler Armco Independent Union, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization (collectively, 
Petitioners), and Respondent, Ugine & ALZ Belgium (U&A Belgium), 
respectively. On June 30, 2004, we published a notice initiating an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSPC from 
Belgium covering one respondent, U&A Belgium. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, (69 FR 39409).
    On August 3, 2004, we issued a questionnaire to U&A Belgium and 
received their response on October 1, 2004. Supplemental questionnaires 
were issued on January 7, 2005, February 9, 2005, April 1, 2005, April

[[Page 32574]]

29, 2005, and May 9, 2005 and responses were submitted on February 4, 
2005, February 17, 2005, April 21, 2005, May 6, 2005, and May 13, 2005, 
respectively.
    On December 28, 2004, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review from 
January 31, 2005, until May 31, 2005. See Notice of Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils from Belgium, 69 FR 77727 (December 28, 2004).
    We intend to issue an additional supplemental questionnaire 
requesting information to clarify a discrepancy between the sales 
database submitted by U&A Belgium and the data provided by the CBP 
concerning entries of subject merchandise during the period of review 
(POR). The response is due after the issuance of the preliminary 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c), parties 
will have 10 days to comment on the new information. Parties will also 
have an opportunity to comment on any determination resulting from the 
analysis of this information. Any decision reached by the Department 
concerning this issue will be reflected in the final results of this 
review.

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 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, 7219.12.00.06, 
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.

ANALYSIS

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 Antidumping Duty 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 most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the 
initial antidumping questionnaire we provided to U&A Belgium. See U&A 
Belgium Antidumping Questionnaire, dated August 3, 2004, on the record 
in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-0999 of the Main Commerce 
Building.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared CEP to NV, as 
described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the 
Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared 
these to individual U.S. transaction prices.

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 U&A 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) and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because U&A 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 supporting a particular market 
situation in the exporting company's country that would not permit a 
proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices.

Arm's Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's 
length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales 
were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. In accordance with the 
Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated 
party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices 
charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most 
similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to 
be at arm's length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where the 
affiliated party did not pass the arm's length test, all sales to that 
affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002).

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 
Respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date 
better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer 
establishes the essential terms of sale. U&A 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 purposes of this review, U&A Belgium classified all of its 
export sales of SSPC to the United States as CEP sales. During the POR, 
U&A Belgium made sales in the United States through its U.S. affiliate 
Arcelor Stainless USA (AS USA), which then resold the merchandise to 
unaffiliated customers. Prior to November 1, 2002, U&A Belgium made 
sales through its U.S.

[[Page 32575]]

affiliate, TrefilARBED. A few open but unfilled orders made prior to 
November 1, 2002, were finalized through TrefilARBED during this POR. 
See page 11 of the October 4, 2004, Questionnaire Response. 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 post-sale warehousing) in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(e). In addition, 
because U&A Belgium reported CEP sales, in accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price, credit 
expenses, commissions, 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 more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT, and 
available data provide no appropriate basis to determine an 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).
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's length prices (i.e., at prices comparable to 
the prices at which Respondent sold identical merchandise to 
unaffiliated customers).

Cost of Production

    The Department disregarded sales below cost of production (COP) in 
the last completed review. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 
Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 69 FR 
74495 (December 14, 2004). We therefore have reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the 
determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below 
COP. Thus, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined 
whether U&A Belgium's sales in the home market were made at prices 
below the COP.
    We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market 
with model-specific COP figures for the POR. In accordance with section 
773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs 
of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like 
product, plus selling, general and administrative (G&A) expenses and 
all costs and expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product 
in packed condition and ready for shipment. In our sales-below-cost 
analysis, we relied on home market sales and COP information provided 
by U&A Belgium in its questionnaire responses. We made adjustments to 
COP and to constructed value (CV) to reflect appropriately U&A 
Belgium's total cost of manufacturing SSPC and various fixed overhead 
costs.
    We compared the weighted-average model-specific COPs to home market 
sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were 
made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, 
and (2) at prices which did not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any movement 
charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Respondent's sales of a given product were at prices which 
represent less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales 
of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 
percent or more of Respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
which represented less than the COP, we determined that they were made 
in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Because we compared 
prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that the below-cost 
prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period 
of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, 
we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales, if 
any, as the basis for NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.

CEP to NV Comparison

    For those sales at prices above COP, we based NV on home market 
prices to affiliated (when made at prices determined to be arm's 
length) or unaffiliated parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. 
Home market starting prices were based on packed prices to affiliated 
or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market, net of discounts. We 
made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and movement expenses, 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also 
made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences 
in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. For comparison to CEP, we deducted home 
market direct selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c) of the Department's regulations.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for NV when there were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of 
identical or similar merchandise in the comparison market. We 
calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included 
the cost of materials and fabrication, G&A, and profit. In accordance 
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit 
on the amounts incurred and realized by Respondent in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling 
expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling expenses.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same LOT as the U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 351.412. The NV 
LOT is the level of the starting-price sale in the comparison market 
or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive 
SG&A and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the 
starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For 
CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
importer. See 19 CFR 351.412. As noted above, U&A Belgium classified 
all its exported sales of SSPC as CEP sales. The Department's analysis 
found nothing to indicate that U&A Belgium's sales were not CEP.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a

[[Page 32576]]

different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 
8781 (February 26, 2002); 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 (November 19, 1997) and Certain Hot-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 
17406 (April 6, 2005). 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). We expect 
that, if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of 
the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the 
LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 
30068 (May 10, 2000).
    In the current review, U&A Belgium reported six customer categories 
and one LOT in the comparison market. U&A Belgium performs a variety of 
distinct selling functions in the comparison market. See Appendix A-12 
of the October 4, 2004, Questionnaire Response. We examined the selling 
functions performed for the six customer categories and found there 
were no differences in selling functions offered among them. See 
Memorandum from Toni Page to The File ``Analysis for Ugine & ALZ, N.V. 
Belgium (U&A Belgium) for the Preliminary Results of the Fifth 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (SSPC) from 
Belgium,'' dated May 31, 2005 (``Analysis Memorandum''). Therefore, we 
preliminarily conclude that U&A Belgium's sales in the home market 
constitute one LOT.
    U&A Belgium reported two channels of distribution and one LOT in 
the U.S. market. U&A Belgium's two channels of distribution are: 1) 
direct sales by AS USA of made-to-order merchandise produced by U&A 
Belgium, and 2) warehouse sales by AS USA of merchandise imported from 
U&A Belgium and stocked by AS USA. See page 22 of the October 4, 2004, 
Questionnaire Response. AS USA performed the majority of sales 
functions in both sales channels. In the instances of the few open 
orders that are being handled and finalized TrefilARBED, TrefilARBED 
performed the same selling functions otherwise handled by AS USA. See 
page 11 of the October 4, 2004, Questionnaire Response. We examined the 
selling functions performed and found that there were only minor 
differences with respect to the degree to which the U.S. affiliates 
performed those selling functions for both channels. In addition, 
Arcelor Stainless International and U&A Belgium perform two sales 
functions jointly with the U.S. affiliates in both sales channels. In 
light of the above, we preliminarily conclude that U&A Belgium's two 
U.S. sales channels constitute one LOT. See ``Analysis Memorandum.''
    U&A Belgium, and its affiliates, Ugine & ALZ SA and Ugine & ALZ 
Benelux, perform all home market selling activities. Selling functions 
for the U.S. market, as indicated above, are performed by AS USA, with 
the exception of two selling functions which AS USA shared with U&A 
Belgium and Arcelor Stainless International. We compared the U.S. and 
home market LOTs and determined that, after eliminating from 
consideration selling functions performed by AS USA (pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act), U&A Belgium's home market sales are made at 
a different, and more remote, LOT than its CEP sales. See ``Analysis 
Memorandum.''
    We therefore examined whether an LOT adjustment or CEP offset may 
be appropriate. In this case, U&A 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 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 the data available do not 
provide an appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment, but 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). This offset is equal to the amount of indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the comparison market not exceeding the amount of 
indirect selling expenses and commissions deducted from the U.S. price 
in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. For a detailed 
discussion, see ``Analysis Memorandum.''

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 based on 
rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF REVIEW

    We preliminarily determine that for the period May 1, 2003, through 
April 30, 2004, the following dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U&A Belgium.........................................                2.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 
Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the 
subject merchandise for each respondent. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of 
publication of the final results of this review.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit rates will be effective 
with respect to all shipments of SSPC from Belgium entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act: (1) for U&A Belgium, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will 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 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

[[Page 32577]]

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 shall be the all others' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation, which is 9.86 percent. 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 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be 
submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to 
be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing 
case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must 
be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public 
hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 
Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. 
Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, 
no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, 
unless extended. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    These preliminary results of this administrative review and notice 
are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 26, 2005.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2863 Filed 6-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S