Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 40318-40320 [E5-3713]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40318
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Notices
Business-Cooperative Service, USDA,
Stop 3252, Room 4221, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–3252.
Telephone: (202) 690–3407, e-mail:
edgar.lewis@wdc.usda.gov.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
The paperwork burden associated
with this initiative has been cleared by
the Office of Management and Budget
under OMB Control Number 0570–0041.
Dated: July 7, 2005.
David Rouzer,
Acting Administrator, Rural BusinessCooperative Service.
[FR Doc. 05–13752 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–485–806
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Hot- Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Romania
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is extending the time limit for
completion of the preliminary results of
the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain hot–
rolled carbon steel flat products from
Romania until November 30, 2005. The
period of review is November 1, 2003,
through October 31, 2004.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dunyako Ahmadu or Dave Dirstine,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0198
and (202) 482–4033, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On December 27, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of
initiation of the 2003–2004 antidumping
duty administrative review of this order
covering S.C. Ispat Sidex S.A, Sidex
Trading S.r.l., and Metalexportimport,
S.A. See Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 69 FR 77181
(December 27, 2004).
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:40 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results
The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), provides at section
751(a)(3)(A) that the Department will
issue the preliminary results of an
administrative review of an
antidumping duty order within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of the date of publication of the
order. The Act provides further that, if
the Department determines that it is not
practicable to complete the review
within this time period, the Department
may extend the 245-day period to 365
days.
The Department has determined that
it is not practicable to complete the
preliminary results by the current
deadline of August 2, 2005, because it
received a request for an expedited
changed–circumstances review for this
order on March 24, 2005, followed by a
request to conduct a sales–below-cost
investigation on March 31, 2005.
Following our initiation of a cost
investigation, we requested that Ispat
Sidex respond to a cost–of-production
questionnaire and respond to
supplemental questions regarding its
home–market and U.S. questionnaire
response.
This review presents new and
complex issues for the Department to
consider as a result of Romania’s change
in status from a non–market economy to
a market economy on January 1, 2003
(see Certain Small Diameter Carbon and
Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and
Pressure Pipe From Romania: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 12672
(March 17, 2003). Further, additional
time is necessary to conduct a
verification of Ispat Sidex’s
questionnaire responses.
Therefore, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2), the Department is
extending the time limit for the
preliminary results by 120 days to
November 30, 2005.
We are issuing this notice in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act.
Dated: July 7, 2005.
Susan Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–3714 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–533–808
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and
Determination to Revoke Order in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 7, 2005, the
Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from
India. The review covers three
companies for the period December 1,
2002, through November 30, 2003. We
gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results.
Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we have made changes,
including correction of a clerical error,
in the margin calculations. The final
weighted–average margins are listed
below in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’
section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Case at (202) 482–3174 or Minoo
Hatten at (202) 482–1690, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On January 7, 2005, we published the
preliminary results of review, extended
the time limit for these final results, and
invited parties to comment. Stainless
Steel Wire Rods From India: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Intent To
Revoke Order In Part, and Extension of
Time Limit for the Final Results of
Review, 70 FR 1413 (January 7, 2005)
(Preliminary Results). We received case
briefs from the petitioner,1 Chandan
Steel, Ltd. (Chandan), and Viraj Alloys,
Ltd., and VSL Wires, Ltd. (collectively
Viraj). We received rebuttal briefs from
Chandan, Viraj, and Isibars.2
1 The
petitioner is Carpenter Technology Corp.
is comprised of the following entities:
Isibars Limited, Zenstar Impex, and Shaktiman
Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Department determined that several case and
rebuttal briefs contained new factual information.
In a separate memorandum, the Department
outlined its rationale for either accepting or
rejecting such information. See Memorandum to
Laurie Parkhill entitled Submissions of Untimely
New Factual Information in the Administrative
2 Isibars
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Notices
The Department of Commerce (the
Department) has conducted this review
in accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain SSWRs, which are hot–rolled
or hot–rolled annealed and/or pickled
rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or
other shapes, in coils. SSWRs are made
of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2
percent or less of carbon and 10.5
percent or more of chromium, with or
without other elements. These products
are only manufactured by hot–rolling,
are normally sold in coiled form, and
are of solid cross section. The majority
of SSWRs sold in the United States are
round in cross-section shape, annealed,
and pickled. The most common size is
5.5 millimeters in diameter.
The products are currently classifiable
under subheadings 7221.00.0005,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 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 this
proceeding remains dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the parties’ case
and rebuttal briefs in the context of this
administrative review are addressed in
the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’
from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated July 6, 2005
(Decision Memorandum), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached
to this notice as an appendix is a list of
the issues that the parties have raised
and to which we have responded in the
Decision Memorandum. Parties can find
a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room B–099
of the main Department building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless
Steel Wire Rod from India, dated June 8, 2005. The
Department requested that parties redact the new
information rejected by the Department and any
references to the information in the submissions
and resubmit the documents.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:40 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Sales Below Cost in the Home Market
As discussed in detail in the
preliminary results, the Department
disregarded certain home–market sales
that Viraj sold at prices below the cost
of production. See Preliminary Results,
70 FR 1422. For these final results, the
Department disregarded home–market
sales made by Viraj and Isibars at
below–cost prices.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes to our calculations that have
changed the results for certain
companies. Further, although we used
total adverse facts available to establish
a dumping margin for Isibars in the
Preliminary Results, we explained in
that notice that we would allow Isibars
an opportunity to correct certain
deficiencies in its cost data for the final
results. Subsequent to the Preliminary
Results, we issued Isibars an additional
cost–of-production supplemental
questionnaire. Isibars corrected its prior
deficiencies, and we conducted a cost
verification. We calculated a dumping
margin for Isibars and released those
calculations to the parties for comment
on May 13, 2005. See Post–Preliminary
Draft Analysis Memorandum of Isibars
Limited for Stainless Steel Wire Rod
from India Adm. Rev. 12/1/02 - 11/30/
03, dated May 13, 2005.
Revocation of Order in Part
On December 31, 2003, Viraj
requested revocation of the antidumping
duty order with respect to its sales of
the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.222(b). With its request for
revocation, Viraj provided each of the
certifications required under 19 CFR
351.222(e).
The Department may revoke, in whole
or in part, an antidumping duty order
upon completion of a review under
section 751 of the Act. While Congress
has not specified the procedures that the
Department must follow in revoking an
order, the Department has developed a
procedure for revocation that is
described in 19 CFR 351.222. This
regulation requires that a company
requesting revocation must submit the
following: (1) a certification that the
company has sold the subject
merchandise at not less than normal
value (NV) in the current review period
and that the company will not sell
subject merchandise at less than NV in
the future; (2) a certification that the
company sold commercial quantities of
the subject merchandise to the United
States in each of the three consecutive
years forming the basis of the request;
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40319
and (3) an agreement to immediate
reinstatement of the order if the
Department concludes that, subsequent
to the revocation, the company sold
subject merchandise at less than NV.
See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt
of such a request, the Department will
consider the following: (1) whether the
company in question has sold subject
merchandise at not less than NV for a
period of at least three consecutive
years; (2) whether the company has
agreed in writing to its immediate
reinstatement in the order, as long as
any exporter or producer is subject to
the order, if the Department concludes
that the company, subsequent to the
revocation, sold the subject
merchandise at less than NV; and (3)
whether the continued application of
the antidumping duty order is otherwise
necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2)(i).
In the Preliminary Results, we found
that the request from Viraj met all of the
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We
continue to find that this is the case for
Viraj. With regard to the criteria of
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our
final margin calculations show that
Viraj sold SSWR at not less than NV
during the current review period. In
addition, Viraj sold SSWR at not less
than NV in the two previous
administrative reviews in which it was
involved. See Stainless Steel Wire Rods
From India: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 29923
(May 26, 2004) (covering the period
from December 1, 2001, through
November 30, 2002), and Stainless Steel
Wire Rods From India: Notice of
Amended Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 38301
(June 27, 2003) (covering the period
from December 1, 2000, through
November 30, 2001).
Based on our examination of the sales
data submitted by Viraj, we determine
that it sold the subject merchandise in
the United States in commercial
quantities in each of the consecutive
years cited by Viraj to support its
request for revocation. Thus, we find
that Viraj had zero or de minimis
dumping margins for its last three
administrative reviews and sold in
commercial quantities in each of these
years. Additionally, we find that the
continued application of the
antidumping duty order is not otherwise
necessary to offset dumping. Therefore,
we determine that Viraj qualifies for
revocation of the order on SSWR
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and
that the order with respect to
merchandise produced and exported by
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
40320
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Notices
Viraj should be revoked. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we are
terminating the suspension of
liquidation for any of the merchandise
in question that is entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after December 1,
2003, and will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to refund
any cash deposits for such entries.
Although the petitioner has requested
that the Department not revoke the
order with respect to Viraj pending the
resolution of outstanding litigation, the
evidence currently before the
Department shows that Viraj has met
each of the criteria set forth in 19 CFR
351.222. See the Decision Memorandum
at comment 8 for further discussion of
this issue.
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 period for the manufacturer of
the subject merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review, the cash–deposit
rate shall be 48.80 percent, the all–
others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from
India, 58 FR 54110 (October 20, 1993).
These deposit requirements shall
remain in effect until the publication of
the final results of the next
administrative review.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
determine that the following weighted–
average percentage margins exist for the
period December 1, 2002, through
November 30, 2003:
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final 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
Producer or Exporter
Margin during the review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
Chandan Steel, Ltd. ..........................
2.10%
result in the Secretary’s presumption
Isibars Limited, Zenstar Impex, and
Shaktiman Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd. 27.20% that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
The Viraj Group (Viraj Alloys, Ltd.
and VSL Wires, Ltd.) ....................
0.00% assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
Assessment Rates
to parties subject to administrative
The Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on protective orders (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
all appropriate entries. In accordance
disposition of proprietary information
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
disclosed under APO as explained in
calculated importer- or customer–
specific assessment rates or amounts, as the administrative protective order
itself. Timely written notification of the
appropriate, for merchandise subject to
return or destruction of APO materials
this review. We will issue appropriate
or conversion to judicial protective
assessment instructions directly to CBP
order is hereby requested. Failure to
within 15 days of publication of these
comply with the regulations and terms
final results of review.
of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Cash–Deposit Requirements
These final results of administrative
review and notice are issued and
The following deposit requirements
published in accordance with sections
will be effective upon publication of
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
these final results of administrative
review for all shipments of SSWR from
Dated: July 6, 2005.
India entered, or withdrawn from
Joseph A. Spetrini,
warehouse, for consumption on or after
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
the publication date of these final
Administration.
results, as provided by section
APPENDIX 4 Issues in the Decision
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash–
Memorandum
deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates shown
A. Issue with regard to Chandan
above; (2) for merchandise exported by
Comment 1: Constructed–Value Profit
other producers or exporters that were
Rate
reviewed or investigated previously, the B. Issues with regard to Isibars
cash–deposit rate will continue to be the
Comment 2: U.S. Movement Expenses
most recent rate published in the final
Comment 3: Unreconciled Cost
determination or final results for which
Difference
the producer or exporter received an
C. Issues with regard to Viraj
individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not
Comment 4: Debt–Restructuring
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:40 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment 5: Review of Tax Returns at
Verification
Comment 6: Collapsing of VAL and
VSL
Comment 7: Request for Additional
Sales and Cost Data
Comment 8: Revocation
Comment 9: Credit Expenses
Comment 10: Indirect Selling
Expenses Incurred in the Country of
Manufacture
Comment 11: Direct Material Costs
Comment 12: Costs of Affiliated
Power Company
Comment 13: VAL’s Fixed Overhead
Costs
Comment 14: Interest Expenses
Comment 15: G&A Expenses
Comment 16: Duty Drawback
Comment 17: Constructed–Value
Profit Rate
Comment 18: Clerical Error in the
CEP–Profit Calculation
[FR Doc. E5–3713 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
Intent To Prepare a Joint
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the
Coyote Creek Watershed Management
Plan Feasibility Study, Orange and Los
Angeles Counties, CA
Department of the Army; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Coyote Creek Watershed
Study will integrate and balance the
physical and biological systems within
the watershed to enhance aquatic and
terrestrial habitat, improve water
quality, enhance water resources,
increase trail connections, enhance
passive recreation and open space,
reduce sediment and erosion, and aid in
flood protection. Additionally, the
Watershed Management Plan will
encourage greater cooperation between
public agencies and private
organizations to leverage limited
resources and improve quality of life
within the watershed. It will be a
guidance document for watershed
stakeholders to better manage watershed
resources and land use. This Plan will
identify and prioritize projects for
maintaining, constructing, restoring,
and enhancing resources that contribute
to a healthy and sustainable watershed.
Policy and management
recommendations will result from this
plan that will connect existing public
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40318-40320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-533-808
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from India. The review
covers three companies for the period December 1, 2002, through
November 30, 2003. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we have made changes, including correction of a clerical
error, in the margin calculations. The final weighted-average margins
are listed below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case at (202) 482-3174 or
Minoo Hatten at (202) 482-1690, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 7, 2005, we published the preliminary results of review,
extended the time limit for these final results, and invited parties to
comment. Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent To Revoke Order In Part,
and Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Review, 70 FR 1413
(January 7, 2005) (Preliminary Results). We received case briefs from
the petitioner,\1\ Chandan Steel, Ltd. (Chandan), and Viraj Alloys,
Ltd., and VSL Wires, Ltd. (collectively Viraj). We received rebuttal
briefs from Chandan, Viraj, and Isibars.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is Carpenter Technology Corp.
\2\ Isibars is comprised of the following entities: Isibars
Limited, Zenstar Impex, and Shaktiman Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Department determined that several case and rebuttal briefs
contained new factual information. In a separate memorandum, the
Department outlined its rationale for either accepting or rejecting
such information. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled
Submissions of Untimely New Factual Information in the
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless
Steel Wire Rod from India, dated June 8, 2005. The Department
requested that parties redact the new information rejected by the
Department and any references to the information in the submissions
and resubmit the documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40319]]
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted this
review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain SSWRs, which are
hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares,
octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. SSWRs are made of alloy
steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These
products are only manufactured by hot-rolling, are normally sold in
coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of SSWRs sold
in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and
pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
The products are currently classifiable under subheadings
7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and
7221.00.0075 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 this
proceeding remains dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs in the
context of this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'' from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 6, 2005
(Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached
to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues that the parties
have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum.
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum,
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Sales Below Cost in the Home Market
As discussed in detail in the preliminary results, the Department
disregarded certain home-market sales that Viraj sold at prices below
the cost of production. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR 1422. For these
final results, the Department disregarded home-market sales made by
Viraj and Isibars at below-cost prices.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes to our calculations that have changed the results for certain
companies. Further, although we used total adverse facts available to
establish a dumping margin for Isibars in the Preliminary Results, we
explained in that notice that we would allow Isibars an opportunity to
correct certain deficiencies in its cost data for the final results.
Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, we issued Isibars an additional
cost-of-production supplemental questionnaire. Isibars corrected its
prior deficiencies, and we conducted a cost verification. We calculated
a dumping margin for Isibars and released those calculations to the
parties for comment on May 13, 2005. See Post-Preliminary Draft
Analysis Memorandum of Isibars Limited for Stainless Steel Wire Rod
from India Adm. Rev. 12/1/02 - 11/30/03, dated May 13, 2005.
Revocation of Order in Part
On December 31, 2003, Viraj requested revocation of the antidumping
duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). With its request for revocation, Viraj
provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e).
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation
requires that a company requesting revocation must submit the
following: (1) a certification that the company has sold the subject
merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current review
period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less
than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold
commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States
in each of the three consecutive years forming the basis of the
request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order
if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, the
company sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will
consider the following: (1) whether the company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three
consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its
immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at
less than NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the
antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19
CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
In the Preliminary Results, we found that the request from Viraj
met all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We continue to find that
this is the case for Viraj. With regard to the criteria of subsection
19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show that Viraj
sold SSWR at not less than NV during the current review period. In
addition, Viraj sold SSWR at not less than NV in the two previous
administrative reviews in which it was involved. See Stainless Steel
Wire Rods From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 29923 (May 26, 2004)
(covering the period from December 1, 2001, through November 30, 2002),
and Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Notice of Amended Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 38301 (June 27, 2003) (covering the period from December
1, 2000, through November 30, 2001).
Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we
determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States in
commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by Viraj
to support its request for revocation. Thus, we find that Viraj had
zero or de minimis dumping margins for its last three administrative
reviews and sold in commercial quantities in each of these years.
Additionally, we find that the continued application of the antidumping
duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we
determine that Viraj qualifies for revocation of the order on SSWR
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to
merchandise produced and exported by
[[Page 40320]]
Viraj should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we
are terminating the suspension of liquidation for any of the
merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after December 1, 2003, and will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund any cash deposits for
such entries.
Although the petitioner has requested that the Department not
revoke the order with respect to Viraj pending the resolution of
outstanding litigation, the evidence currently before the Department
shows that Viraj has met each of the criteria set forth in 19 CFR
351.222. See the Decision Memorandum at comment 8 for further
discussion of this issue.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period December 1,
2002, through November 30, 2003:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer or Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel, Ltd............................................. 2.10%
Isibars Limited, Zenstar Impex, and Shaktiman Steel Casting 27.20%
Pvt. Ltd......................................................
The Viraj Group (Viraj Alloys, Ltd. and VSL Wires, Ltd.)....... 0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer- or customer-specific
assessment rates or amounts, as appropriate, for merchandise subject to
this review. We will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly
to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of administrative review for all
shipments of SSWR from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates
for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for
merchandise exported by other producers or exporters that were reviewed
or investigated previously, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be
the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the producer or exporter received an individual rate;
(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 period for the manufacturer of the subject
merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash-deposit rate
shall be 48.80 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 54110
(October 20, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect
until the publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final 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 the 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.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely
written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
These final results of administrative review and notice are issued
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX [hzbar] Issues in the Decision Memorandum
A. Issue with regard to Chandan
Comment 1: Constructed-Value Profit Rate
B. Issues with regard to Isibars
Comment 2: U.S. Movement Expenses
Comment 3: Unreconciled Cost Difference
C. Issues with regard to Viraj
Comment 4: Debt-Restructuring
Comment 5: Review of Tax Returns at Verification
Comment 6: Collapsing of VAL and VSL
Comment 7: Request for Additional Sales and Cost Data
Comment 8: Revocation
Comment 9: Credit Expenses
Comment 10: Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in the Country of
Manufacture
Comment 11: Direct Material Costs
Comment 12: Costs of Affiliated Power Company
Comment 13: VAL's Fixed Overhead Costs
Comment 14: Interest Expenses
Comment 15: G&A Expenses
Comment 16: Duty Drawback
Comment 17: Constructed-Value Profit Rate
Comment 18: Clerical Error in the CEP-Profit Calculation
[FR Doc. E5-3713 Filed 7-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
