Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 45668-45675 [05-15639]
Download as PDF
45668
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
(COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We also adjusted the starting
price, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), for
indirect selling expenses incurred on
comparison–market or U.S. sales where
commissions were granted on sales in
one market but not in the other market,
where applicable.
Specifically, we reduced the starting
price for inland freight pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c), we
increased the starting price for interest
revenue. We also made COS
adjustments to the starting price for
imputed credit expenses in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.410. Finally, we
deducted home market packing costs
from, and added U.S. packing costs to
the starting price in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Currency Conversions
We made currency conversions in
accordance with section 773A 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.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following weighted–average dumping
margin exists for the period July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004.
Manufacturer/exporter
Weighted–average
margin percentage
CCM ..............................
0.00
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 5 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice. Parties who submit
arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue,
(2) a brief summary of the argument and
(3) a table of authorities. Further, parties
submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette. All case
briefs must be submitted within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed not later than five days after the
case briefs are filed. A hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or
the first business day thereafter.
The Department will publish a notice
of the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of the issues raised in any
written comments or at the hearing,
within 120 days from the publication of
these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Upon
completion of this review, the
Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP. The final
results of this review shall be the basis
for the assessment of antidumping
duties on entries of merchandise
covered by the review and for future
deposits of estimated duties. For duty
assessment purposes, we will calculate
a per–unit customer or importer–
specific assessment rate by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to each customer/importer
and dividing this amount by the total
quantity of those sales. Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to assess duties on all
entries of subject merchandise by that
importer.
The following deposit requirements
will be effective for all shipments of
silicon metal from Brazil entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the
cash–deposit rates for the reviewed
company will be the rate established in
the final results of review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash–
deposit rate will continue to be the
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less–than-fair–value
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 91.06
percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
These 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)
of the Department’s regulations to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
This administrative review and notice
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–4255 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–427–814]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
France
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
Ugine and ALZ France S.A. (U&A
France) (the Respondent), and
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK
Steel, Inc., North American Stainless,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL–
CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent
Union, and Zanesville Armco
Independent Organization (collectively,
the Petitioners), the U.S. Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSS) from
France for the period July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004 (POR). The
Department preliminarily finds that
U&A France’s sales of SSSS in the
United States were made at less than
normal value (NV). If these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results
of this administrative review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on entries of U&A France’s
merchandise during the period of
review. The preliminary results are
listed in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary
Results of Review,’’ below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office
6, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
(202) 482–3964.
Background
On July 27, 1999, the Department
published the amended final
determination and antidumping duty
order on SSSS from France. See Notice
of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
France, 64 FR 40562 (July 27, 1999). On
July 1, 2004, the Department published
a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review’’ of the
antidumping duty order on SSSS from
France for the period July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004. See Notice of
Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review of Antidumping Duty or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 39903
(July 1, 2004). On July 30, 2004, the
Petitioners and U&A France, a producer
and exporter of subject merchandise,
requested that the Department conduct
a review of U&A France’s sales or
entries of merchandise subject to the
Department’s antidumping duty order
on SSSS from France. On August 30,
2004, in accordance with section 751(a)
of the Act, the Department published a
notice of initiation of this antidumping
duty administrative review for the
period July 1, 2003, through June 30,
2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004).
On September 16, 2004, the
Department issued a questionnaire to
U&A France. On November 19, 2004,
U&A France filed its response to Section
A through E. On December 1, 2004,
U&A France submitted a revised version
of the computer file format table, which
was submitted in the November 19,
2004 response.
On January 25, 2005, the Petitioners
submitted comments on U&A France’s
response to Section A of the
Department’s questionnaire. On January
27, 2005, the Petitioners submitted
comments on U&A France’s response to
section D and E of the Department’s
questionnaire. On February 4, 2005, the
Petitioners submitted their comments
on U&A France’s response to section B
and C of the Department’s
questionnaire.
On February 15, 2005, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire for
section A to U&A France. On February
25, 2005, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires for section
B and C to U&A France.
On March 7, 2004, the Department
extended the time limit for the
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
preliminary results of the antidumping
duty administrative review. See Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
France, 70 FR 10985 (March 7, 2005).
On March 22, 2005, U&A France filed
its response to the section A
supplemental questionnaire. On April 1,
2005, U&A France filed its response to
section B and C supplemental
questionnaire. On May 3, 2005, the
Department issued a section D and E
supplemental questionnaire to U&A
France. On May 27, 2005, U&A France
filed its response to the section D and
E supplemental questionnaire. On June
15, 2005, the Department issued a
second supplemental section D
questionnaire to U&A France. On June
24, 2005, U&A France filed its response
to the second supplemental section D
questionnaire.
On June 27, 2005 the Petitioners filed
comments on the section A–C
supplemental questionnaire responses
for U&A France. On July 8, 2005, the
Department issued a third supplemental
section D questionnaire to U&A France.
On the same date, U&A France filed its
sales reconciliation with the
Department. On July 15, 2005, U&A
France filed its response to the third
supplemental section D questionnaire.
On July 28, 2005, U&A France
responded to Petitioners’ comments
dated June 27, 2005. On July 29, 2005,
the Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire regarding
sections A, B, and C to clarify a number
of issues raised by the Petitioners. U&A
France’s 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. Any
decision reached by the Department
concerning these issues will be reflected
in the final results of this review.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain stainless steel sheet and strip
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 sheet and strip is
a flat-rolled product in coils that is
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less
than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is
annealed or otherwise heat treated and
pickled or otherwise descaled. The
subject sheet and strip may also be
further processed (e.g., cold-rolled,
polished, aluminized, coated, etc.)
provided that is maintains the specific
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45669
dimensions of sheet and strip following
such processing.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) at subheadings:
7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051,
7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.811,
7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065,
7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005,
7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025,
7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036,
7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042,
7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005,
7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025,
7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036,
7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042,
7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005,
7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025,
7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035,
7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015,
7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035,
7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020,
7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060,
7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000,
7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010,
7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060,
7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005,
7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015,
7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080,
7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010,
7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060,
7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000,
7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060,
7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015,
7220.90.7060, and 7220.90.0080.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs’
purposes, the Department’s written
description of the merchandise under
the order is dispositive.
Excluded from the order are the
following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not
annealed or otherwise heat treated and
pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet
and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate
(i.e., flat-rolled stainless sheet products
of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more); (4)
flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with
a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of
a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is
a flat-rolled product of stainless steel,
not further worked than cold-rolled
(cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of
not more than 23 mm and a thickness
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by
weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium,
and certified at the time of entry to be
used in the manufacture of razor blades.
See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS,
‘‘Additional U.S. Note’’ 1(d).
Flapper valve steel is also excluded
from the scope of the order. This
1 Due to changes to HTSUS numbers in 2001,
7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and
7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051,
7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45670
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
product is defined as stainless steel strip
in coils containing, by weight, between
0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent
manganese. This steel strip contains, by
weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or
less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50
percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or
less. The product is manufactured by
means of vacuum arc remelting, with
exclusion controls for sulphide of no
more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of
no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper
valve steel has a tensile strength of
between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength
of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or
minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of
between 460 and 590. Flapper valve
steel is most commonly used to produce
specialty flapper valves in compressors.
Also excluded is a product referred to
as suspension foil, a specialty steel
product used in the manufacture of
suspension assemblies for computer
disk drives. Suspension foil is described
as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless
steel of a thickness between 14 and 127
microns, with a thickness tolerance of
plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface
glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs.
Suspension foil must be supplied in coil
widths of not more than 407 mm, and
with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks
may only be visible on one side, with
no scratches of measurable depth. The
material must exhibit residual stresses
of 2 mm maximum deflection, and
flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.
Certain stainless foil for automotive
catalytic converters is also excluded
from the scope of this order. This
stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty
foil with a thickness of between 20 and
110 microns used to produce a metallic
substrate with a honeycomb structure
for use in automotive catalytic
converters. The steel contains, by
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030
percent, silicon of no more than 1.0
percent, manganese of no more than 1.0
percent, chromium of between 19 and
22 percent, aluminum of no less than
5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than
0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than
0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than
0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and
total rare earth elements of more than
0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
Permanent magnet iron-chromiumcobalt alloy stainless strip is also
excluded from the scope of this order.
This ductile stainless steel strip
contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent
chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt,
with the remainder of iron, in widths
228.6 mm or less, and a thickness
between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits
magnetic remanence between 9,000 and
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of
between 50 and 300 oersteds. This
product is most commonly used in
electronic sensors and is currently
available under proprietary trade names
such as ‘‘Arnokrome III.’’ 2
Certain electrical resistance alloy steel
is also excluded from the scope of this
order. This product is defined as a nonmagnetic stainless steel manufactured to
American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) specification B344
and containing, by weight, 36 percent
nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46
percent iron, and is most notable for its
resistance to high temperature
corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390
degrees Celsius and displays a creep
rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square
millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This
steel is most commonly used in the
production of heating ribbons for circuit
breakers and industrial furnaces, and in
rheostats for railway locomotives. The
product is currently available under
proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Gilphy
36.’’ 3
Certain martensitic precipitationhardenable stainless steel is also
excluded from the scope of this order.
This high-strength, ductile stainless
steel product is designated under the
Unified Numbering System (UNS) as
S45500-grade steel, and contains, by
weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and
7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon,
manganese, silicon and molybdenum
each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent
or less, with phosphorus and sulfur
each comprising, by weight, 0.03
percent or less. This steel has copper,
niobium, and titanium added to achieve
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as
high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile
strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after
aging, with elongation percentages of 3
percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally
provided in thicknesses between 0.635
and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4
mm. This product is most commonly
used in the manufacture of television
tubes and is currently available under
proprietary trade names such as
‘‘Durphynox 17.’’ 4
Finally, three specialty stainless steels
typically used in certain industrial
blades and surgical and medical
instruments are also excluded from the
scope of this order. These include
stainless steel strip in coils used in the
production of textile cutting tools (e.g.,
carpet knives).5 This steel is similar to
2 ‘‘Arnokrome III’’ is a trademark of the Arnold
Engineering Company.
3 ‘‘Gilphy 36’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
4 ‘‘Durphynox 17’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for
descriptive purposes only.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
AISI grade 420 but containing, by
weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of
molybedenum. The steel also contains,
by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and
1.1. percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or
less, and includes between 0.20 and
0.30 percent copper and between 0.20
and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is
sold under proprietary names such as
‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded
stainless steel strip in coils in similar to
AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight,
carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and
0.50 percent, manganese of between
0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no
more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of
no more than 0.020 percent. This steel
has a carbide density on average of 100
carbide particles per 100 square
microns. An example of this product is
‘‘GIN5’’ steel. The third specialty steel
has a chemical composition similar to
AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37
and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of
between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but
lower manganese of between 0.20 and
0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more
than 0.025 percent, silicon of between
0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no
more than 0.020 percent. This product
is supplied with a hardness of more
than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer
processing, and is supplied as, for
example, ‘‘GIN6.’’ 6
Affiliation
U&A France and Imphy Ugine
Precision (IUP) are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Usinor S.A. (Usinor). See
Section A Response of Ugine & ALZ
France S.A., dated November 19, 2004,
at 18 (Section A Response). Usinor,
Arbed, S.A. (Arbed), and Aceralia
Corporacion Siderurgica, S.A. (Aceralia)
comprise the Arcelor Group. Id. at 1,
n.2. In the U.S. market, U&A France
made sales through one affiliated U.S.
company: Arcelor Stainless USA, Inc.
(AUSA). IUP made sales in the United
States through two affiliated U.S.
companies: Rahns Specialty Metals, Inc.
(Rahns), which ceased operations in
December 2003, and thereafter Hood &
Co., Inc. (Hood). AUSA also sold to an
affiliate, Arcelor Stainless Processing,
LLC (ASP) and to unaffiliated
customers. ASP resold subject
merchandise to unaffiliated customers
both with and without further
processing. AUSA is wholly owned by
Arcelor USA Holding, Inc., which is
owned by Arcelor Project, Usinor,
Matthey Et Cie S.A. Sidarfin and
Arcelor International. See Section A
Response, at 16. These companies are
6 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the
proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
owned by Arcelor, Usinor, and Aceralia.
Id.
We note that there are no significant
changes to the ownership structure of
these companies since the last review.
As a result, the Department
preliminarily finds, as we have in all
previous reviews, that U&A France, IUP
and its U.S. resellers are affiliated. See
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from France: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 69
FR 47892 (August 6, 2004) (Preliminary
Results Fourth Review).
Collapsing of Affiliated Parties
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401,
the Department preliminarily finds that
it is appropriate to treat U&A France
and IUP as a single entity for purposes
of calculating a dumping margin. See
Memorandum to Maria MacKay, Acting
Office Director, through Sean Carey,
Program Manager, from Sebastian
Wright, Analyst, Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils From France;
Collapsing of Ugine & Alz, Franc, S.A.
and Imphy Ugine Precision, (August 1,
2005), on file in the Central Records
Unit (CRU), Room B–099 of the main
Commerce Building.
Normal Value Comparison
To determine whether U&A France’s
sales of subject merchandise to the
United States were made at less than
fair value, we compared the constructed
export price (CEP) to the normal value
(NV), as described in the ‘‘Constructed
Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice, below. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of
the Act, we calculated monthly
weighted-average prices for NV and
compared these to individual CEP
transactions.
A. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)
of the Act, to determine whether there
were sufficient sales in the home market
to serve as a viable basis for calculating
NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product
is greater than or equal to five percent
of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales),
we compared U&A France’s volume of
home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise. Pursuant to
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because
U&A France’s aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product
during the POR was greater than five
percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales for the subject merchandise, we
determined that the home market was
viable.
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
B. Arm’s-Length Test
U&A France reported that it made
sales in the home market to affiliated
end users and resellers during the POR.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c),
the Secretary may calculate NV based
on sales to an affiliated party only if
satisfied that the price is comparable to
the price at which the exporter or
producer sold the foreign like product to
a person who is not affiliated with the
seller.
To test whether U&A France’s 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.
Where identical merchandise was not
sold to unaffiliated customers, we based
the comparisons on sales of the most
similar merchandise. Where prices to
the affiliated party were on average
between 98 and 102 percent of the price
to the unrelated party, we determined
that sales made to the related party were
at arm’s length. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR
69186 (November 15, 2002). We have
included in our NV calculations U&A
France’s sales to affiliated customers
that passed the Department’s arm’slength test. Conversely, certain sales to
affiliated customers that did not pass
the arm’s-length test have been
excluded from our NV calcuation.
U&A France’s sales to PUM, a reseller,
did not pass the arm’s-length test. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(d), the
Secretary normally will not calculate
NV based on the downstream sales by
an affiliated parties if the total sales of
the foreign like product by an exporter
or producer to affiliated parties account
for less than five percent of the
reporter’s or producer’s sales of the
foreign like product in the market in
question. In the instant case, U&A
France’s sales to affiliates in the home
market account for more than five
percent of the total value of U&A
Frances’s home market sales. Therefore,
the department cannot disregard the
downstream sales of the affiliated party
in the calculation of NV. U&A France,
however, did not provide PUM’s
downstream sales information.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that if an interested party: (A)
Withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form of manner
requested, subject to subsections
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a determination
under the antidumping statute; or (D)
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45671
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the
Department shall, subject to subsection
782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable
determination. In its response to the
Department’s questionnaire, U&A
France claimed, as it has in prior
reviews, that sales by PUM were
insignificant and would not be used as
matches for U.S. sales because the
product sold by PUM would not match
to a sale of merchandise in the United
States. See Section A Supplemental
Questionnaire Response at 24 (March
22, 2005) (Supplemental Section A
Response). U&A France also again
claimed that it would be difficult to
collect all of the information requested
by the Department. Id. In a subsequent
questionnaire we asked U&A France
why is contended that it should not
have to report the downstream sales for
PUM. Id. U&A France reiterated that it
would endure an undue burden in
providing the downstream sales for
PUM and asked the Department to rely
on the sales by U&A France to PUM Id.
U&A France did not provide any of the
requested downstream sales information
in the database provided with the
submission, not did it include that
information in any subsequently
reported datasets.
Consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A)
and (B) of the act, because U&A France
withheld information requested by the
department, we are applying facts
otherwise available. In addition, section
776(b) of the Act provides that, if the
Department finds that an interested
party ‘‘has failed to cooperate by not
acting the best of its ability to comply
with a requested information,’’ the
Department may use information that is
adverse to the interests of that party as
facts otherwise available. In this case,
even after receiving the Department’s
supplemental request, U&A France has
refused to provide downstream
information for PUM, claiming that to
do so would be overly burdensome
given the insignificant volume of this
reseller’s sales compare to the total
volume of home market sales and that
the product sold by this reseller would
not be matched to products sold in the
United States. In the prior
administrative review, U&A France also
refused to provide this information, and
the Department applied adverse facts
available to these downstream sales. See
Preliminary Results Forth Review at
47896–47897.
Because U&A France explicitly
refused to provide the requested
downstream sales by PUM, the
department preliminarily finds that, in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45672
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
Act, the application of partial adverse
facts available is appropriate. As
adverse facts available or U&A France’s
sales to PUM, we will use the higher of
the price charged to PUM by U&A
France (the ‘‘upsteam’’ price) or the
price charged for the most similar
product purchased in the home market
by an unaffiliated customer. In selecting
this information as adverse facts
available, we took into account the
small volume of sales involved.
C. Date of Sale
As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the
Department normally will use the
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 France reported the invoice date as
the date of sale for both home market
and U.S. sales. In the prior segment of
this proceeding, we found that invoice
date is the correct date of sale for U.S.
and home-market sales. See Preliminary
Results Fourth Review at 47897. Nothing
has changed in U&A France’s sales
process or channels of distribution since
the prior review that would cause the
Department to revisit its prior decision.
Accordingly, the Department
preliminarily finds that invoice date is
the proper date of sale for both home
market and U.S. sales.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all SSSS
products covered by the ‘‘Scope of the
Order’’ section of this notice and sold in
the home market during the POR, to be
foreign like products for the purpose of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales of SSSS
products. We relied on nine
characteristics to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison
sales of the foreign like product (listed
in order of preference): (1) Grande; (2)
hot/cold rolled; (3) gauge; (4) surface
finish; (5) metallic coating; (6) nonmetallic coating; (7) width; (8) temper;
and (9) edge trim. Where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the
home market to compare to U.S. sales,
we compared U.S. sales to the next most
similar foreign like product on the basis
of the characteristics and reporting
instructions listed in the Department’s
questionnaire.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability
and whether home market sales were at
prices below the cost of production, we
calculated NV as noted in the ‘‘Price-toConstructed Value (CV) Comparison’’
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
and ‘‘Price-to-Price Comparisons’’
sections of this notice.
Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded sales below
the cost of production in the most
recently completed segment of this
proceeding, we have reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that sales by U&A
France in its home market were made at
prices below the cost of production
(COP), pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of
the Act. See Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from France: Final Results
Fourth Review, 70 FR 7240 (February
11, 2005). Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a
COP analysis of home market sales by
U&A France as described below.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of U&A
France’s cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for selling, general and
administrative expenses (SG&A),
including interest expenses, and
packing costs. We relied on the COP
data submitted by U&A France in its
May 27, 2005, cost questionnaire
response. U&A France submitted two
sets of cost data, one based on monthly
costs and the other based on the
weighted-average cost for the POR.
U&A France argues that because raw
material prices increased significantly
during the POR, the Department should
depart from its normal practice of
calculating an average COP for each
CONNUM and instead use average
monthly COP. See Section D response
dated November 19, 2004, at page 42.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3), for
purposes of these preliminary results,
we have relied on the weighted-average
cost for the POR instead of the monthly
costs reported by U&A France because
fluctuating raw material prices were not
significant enough for us to depart from
our standard practice of using one
weighted average COP for the POR. See
Memorandum to the File: Analysis of
Monthly Costs Submitted by Ugine &
Alz France, S.A. from Christopher J.
Zimpo, (August 1, 2005).
B. COP test of Home Market Prices
We compared the weighted-average
COP for U&A France to home market
sales of the foreign like product to
determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP as
required under section 773(b) of the Act.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
period of time in substantial quantities,
and (2) at prices which permitted the
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
applicable billing adjustments,
movement charges, discounts, and
direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2) of the
Act, where less than 20 percent of U&A
France’s sales of a given product were
at prices less than the COP, we did not
disregard any below-cost sales of that
product because we determined that the
below-cost sales were not made in
‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20
percent or more of U&A France’s sales
of a given product during the POR were
at prices less than the COP, we
determined that such sales have been
made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within
an extended period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of
the Act. In such cases, because we use
POR average costs, we also determined
that such sales were not made at prices
that would permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the
below-cost sales.
Calculation of Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e)(1)
of the Act, we calculated CV based on
the sum of U&A France’s cost of
materials, fabrication, SG&A (including
interest expenses), U.S. packing costs,
and profit. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A
and profit on the amounts incurred and
realized by U&A France 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 actual weighted-average
home market direct and indirect selling
expenses.
Export Price and Constructed Export
Price
In accordance with seciton 772(a) of
the Act, export price (EP) is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first
sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or
exporter of the subject merchandise
outside of the United States to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States. In
accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act, constructed export price (CEP) is
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
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.
For purposes of this review, U&A
France classified all of its reported U.S.
sales of SSSS as CEP sales. During the
review period U&A France made sales
to the United States through its U.S.
based affiliates, AUSA, Rahns, Hood,
and ASP, which resold the merchandise
to unaffiliated customers. Therefore,
because U&A France’s U.S. sales were
made by AUSA, Rahns, Hood and ASP
after the subject merchandise was
imported into the United States, it is
appropriate to classify these sales as
CEP sales.
We calculated the CEP in accordance
with section 772(b) of the Act. We based
CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or
delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We also
made deductions for the following
movement expenses, where appropriate,
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)
of the Act: foreign inland freight from
plant to distribution warehouse,
international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. inland freight from port to
warehouse, U.S. inland freight from
warehouse/plant to the unaffiliated
customer, U.S. warehouse expenses,
other U.S. transportation expense,
wharfage expenses, and customs duties.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of
the Act, we deducted selling expenses
associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States,
including direct selling expenses,
inventory carrying costs, credit,
warranty expenses, commissions, and
other indirect selling expenses.
For products that were further
manufactured by ASP after importation,
readjusted the starting price for all costs
of further manufacturing in the United
States, in accordance with section
772(d)(2) of the Act. In calculating the
cost of further manufacturing for ASP,
we relied upon the further
manufacturing information provided by
U&A France.
We deducted the profit allocated to
expenses listed under sections 772(d)(1)
and (d)(2), in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In
accordance with section 772(f) of the
Act, we computed profit based on total
revenues realized on sales in both the
U.S. and home markets, less all
expenses associated with those sales.
We then allocated profit to expenses
incurred with respect to U.S. economic
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
activity (including further
manufacturing costs), based on the ratio
of total U.S. expenses to total expenses
for both the U.S. and home market in
accordance with section 772(f). We also
adjusted the starting price for billing
adjustments, discounts, rebates, other
revenues and freight revenue.
Price-to-Constructed Value
Comparisons
In accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are
unable to find a home market match of
identical or similar merchandise that is
not disregarded due to the cost test. For
these preliminary results, we did not
use CV for NV because we were able to
find a home market match of identical
or similar merchandise that was not
disregarded due to the cost test under 19
CFR 351.405(a) for each product sold in
the United States.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those product comparisons for
which there were sales at prices above
the COP, we based NV on prices to
unaffiliated home market customers or
prices to affiliated customers that were
determined to be at arm’s length. Where
appropriate, we deducted discounts,
rebates, credit expenses, warranty
expenses, inland freight, inland
insurance, and warehousing expense.
We also adjusted the starting price for
billing adjustments, freight revenue,
other revenues, and direct selling
expenses. We also made adjustments,
where applicable, for home market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S.
commissions in CEP comparisons. We
made adjustments, where appropriate,
for physical differences in the
merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally,
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B), we deducted home market
packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs.
For reasons discussed in the ‘‘Level of
Trade’’ section below, we allowed a CEP
offset for comparisons made at different
levels of trade. To calculate the CEP
offset, we deducted the home market
indirect selling expenses (less any offset
of U.S. commissions) from NV for home
market sales that were compared to U.S.
CEP sales.We limited the home market
indirect selling expense deduction by
the amount of the indirect selling
expenses deducted in calculating the
CEP as required under section
772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV using
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45673
sales in the comparison market at the
same level of trade (LOT) at the U.S.
sales. See 19 CFR 351.412. The NV LOT
is the level of the starting-price sale in
the comparison market. For CEP sales it
is the level of the constructed sales from
the exporter to the importer. See 19 CFR
351.412. U&A France classified all of its
U.S. sales as CEP and the Department’s
analysis found no indication that the
sales were not CEP sales.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than CEP sales, we
examine selling functions between the
producer and the unaffiliated or
affiliated customer (if the arm’s-length
test is passed) for home market sales,
and between the producer and the
affiliated customer for CEP sales.
However, if the selected comparison
market sales are at a different LOT than
the CEP sales, and a consistent pattern
of price differences is manifested
between the sales on which NV is based
and other home market sales at the same
LOT as the export transaction, we make
a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP
sales, if the NV LOT is more remote
from the factory than the CEP LOT and
there is no basis for determining a
consistent pattern of price differences,
we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B)
of the Act (the CEP offset provision).
See, e.g., 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–
33 (November 19, 1997). 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-onSteel Cookware from Mexico: Final
Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR
30068 (May 10, 2000).
In the home market, U&A France sells
directly to the customer and through an
affiliated service center, U&A FS. IUP
sells directly to customers. U&A France
reported three channels of distribution,
two customer categories, and one level
of trade. We found that, in the home
market, U&A France preforms a variety
of distinct selling functions including:
Strategy planning and marketing,
customer sales contact, production
planning and order evaluation,
advertising, warranty, technical service,
administrative, and freight and delivery
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45674
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
in both customer categories. See Section
A Response of Ugine & ALZ France, Vol.
1, Appendix A–8 (November 19, 2004)
(Appendix A–8). We examined the
selling functions performed for the two
customer categories and found there
were no significant differences in selling
functions performed. Therefore, we
preliminarily find that the three home
market channels of distribution to the
two customer categories constitute one
level of trade.
U&A France reported four channels of
distribution, three customer categories,
and one level of trade in the U.S.
market. U&A France’s channels of
distribution and customer categories
within each channel are as follows: (1)
AUSA sold subject merchandise to
unaffiliated end users and unaffiliated
service centers/processors; (2) AUSA
sold subject merchandise to ASP with
ASP sold to unaffiliated end users. (3)
AUSA sold subject merchandise
imported from U&A France via Arcelor
Canada to ASP which sold the subject
merchandise to unaffiliated end users;
and (4) IUP sold merchandise to Rahns
and Hood which sold to unaffiliated end
users. See Appendix A–8. As explained
in U&A France’s Section A Response,
U&A France performed very few selling
activities for the U.S. Sales because
most selling functions were performed
by the U.S. sales affiliates (AUSA,
Rahns, Hood, and ASP). 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 function in all channels.
We preliminarily find that U&A Frances
U.S. sales channels constitute one LOT.
See Memorandum to the File through
Sean Carey, Program Manager, from
Sebastian Wright, Analyst, Concerning
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from France: Analysis Memorandum,
(August 1, 2005) (Analysis
Memorandum).
U&A France and its home market
affiliates perform all home market
selling activities. Selling functions for
the U.S. market, as indicated above, are
performed by ASUSA, Rahns and Hood.
We compared the U.S. and home market
LOTs and determined that, after
eliminating from consideration selling
functions performed by ASUSA
(pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act),
U&A France’s home market sales are
made at a different and more remote,
LOT than its CEP sales. See Analysis
Memorandum.
We examined whether a LOT
adjustment of CEP offset may be
appropriate. In this case, U&A France
sold at one LOT in the home market.
Therefore, there is no information
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
available to determine a pattern of
consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and the
home 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). We do not have record
information which would allow us to
examine pricing patterns based on U&A
France’s sales of other products, and
there are no other respondents or other
record information on which such as
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
home market is at a more advanced state
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 home 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. We note
that in all prior administrative reviews
of this order, where similar situations
existed, we also granted a CEP offset.
See, e.g., Preliminary Results Fourth
Review at 47899; See also Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
32573, 32576 (June 3, 2005).
Current Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary
results, in accordance with section 773A
of the Act, we made currency
conversions based on the official
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York.
Assessment Calculation
U&A France contends that the
Department should include in the
denominator of the Department’s
assessment calculation the value of
subject merchandise entered for
consumption into the United States, but
first sold to customers outside of the
United States during the POR.
Specifically, U&A France proposes that
in calculating the assessment rate, the
Department should divide the total
dumping duties calculated on U.S. sales
by the sum of the entered value of the
sales reported in the U.S. sales database
plus the entered value of the sales
entered for consumption but first sold to
customers outside of the United States.
According to U&A France, ‘‘{i}n cases
where a respondent imports a product
for consumption which is physically
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
within the scope of the order at the time
of entry and subsequently makes the
first sales of this product to a customer
outside the United States, it is the
Department’s practice to add the entered
value associated with these sales to the
denominator in the calculation of the
assessment rate in order to avoid
collecting antidumping duties on these
non-subject sales. ’’ See Section A
Supplemental, at page 3. U&A France
contends that its position is supported
by prior Department and court
decisions.7
The Petitioners counter that the
Department’s regulations direct the
Department to calculate the assessment
rate for each importer by dividing the
dumping margin found on the subject
merchandise examined by the entered
value of such merchandise. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). The Petitioners assert that
the Department recognized that it would
deviate from the methodology using the
entered value of the U.S. sales made
during the POR in only unusual
situation.8 They further contend that
U&A France has not provided sufficient
reason for the Department to deviate
from the methodology mandated by 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Petitioners
assert that U&A France has not provided
any evidence that using the entered
value of the U.S. sales during the POR
will result in a significant distortion of
the assessment rate. Moreover, the
Petitioners contend that the record is
not clear as to who was the importer of
record for the sales entered for
consumption into the customs territory
of the United States, but first sold
outside the United States. According to
the Petitioners, there is no basis for the
Department to determine which
importer’s assessment calculation
should have these sales included in the
denominator.
Based on the information available to
the Department at this time, we have
preliminarily included the value of
these non-U.S., suspended sales in the
denominator of the assessment
7 See Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip in Coils from
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 67 FR 6490 (February 12,
2002) at Comment 15 (Mexinox 2002); Stainless
Steel Sheet & Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 68
FR 6889 (February 11, 2003) and the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15
(Mexinox 2003); Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip in
Coils from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 69 FR 6259 (February 10,
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 19 (Mexinox 2004); see
also Torrington Co. v. United States, 82 F.3d 1039,
1047 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
8 See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties,
Proposed Rule: Uruguay Round Agreement Act
(URAA): Conformance, 61 FR 7308, 7316–7317
(February 27, 1996).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
calculations. As noted by U&A France,
the Department has previously included
the value of merchandise entered for
consumption into the United States, but
first sold outside of the United States, in
the denominator of the importer specific
assessment calculations. See Mexinox
2002; Mexinox 2003; and Mexinox 2004.
In Mexinox 2002, we determined that it
is appropriate to include the entered
value of merchandise entered for
consumption into the United States, but
subsequently first sold outside of the
United States into the denominator of
the Department’s importer specific
assessment calculation to ‘‘facilitate the
U.S. Customs Service’s collection of
antidumping duties on subject
merchandise.’’ See Mexinox 2002 and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at comment 15.
Finally, we disagree with the
Petitioners’ assertion that we are unable
to determine who is the importer of
record from the record of this case. U&A
France specifically states that U&A
France is the importer of record for the
sales entered for consumption, but
subsequently first sold outside of the
United States, at Appendix SA–2 of the
supplemental questionnaire response
dated March 22, 2005. Accordingly, the
Department has preliminarily included
the entered value of the merchandise
which was imported for consumption
into the United States, but subsequently
first sold outside of the United States in
the denominator of the importer specific
assessment calculation. A more detailed
discussion of this issue and the
computer code which implements this
decision is included in the Department’s
analysis memorandum. See Analysis
Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily find that the following
weighted-average dumping margin
exists:
STAINLESS STEEL SHEET AND STRIP IN
COILS FROM FRANCE
Producer/manufacturer/exporter
U&A France ..............
Weighted-average
margin
11.11 percent.
Duty Assessment
Upon issuance of the final results of
review, the Department shall determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP within
fifteen days of publication of the final
results of review. The final results of
this review shall be the basis for the
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by these
results and for future deposits of
estimated duties. For duty assessment
purposes, we calculated an importerspecific assessment rate by dividing the
total dumping margins calculated for
the U.S. sales to the importer by the sum
of total entered value of these sales plus
the entered value of subject
merchandise entered for consumption
but first sold outside of the United
States. If the preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of review,
this rate will be used for assessment of
antidumping duties on all entries of the
subject merchandise by that importer
during the POR.
Revocation of the Order
On July 12, 2005, the United States
International Trade Commission (ITC)
informed the Department that the
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on stainless steel sheet and strip
from France would not likely lead to
continuation of recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time. Accordingly, the Department will
be revoking this antidumping duty order
effective, July 27, 2004. Therefore, cash
deposits of estimated antidumping
duties are no longer required.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
Department will disclose to parties to
the proceeding any calculation
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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45675
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 regulation 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
occured 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: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–15639 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–822]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Mexico; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
respondent ThyssenKrupp Mexinox
S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox S.A.) and
Mexinox USA, Inc. (Mexinox USA)
(collectively, Mexinox) and petitioners,1
the Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 in coils)
from Mexico. This administrative
review covers imports of subject
AGENCY:
1 Petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation,
North American Stainless, United Auto Workers
Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent
Organization, Inc. and the United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO/CLC.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45668-45675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15639]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-814]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from Ugine and ALZ France S.A. (U&A
France) (the Respondent), and Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel,
Inc., North American Stainless, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union, and Zanesville Armco
Independent Organization (collectively, the Petitioners), the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip
in coils (SSSS) from France for the period July 1, 2003, through June
30, 2004 (POR). The Department preliminarily finds that U&A France's
sales of SSSS in the United States were made at less than normal value
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of
this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of U&A
France's merchandise during the period of review. The preliminary
results are listed in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of
Review,'' below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office
6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
[[Page 45669]]
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-3964.
Background
On July 27, 1999, the Department published the amended final
determination and antidumping duty order on SSSS from France. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from France, 64 FR 40562 (July 27, 1999). On July 1, 2004, the
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from
France for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. See Notice
of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR
39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 30, 2004, the Petitioners and U&A France,
a producer and exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct a review of U&A France's sales or entries of
merchandise subject to the Department's antidumping duty order on SSSS
from France. On August 30, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a) of
the Act, the Department published a notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review for the period July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 69 FR
52857 (August 30, 2004).
On September 16, 2004, the Department issued a questionnaire to U&A
France. On November 19, 2004, U&A France filed its response to Section
A through E. On December 1, 2004, U&A France submitted a revised
version of the computer file format table, which was submitted in the
November 19, 2004 response.
On January 25, 2005, the Petitioners submitted comments on U&A
France's response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. On
January 27, 2005, the Petitioners submitted comments on U&A France's
response to section D and E of the Department's questionnaire. On
February 4, 2005, the Petitioners submitted their comments on U&A
France's response to section B and C of the Department's questionnaire.
On February 15, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire for section A to U&A France. On February 25, 2005, the
Department issued supplemental questionnaires for section B and C to
U&A France.
On March 7, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for the
preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review. See
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip
in Coils from France, 70 FR 10985 (March 7, 2005).
On March 22, 2005, U&A France filed its response to the section A
supplemental questionnaire. On April 1, 2005, U&A France filed its
response to section B and C supplemental questionnaire. On May 3, 2005,
the Department issued a section D and E supplemental questionnaire to
U&A France. On May 27, 2005, U&A France filed its response to the
section D and E supplemental questionnaire. On June 15, 2005, the
Department issued a second supplemental section D questionnaire to U&A
France. On June 24, 2005, U&A France filed its response to the second
supplemental section D questionnaire.
On June 27, 2005 the Petitioners filed comments on the section A-C
supplemental questionnaire responses for U&A France. On July 8, 2005,
the Department issued a third supplemental section D questionnaire to
U&A France. On the same date, U&A France filed its sales reconciliation
with the Department. On July 15, 2005, U&A France filed its response to
the third supplemental section D questionnaire.
On July 28, 2005, U&A France responded to Petitioners' comments
dated June 27, 2005. On July 29, 2005, the Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire regarding sections A, B, and C to clarify a
number of issues raised by the Petitioners. U&A France's 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. Any decision reached by the Department
concerning these issues will be reflected in the final results of this
review.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel
sheet and strip 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 sheet and strip
is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width
and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise
heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and
strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished,
aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that is maintains the specific
dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at
subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81\1\,
7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020,
7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042,
7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035,
7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005,
7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005,
7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020,
7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000,
7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005,
7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005,
7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000,
7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.7060,
and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs' purposes, the Department's written description
of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Due to changes to HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030,
7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031,
7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the order are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that
is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate (i.e.,
flat-rolled stainless sheet products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or
more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge,
rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5)
razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of
stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in
coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or
less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and
certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor
blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional U.S. Note'' 1(d).
Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order.
This
[[Page 45670]]
product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by
weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35
percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This
steel strip contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less,
silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent
or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting,
with exclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and
for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a
tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between
170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between
460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce
specialty flapper valves in compressors.
Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side,
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm
over 685 mm length.
Certain stainless foil for automotive catalytic converters is also
excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in
coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent,
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less,
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such
as ``Arnokrome III.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius.
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese,
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less,
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also
excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g.,
carpet knives).\5\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybedenum. The steel
also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1. percent,
sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30
percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is
sold under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded
stainless steel strip in coils in similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains,
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent,
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent,
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied
as, for example, ``GIN6.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for
descriptive purposes only.
\6\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliation
U&A France and Imphy Ugine Precision (IUP) are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Usinor S.A. (Usinor). See Section A Response of Ugine &
ALZ France S.A., dated November 19, 2004, at 18 (Section A Response).
Usinor, Arbed, S.A. (Arbed), and Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica, S.A.
(Aceralia) comprise the Arcelor Group. Id. at 1, n.2. In the U.S.
market, U&A France made sales through one affiliated U.S. company:
Arcelor Stainless USA, Inc. (AUSA). IUP made sales in the United States
through two affiliated U.S. companies: Rahns Specialty Metals, Inc.
(Rahns), which ceased operations in December 2003, and thereafter Hood
& Co., Inc. (Hood). AUSA also sold to an affiliate, Arcelor Stainless
Processing, LLC (ASP) and to unaffiliated customers. ASP resold subject
merchandise to unaffiliated customers both with and without further
processing. AUSA is wholly owned by Arcelor USA Holding, Inc., which is
owned by Arcelor Project, Usinor, Matthey Et Cie S.A. Sidarfin and
Arcelor International. See Section A Response, at 16. These companies
are
[[Page 45671]]
owned by Arcelor, Usinor, and Aceralia. Id.
We note that there are no significant changes to the ownership
structure of these companies since the last review. As a result, the
Department preliminarily finds, as we have in all previous reviews,
that U&A France, IUP and its U.S. resellers are affiliated. See
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 69 FR 47892 (August 6,
2004) (Preliminary Results Fourth Review).
Collapsing of Affiliated Parties
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401, the Department preliminarily
finds that it is appropriate to treat U&A France and IUP as a single
entity for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. See Memorandum to
Maria MacKay, Acting Office Director, through Sean Carey, Program
Manager, from Sebastian Wright, Analyst, Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils From France; Collapsing of Ugine & Alz, Franc, S.A. and
Imphy Ugine Precision, (August 1, 2005), on file in the Central Records
Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Commerce Building.
Normal Value Comparison
To determine whether U&A France's sales of subject merchandise to
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the
constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described
in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of
this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act,
we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these
to individual CEP transactions.
A. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to determine
whether there were sufficient sales in the home market to serve as a
viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to
five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared U&A
France's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because U&A France's aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product during the POR was greater
than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject
merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.
B. Arm's-Length Test
U&A France reported that it made sales in the home market to
affiliated end users and resellers during the POR. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.403(c), the Secretary may calculate NV based on sales to an
affiliated party only if satisfied that the price is comparable to the
price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product
to a person who is not affiliated with the seller.
To test whether U&A France's 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. Where identical merchandise was not sold to
unaffiliated customers, we based the comparisons on sales of the most
similar merchandise. Where prices to the affiliated party were on
average between 98 and 102 percent of the price to the unrelated party,
we determined that sales made to the related party were at arm's
length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We have
included in our NV calculations U&A France's sales to affiliated
customers that passed the Department's arm's-length test. Conversely,
certain sales to affiliated customers that did not pass the arm's-
length test have been excluded from our NV calcuation.
U&A France's sales to PUM, a reseller, did not pass the arm's-
length test. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(d), the Secretary
normally will not calculate NV based on the downstream sales by an
affiliated parties if the total sales of the foreign like product by an
exporter or producer to affiliated parties account for less than five
percent of the reporter's or producer's sales of the foreign like
product in the market in question. In the instant case, U&A France's
sales to affiliates in the home market account for more than five
percent of the total value of U&A Frances's home market sales.
Therefore, the department cannot disregard the downstream sales of the
affiliated party in the calculation of NV. U&A France, however, did not
provide PUM's downstream sales information.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party:
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
of manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act; (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination. In its response to the Department's questionnaire, U&A
France claimed, as it has in prior reviews, that sales by PUM were
insignificant and would not be used as matches for U.S. sales because
the product sold by PUM would not match to a sale of merchandise in the
United States. See Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 24
(March 22, 2005) (Supplemental Section A Response). U&A France also
again claimed that it would be difficult to collect all of the
information requested by the Department. Id. In a subsequent
questionnaire we asked U&A France why is contended that it should not
have to report the downstream sales for PUM. Id. U&A France reiterated
that it would endure an undue burden in providing the downstream sales
for PUM and asked the Department to rely on the sales by U&A France to
PUM Id. U&A France did not provide any of the requested downstream
sales information in the database provided with the submission, not did
it include that information in any subsequently reported datasets.
Consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the act, because
U&A France withheld information requested by the department, we are
applying facts otherwise available. In addition, section 776(b) of the
Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party
``has failed to cooperate by not acting the best of its ability to
comply with a requested information,'' the Department may use
information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts
otherwise available. In this case, even after receiving the
Department's supplemental request, U&A France has refused to provide
downstream information for PUM, claiming that to do so would be overly
burdensome given the insignificant volume of this reseller's sales
compare to the total volume of home market sales and that the product
sold by this reseller would not be matched to products sold in the
United States. In the prior administrative review, U&A France also
refused to provide this information, and the Department applied adverse
facts available to these downstream sales. See Preliminary Results
Forth Review at 47896-47897.
Because U&A France explicitly refused to provide the requested
downstream sales by PUM, the department preliminarily finds that, in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
[[Page 45672]]
Act, the application of partial adverse facts available is appropriate.
As adverse facts available or U&A France's sales to PUM, we will use
the higher of the price charged to PUM by U&A France (the ``upsteam''
price) or the price charged for the most similar product purchased in
the home market by an unaffiliated customer. In selecting this
information as adverse facts available, we took into account the small
volume of sales involved.
C. Date of Sale
As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department normally will use
the 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 France reported the invoice date as the
date of sale for both home market and U.S. sales. In the prior segment
of this proceeding, we found that invoice date is the correct date of
sale for U.S. and home-market sales. See Preliminary Results Fourth
Review at 47897. Nothing has changed in U&A France's sales process or
channels of distribution since the prior review that would cause the
Department to revisit its prior decision. Accordingly, the Department
preliminarily finds that invoice date is the proper date of sale for
both home market and U.S. sales.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
SSSS products covered by the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this
notice and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like
products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons
to U.S. sales of SSSS products. We relied on nine characteristics to
match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the
foreign like product (listed in order of preference): (1) Grande; (2)
hot/cold rolled; (3) gauge; (4) surface finish; (5) metallic coating;
(6) non-metallic coating; (7) width; (8) temper; and (9) edge trim.
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most
similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and
reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability and whether home market sales
were at prices below the cost of production, we calculated NV as noted
in the ``Price-to-Constructed Value (CV) Comparison'' and ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' sections of this notice.
Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production in the
most recently completed segment of this proceeding, we have reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales by U&A France in its home
market were made at prices below the cost of production (COP), pursuant
to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from France: Final Results Fourth Review, 70 FR 7240 (February
11, 2005). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we
conducted a COP analysis of home market sales by U&A France as
described below.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of U&A France's cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), including interest
expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by U&A
France in its May 27, 2005, cost questionnaire response. U&A France
submitted two sets of cost data, one based on monthly costs and the
other based on the weighted-average cost for the POR.
U&A France argues that because raw material prices increased
significantly during the POR, the Department should depart from its
normal practice of calculating an average COP for each CONNUM and
instead use average monthly COP. See Section D response dated November
19, 2004, at page 42. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3), for purposes of
these preliminary results, we have relied on the weighted-average cost
for the POR instead of the monthly costs reported by U&A France because
fluctuating raw material prices were not significant enough for us to
depart from our standard practice of using one weighted average COP for
the POR. See Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Monthly Costs
Submitted by Ugine & Alz France, S.A. from Christopher J. Zimpo,
(August 1, 2005).
B. COP test of Home Market Prices
We compared the weighted-average COP for U&A France to home market
sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had
been made at prices below the COP as required under section 773(b) of
the Act. 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 permitted the 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 applicable billing
adjustments, movement charges, discounts, and direct and indirect
selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of U&A France's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of U&A France's
sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the
COP, we determined that such sales have been made in ``substantial
quantities'' within an extended period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR
average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at
prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.
Calculation of Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of U&A France's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A
(including interest expenses), U.S. packing costs, and profit. In
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by U&A France 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 actual weighted-average home market
direct and indirect selling expenses.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
In accordance with seciton 772(a) of the Act, export price (EP) is
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to
be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of
the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, constructed export price (CEP) is
[[Page 45673]]
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.
For purposes of this review, U&A France classified all of its
reported U.S. sales of SSSS as CEP sales. During the review period U&A
France made sales to the United States through its U.S. based
affiliates, AUSA, Rahns, Hood, and ASP, which resold the merchandise to
unaffiliated customers. Therefore, because U&A France's U.S. sales were
made by AUSA, Rahns, Hood and ASP after the subject merchandise was
imported into the United States, it is appropriate to classify these
sales as CEP sales.
We calculated the CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We also made deductions
for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight from plant
to distribution warehouse, international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from
warehouse/plant to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. warehouse expenses,
other U.S. transportation expense, wharfage expenses, and customs
duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the
United States, including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying
costs, credit, warranty expenses, commissions, and other indirect
selling expenses.
For products that were further manufactured by ASP after
importation, readjusted the starting price for all costs of further
manufacturing in the United States, in accordance with section
772(d)(2) of the Act. In calculating the cost of further manufacturing
for ASP, we relied upon the further manufacturing information provided
by U&A France.
We deducted the profit allocated to expenses listed under sections
772(d)(1) and (d)(2), in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f)
of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed
profit based on total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and
home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then
allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic
activity (including further manufacturing costs), based on the ratio of
total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home market
in accordance with section 772(f). We also adjusted the starting price
for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, other revenues and freight
revenue.
Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV
if we are unable to find a home market match of identical or similar
merchandise that is not disregarded due to the cost test. For these
preliminary results, we did not use CV for NV because we were able to
find a home market match of identical or similar merchandise that was
not disregarded due to the cost test under 19 CFR 351.405(a) for each
product sold in the United States.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices
above the COP, we based NV on prices to unaffiliated home market
customers or prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be
at arm's length. Where appropriate, we deducted discounts, rebates,
credit expenses, warranty expenses, inland freight, inland insurance,
and warehousing expense. We also adjusted the starting price for
billing adjustments, freight revenue, other revenues, and direct
selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP
comparisons. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we deducted home market packing costs and added
U.S. packing costs.
For reasons discussed in the ``Level of Trade'' section below, we
allowed a CEP offset for comparisons made at different levels of trade.
To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home market indirect
selling expenses (less any offset of U.S. commissions) from NV for home
market sales that were compared to U.S. CEP sales.We limited the home
market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect
selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as required under
section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV using sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (LOT) at the U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 351.412.
The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sale in the comparison
market. For CEP sales it is the level of the constructed sales from the
exporter to the importer. See 19 CFR 351.412. U&A France classified all
of its U.S. sales as CEP and the Department's analysis found no
indication that the sales were not CEP sales.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP
sales, we examine selling functions between the producer and the
unaffiliated or affiliated customer (if the arm's-length test is
passed) for home market sales, and between the producer and the
affiliated customer for CEP sales. However, if the selected comparison
market sales are at a different LOT than the CEP sales, and a
consistent pattern of price differences is manifested between the sales
on which NV is based and other home market sales at the same LOT as the
export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A)
of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV LOT is more remote from
the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining a
consistent pattern of price differences, we adjust NV under section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33
(November 19, 1997). 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 home market, U&A France sells directly to the customer and
through an affiliated service center, U&A FS. IUP sells directly to
customers. U&A France reported three channels of distribution, two
customer categories, and one level of trade. We found that, in the home
market, U&A France preforms a variety of distinct selling functions
including: Strategy planning and marketing, customer sales contact,
production planning and order evaluation, advertising, warranty,
technical service, administrative, and freight and delivery
[[Page 45674]]
in both customer categories. See Section A Response of Ugine & ALZ
France, Vol. 1, Appendix A-8 (November 19, 2004) (Appendix A-8). We
examined the selling functions performed for the two customer
categories and found there were no significant differences in selling
functions performed. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the three
home market channels of distribution to the two customer categories
constitute one level of trade.
U&A France reported four channels of distribution, three customer
categories, and one level of trade in the U.S. market. U&A France's
channels of distribution and customer categories within each channel
are as follows: (1) AUSA sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated end
users and unaffiliated service centers/processors; (2) AUSA sold
subject merchandise to ASP with ASP sold to unaffiliated end users. (3)
AUSA sold subject merchandise imported from U&A France via Arcelor
Canada to ASP which sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated end
users; and (4) IUP sold merchandise to Rahns and Hood which sold to
unaffiliated end users. See Appendix A-8. As explained in U&A France's
Section A Response, U&A France performed very few selling activities
for the U.S. Sales because most selling functions were performed by the
U.S. sales affiliates (AUSA, Rahns, Hood, and ASP). 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 function in all channels. We preliminarily find
that U&A Frances U.S. sales channels constitute one LOT. See Memorandum
to the File through Sean Carey, Program Manager, from Sebastian Wright,
Analyst, Concerning Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
France: Analysis Memorandum, (August 1, 2005) (Analysis Memorandum).
U&A France and its home market affiliates perform all home market
selling activities. Selling functions for the U.S. market, as indicated
above, are performed by ASUSA, Rahns and Hood. We compared the U.S. and
home market LOTs and determined that, after eliminating from
consideration selling functions performed by ASUSA (pursuant to section
772(d) of the Act), U&A France's home market sales are made at a
different and more remote, LOT than its CEP sales. See Analysis
Memorandum.
We examined whether a LOT adjustment of CEP offset may be
appropriate. In this case, U&A France sold at one LOT in the home
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 home 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). We do not have record
information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on
U&A France's sales of other products, and there are no other
respondents or other record information on which such as 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 home
market is at a more advanced state 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 home
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. We note that in all prior administrative
reviews of this order, where similar situations existed, we also
granted a CEP offset. See, e.g., Preliminary Results Fourth Review at
47899; See also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
32573, 32576 (June 3, 2005).
Current Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, in accordance with section
773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the official
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Assessment Calculation
U&A France contends that the Department should include in the
denominator of the Department's assessment calculation the value of
subject merchandise entered for consumption into the United States, but
first sold to customers outside of the United States during the POR.
Specifically, U&A France proposes that in calculating the assessment
rate, the Department should divide the total dumping duties calculated
on U.S. sales by the sum of the entered value of the sales reported in
the U.S. sales database plus the entered value of the sales entered for
consumption but first sold to customers outside of the United States.
According to U&A France, ``{i{time} n cases where a respondent imports
a product for consumption which is physically within the scope of the
order at the time of entry and subsequently makes the first sales of
this product to a customer outside the United States, it is the
Department's practice to add the entered value associated with these
sales to the denominator in the calculation of the assessment rate in
order to avoid collecting antidumping duties on these non-subject
sales. '' See Section A Supplemental, at page 3. U&A France contends
that its position is supported by prior Department and court
decisions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip in Coils from Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 67 FR 6490
(February 12, 2002) at Comment 15 (Mexinox 2002); Stainless Steel
Sheet & Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 68 FR 6889 (February 11, 2003) and the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15 (Mexinox
2003); Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 69 FR 6259 (February
10, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
19 (Mexinox 2004); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 82 F.3d
1039, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners counter that the Department's regulations direct
the Department to calculate the assessment rate for each importer by
dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined
by the entered value of such merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The
Petitioners assert that the Department recognized that it would deviate
from the methodology using the entered value of the U.S. sales made
during the POR in only unusual situation.\8\ They further contend that
U&A France has not provided sufficient reason for the Department to
deviate from the methodology mandated by 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The
Petitioners assert that U&A France has not provided any evidence that
using the entered value of the U.S. sales during the POR will result in
a significant distortion of the assessment rate. Moreover, the
Petitioners contend that the record is not clear as to who was the
importer of record for the sales entered for consumption into the
customs territory of the United States, but first sold outside the
United States. According to the Petitioners, there is no basis for the
Department to determine which importer's assessment calculation should
have these sales included in the denominator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties, Proposed
Rule: Uruguay Round Agreement Act (URAA): Conformance, 61 FR 7308,
7316-7317 (February 27, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information available to the Department at this time,
we have preliminarily included the value of these non-U.S., suspended
sales in the denominator of the assessment
[[Page 45675]]
calculations. As noted by U&A France, the Department has previously
included the value of merchandise entered for consumption into the
United States, but first sold outside of the United States, in the
denominator of the importer specific assessment calculations. See
Mexinox 2002; Mexinox 2003; and Mexinox 2004. In Mexinox 2002, we
determined that it is appropriate to include the entered value of
merchandise entered for consumption into the United States, but
subsequently first sold outside of the United States into the
denominator of the Department's importer specific assessment
calculation to ``facilitate the U.S. Customs Service's collection of
antidumping duties on subject merchandise.'' See Mexinox 2002 and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 15.
Finally, we disagree with the Petitioners' assertion that we are
unable to determine who is the importer of record from the record of
this case. U&A France specifically states that U&A France is the
importer of record for the sales entered for consumption, but
subsequently first sold outside of the United States, at Appendix SA-2
of the supplemental questionnaire response dated March 22, 2005.
Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily included the entered
value of the merchandise which was imported for consumption into the
United States, but subsequently first sold outside of the United States
in the denominator of the importer specific assessment calculation. A
more detailed discussion of this issue and the computer code which
implements this decision is included in the Department's analysis
memorandum. See Analysis Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U&A France................................ 11.11 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Assessment
Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly
to CBP within fifteen days of publication of the final results of
review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
these results and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty
assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate
by dividing the total dumping margins calculated for the U.S. sales to
the importer by the sum of total entered value of these sales plus the
entered value of subject merchandise entered for consumption but first
sold outside of the United States. If the preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of review, this rate will be used for
assessment of antidumping duties on all entries of the subject
merchandise by that importer during the POR.
Revocation of the Order
On July 12, 2005, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC) informed the Department that the revocation of the antidumping
duty orders on stainless steel sheet and strip from France would not
likely lead to continuation of recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
Accordingly, the Department will be revoking this antidumping duty
order effective, July 27, 2004. Therefore, cash deposits of estimated
antidumping duties are no longer required.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculation 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 regulation 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 occured 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: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-15639 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M