Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 54023-54026 [E5-4976]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices
verified data from a respondent in the
LTFV investigation. Although this
margin is the highest in the range of
calculated margins, there is no basis to
conclude that it is aberrational or
inappropriate as applied to TKS.
Accordingly, we preliminarily
determine that this rate is an
appropriate rate to be applied in this
review to exports of the subject
merchandise produced by TKS during
the 1997–1998 administrative review
period as facts otherwise available.
Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Review
Because of the information developed
in this changed circumstances review,
the Department preliminarily finds that
the final results of TKS’ 1997–1998
review should be revised from zero to
an AFA rate of 59.67 percent.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222, the
antidumping order was revoked with
respect to TKS prior to the conclusion
of the sunset review. This revocation
was based in part on TKS receiving zero
margins for the 1997–1998, 1998–1999,
and 1999–2000 administrative review
periods. However, this changed
circumstances review preliminarily
finds that the 1997–1998 review was
flawed, based on TKS’ withholding of
information as described above, and
consequently, an AFA rate should be
assigned to TKS for the 1997–1998
review period. Thus, TKS did not have
a zero margin in three consecutive
administrative reviews. As a result of
that preliminary finding, TKS no longer
qualifies for revocation. Because of the
information developed in this changed
circumstances review, the Department
preliminarily determines that the
revocation of the order with respect to
TKS should be rescinded.
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the
Act, the Department sunset the order in
2002 because no domestic producer
stated an interest in continuing the
order. At that time, Goss had ceased
production in the United States and was
unable to participate as a domestic
producer. However, Goss has provided
information in this changed
circumstances review that its cessation
of production at that time was, in large
measure, due to TKS’ improper actions.
Goss contends that ‘‘but for’’ TKS’
actions it would have been able to
continue production at the time of the
sunset review and thus participate in
the sunset review which, in turn, may
have rendered different results.
We preliminarily find that the
changed circumstances review record
supports the fact that TKS’ actions
negatively impacted Goss’ position as a
domestic producer. Goss’ economic
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:06 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
consultant prepared a study identifying
up to tens of millions of dollars that
Goss may have lost directly or indirectly
due to TKS’ unfair trade activity. See
Volume V, pages 36–43 and
Attachments 13 through 20 of Goss’
June 9, 2005, submission (resubmitted
on June 29, 2005). Consequently, Goss
likely suffered lost sales and profit as a
result of TKS’ improper actions, which,
in turn, affected Goss’ ability to
continue production at the time of the
sunset review.
Although we are unable to measure
the precise quantitative effect of TKS’
unfair trade practices on Goss’
operations, the record supports the
conclusion that they negatively
impacted Goss’ position as a domestic
producer. While the Department cannot
determine with certitude what would
have happened, but for TKS’ actions,
the evidence of TKS’ unfair trade
practices on the record of this review
warrants adverse assumptions. Given
TKS’ actions in this proceeding, as
revealed by the Goss Int’l case and the
information developed in this review, it
is reasonable to make the adverse
assumption with respect to TKS that,
but for TKS’ actions, Goss would have
been able to continue production at the
time of the sunset review and thus to
participate in the sunset review.
Therefore, based on the evidence on
the record in this changed
circumstances review and the
reasonable adverse assumptions that we
have determined are appropriate, we
also preliminarily determine that, if we
continue to find in our final results that
an AFA rate should be applied to TKS
for the 1997–1998 administrative review
and that TKS should not have been
revoked from the order, a new sunset
review should be initiated following
completion of this changed
circumstances review. If, in the context
of a sunset review, the Department finds
a likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping, the Department
will present this determination to the
ITC. See Asahi Chemical Industry Co.,
Ltd., Plaintiff v. United States, 727 F.
Supp. 625 (CIT 1989).
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results,
including comments on how a new
sunset review should be conducted, if
one were to be initiated upon the
completion of this changed
circumstances review. Case briefs may
be submitted by interested parties not
later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to the issues raised in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54023
five days after the deadline for
submission of case briefs. Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this
notice. If requested, a hearing will be
held no later than five days after the
deadline for the submission of rebuttal
briefs, or the first workday thereafter.
Persons interested in attending the
hearing should contact the Department
for the date and time of the hearing.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, Room B–099,
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1) The party’s name, address and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the respective
case briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the
issues raised in the respective case
briefs, may be submitted in accordance
with a schedule to be determined.
Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Parties
are also encouraged to provide a
summary of the arguments not to exceed
five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will publish the final
results of this changed circumstances
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any case
or rebuttal briefs.
This notice of preliminary results of
changed circumstances review is in
accordance with sections 751(b) and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d).
Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–5000 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–533–810)
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Bar from India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the
Department of Commerce published the
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
54024
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel bar from India. The
period of review is February 1, 2003,
through January 31, 2004. We gave
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results.
Based on our analysis of the comment
received, we have made certain changes
for the final results. The final dumping
margin for Chandan Steel, Ltd. is listed
below in the ‘‘Final Results of the
Review’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Holland or Andrew McAllister,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–1279 and (202)
482–1174, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the publication of the
preliminary results of this review (see
Notice of Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel
Bar from India, 70 FR 10977 (March 7,
2005) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’)), the
following events have occurred:
On March 11, 2005, the Department of
Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) issued a
supplemental questionnaire to the
respondent in this review, Chandan
Steel, Ltd. (‘‘Chandan’’). We received
Chandan’s response on March 21, 2005.
On March 28, 2005, the Department
received a submission from Chandan
attempting to supplement its U.S. sales,
and corresponding costs, for a group of
stainless steel flat bar (‘‘SSFB’’) sales
made to the United States during the
period of review (‘‘POR’’). On April 4,
2005, Carpenter Technology Corp.,
Crucible Specialty Metals Division of
Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy
Corp., Slater Steels Corp., Empire
Specialty Steel and the United
Steelworkers of America (‘‘AFL–CIO/
CLC’’) (collectively, the ‘‘petitioners’’),
argued that Chandan’s March 28, 2005,
submission should be rejected by the
Department on the basis that it was
untimely filed. On May 12, 2005, the
Department rejected Chandan’s March
28, 2005, submission because the
information and the data contained in
the submission represented untimely
filed factual information. See letter from
Susan Kuhbach to Peter Koenig, counsel
to Chandan Steel Ltd., dated May 12,
2005.
In May and June of 2005, we
conducted verification of the sales and
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:06 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
cost of production (‘‘COP’’) information
contained in Chandan’s questionnaire
responses at the company’s production
facilities located in Umbergaon, Gujarat,
India. The verification report was issued
on July 22, 2005. See Memorandum to
the File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and
Cost Responses of Chandan Steel, Ltd.
in the 2003/2004 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Bar from India,’’ (‘‘SCVR’’) dated
July 22, 2005. The report is on file in the
Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of
the main Department building (‘‘CRU’’).
On June 1, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
extension of the time limit for the final
results in the antidumping duty
administrative review to no later than
August 25, 2005, in accordance with
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Stainless
Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 31425 (June 1, 2005).
On July 29, 2005, we received a case
brief from the petitioners. We did not
receive a case or a rebuttal brief from
Chandan.
On August 24, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
extension of the time limit for the final
results in the antidumping duty
administrative review to no later than
September 6, 2005, in accordance with
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless
Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 49567 (August 24, 2005).
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is
shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’).
SSB means articles of stainless steel in
straight lengths that have been either
hot–rolled, forged, turned, cold–drawn,
cold–rolled or otherwise cold–finished,
or ground, having a uniform solid cross
section along their whole length in the
shape of circles, segments of circles,
ovals, rectangles (including squares),
triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold–
finished SSBs that are turned or ground
in straight lengths, whether produced
from hot–rolled bar or from straightened
and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars
that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or
other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term
does not include stainless steel semi–
finished products, cut–to-length flat–
rolled products (i.e., cut–to-length
rolled products which if less than 4.75
mm in thickness have a width
measuring at least 10 times the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in
thickness having a width which exceeds
150 mm and measures at least twice the
thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed
products in coils, of any uniform solid
cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition
of flat–rolled products), and angles,
shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to these reviews is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50,
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45,
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department
issued a final scope ruling that SSB
manufactured in the United Arab
Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod
from India is not subject to the scope of
this proceeding. See Memorandum to
Barbara E. Tillman, Antidumping Duty
Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India
and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India:
Final Scope Ruling (May 23, 2005).
Period of Review
The POR is February 1, 2003, through
January 31, 2004.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we conducted verification of the
sales and cost information submitted by
Chandan. We used standard verification
procedures, including an on–site
examination of Chandan’s production
facilities, and an examination of the
relevant sales, cost, and financial
records.
Analysis of Comments Received
The issue raised in the case brief
submitted by the petitioners in this
review is addressed in the ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Bar from India’’ from Barbara E.
Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, to
Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
dated September 6, 2005 (‘‘Decision
Memorandum’’), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. Attached to this
notice as an appendix is a description
of the issue that the petitioners have
raised and to which we have responded
in the Decision Memorandum. Parties
can find a complete discussion of the
issue raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendation in this
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Department’s CRU. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/
index.html. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
A. Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act
provides that the Department will apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia,
necessary information is not on the
record or an interested party (A)
withholds information requested by the
Department; (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form or manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (D) provides information
which cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i).
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide the party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency within the applicable time
limits. If that party submits further
deficient information, then, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the
Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses,
as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act
provides further that the Department
shall not decline to consider submitted
information by an interested party that
is necessary to the determination but
does not meet all the applicable
requirements established by the
Department if (1) the information is
submitted by the established deadline;
(2) the information can be verified; (3)
the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for
reaching the applicable determination;
(4) the interested party has
demonstrated that it acted to the best of
its ability; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
Thus, if any one of these criteria is not
met, the Department may decline to
consider the information at issue in
making its determination.
As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’
section above, on March 28, 2005, the
Department received a submission from
Chandan with additional information
and data with respect to sales of SSFB,
which is covered under the scope of this
order. On May 12, 2005, we determined
that the information and data contained
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:06 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
in the submission represented untimely
filed factual information; therefore, we
rejected this submission. See section
351.302(c)(2) of the Department’s
regulations. At verification, we verified
the quantity of sales of SSFB to the
United States. Additionally, we
reviewed invoices for two of the sales of
SSFB to the United States and
confirmed that, according to the product
characteristics, these sales should have
been reported in Chandan’s U.S. sales
listing.
In addition, at verification we found
numerous errors and omissions with
respect to Chandan’s sales information
contained in its comparison market
(‘‘CM’’) and U.S. sales databases.
Specifically, Chandan: (1) failed to
report marine insurance expenses on
certain U.S. sales and reported all
marine insurance expenses in U.S.
dollars rather than the currency in
which they were incurred (i.e., rupees);
(2) misreported foreign inland freight
charges and international freight charges
for certain U.S. and CM sales; (3)
calculated credit expenses in both the
U.S. and CM sales listings incorrectly;
and (4) misclassified its fumigation
expenses incurred on CM sales as
indirect selling expenses rather than
direct selling expenses in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.410(c) of the
Department’s regulations.
Similarly, in verifying Chandan’s cost
information, we identified errors and
information from Chandan’s response
that could not be supported.
Specifically, Chandan (1) provided
revised production quantities during the
course of verification which precluded
the Department from verifying this
information; (2) could not support its
billet cost allocation for certain raw
materials such as chromium, nickel, and
titanium to certain grades of SSB; (3)
could not support its allocation of
rolling costs; (4) could not support its
allocation of costs at the bright bar stage
of production; and (5) misreported the
scrap value in offsetting its reported
rolling and bright bar costs for certain
grades of bright bar. See Decision
Memorandum.
For some of the deficiencies and
omissions cited above, the Department
finds that the information necessary to
calculate an accurate and otherwise
reliable margin for Chandan is not
available on the record. Furthermore,
the Department finds that Chandan
failed to provide information requested
by the Department in a timely manner
and in the form required, significantly
impeded the proceeding, and provided
unverifiable information pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(B) and (D) of the Act.
Although, in isolation, the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54025
aforementioned deficiencies may not
have warranted the application of facts
otherwise available, the multitude of
missing and incorrect data, in
conjunction with Chandan’s inability to
support much of its submitted cost data
at verification and the fact that Chandan
submitted the information regarding
sales and cost data for SSFB after the
established deadline, leads the
Department to conclude that Chandan’s
sales and cost information does not
meet the standards for consideration of
information as outlined in section
782(e) of the Act. For these reasons, we
find that the use of facts otherwise
available is necessary for Chandan.
B. Adverse Facts Available
According to section 776(b) of the
Act, if the Department finds that an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with a request for information, the
Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise
available. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales of Less Than
Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR
55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002).
Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to
ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No.
103–316, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’).
Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of a respondent is
not required before the Department may
make an adverse inference.’’ See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340
(May 19, 1997) and Nippon Steel Corp.
v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon’’).
In determining the appropriate facts
available to assign to Chandan, we find
that Chandan did not act to the best of
its ability in this proceeding, within the
meaning of section 776(b) of the Act.
See Nippon 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83; see
also Decision Memorandum. In not
reporting its sales and cost data for
SSFB at the time it provided its
questionnaire responses for other
categories of SSB, Chandan did not
provide the Department with full and
complete answers. With respect to
discrepancies in its reporting of sales
expenses, we note that Chandan did not
put forth its maximum effort, resulting
in numerous errors discovered by the
Department at verification. With respect
to its reporting of costs, although the
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
54026
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices
Department did not find inherent flaws
in Chandan’s cost methodology, we find
that Chandan did not act to the best of
its ability by virtue of its inadequate
record keeping. We note that, for each
stage of production (i.e., billet, rolling,
and bright bar), Chandan failed to retain
essential documentation to support its
allocation methodologies.
Therefore, we find that an adverse
inference is warranted in selecting facts
otherwise available. Section 776(b) of
the Act further provides that the
Department may use as adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’), information derived
from: (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review, or (4) any other
information placed on the record.
As AFA for Chandan, we have
assigned a margin of 19.80 percent. This
margin was calculated for Uday
Engineering Works in the 2001
antidumping duty new shipper review
and represents the highest calculated
weighted–average margin determined
for any respondent in any segment of
this proceeding. See Stainless Steel Bar
from India: Final Results of New
Shipper Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 69721
(November 19, 2002) (‘‘New Shipper
Review Final Results’’).
Information from prior segments of
the proceeding constitutes secondary
information and section 776(c) of the
Act provides that the Department shall,
to the extent practicable, corroborate
that secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. The Department’s regulations
provide that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value. See 19 CFR
351.308(d).
To corroborate secondary information,
the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.
However, unlike other types of
information, such as input costs or
selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated
dumping margins. Thus, in an
administrative review, if the Department
chooses as AFA a calculated dumping
margin from a prior segment of the
proceeding, it is not necessary to
question the reliability of the margin for
that time period. See Heavy Forged
Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished,
With or Without Handles, From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, Final Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:06 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
FR 55581 (September 15, 2004), and
attached Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 18.
The highest calculated margin in the
history of this proceeding is 19.80
percent. See New Shipper Review Final
Results. In this review, there are no
circumstances indicating that this
margin is inappropriate as facts
available. There are no calculated
margins for any other respondents in
this administrative review. Therefore,
there is no reason to question the
relevance of this margin for Chandan,
and for the reasons stated above, we
find that the 19.80 percent rate is
corroborated to the greatest extent
practicable in accordance with section
776(c) of the Act.
Final Results of the Review
For the firm listed below, we find that
the following percentage margin exists
for the period February 1, 2003, through
January 31, 2004:
Exporter/Manufacturer
Margin
Chandan Steel, Ltd. ......
19.80
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. For
Chandan, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate entries at the rate indicated
above. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to the CBP within 15 days of
publication of these final results of
review.
Cash Deposit Rates
The following antidumping duty
deposits will be required on all
shipments of SSB from India entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, effective 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 listed above
(except no cash deposit will be required
if a company’s weighted–average margin
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent); (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, the previous review, or the
original 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) if neither the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous reviews,
the cash deposit rate will be 12.45
percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established
in the less than fair value investigation.
See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28,
1994). These cash deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these
results of review in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
APPENDIX I
Comment in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1: Use of Total Adverse Facts
Available for Chandan
[FR Doc. E5–4976 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54023-54026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-533-810)
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the
[[Page 54024]]
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The period of review is
February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. We gave interested parties
an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our
analysis of the comment received, we have made certain changes for the
final results. The final dumping margin for Chandan Steel, Ltd. is
listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland or Andrew McAllister,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1279
and (202) 482-1174, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the publication of the preliminary results of this review
(see Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
70 FR 10977 (March 7, 2005) (``Preliminary Results'')), the following
events have occurred:
On March 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'')
issued a supplemental questionnaire to the respondent in this review,
Chandan Steel, Ltd. (``Chandan''). We received Chandan's response on
March 21, 2005. On March 28, 2005, the Department received a submission
from Chandan attempting to supplement its U.S. sales, and corresponding
costs, for a group of stainless steel flat bar (``SSFB'') sales made to
the United States during the period of review (``POR''). On April 4,
2005, Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals Division of
Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., Slater Steels Corp.,
Empire Specialty Steel and the United Steelworkers of America (``AFL-
CIO/CLC'') (collectively, the ``petitioners''), argued that Chandan's
March 28, 2005, submission should be rejected by the Department on the
basis that it was untimely filed. On May 12, 2005, the Department
rejected Chandan's March 28, 2005, submission because the information
and the data contained in the submission represented untimely filed
factual information. See letter from Susan Kuhbach to Peter Koenig,
counsel to Chandan Steel Ltd., dated May 12, 2005.
In May and June of 2005, we conducted verification of the sales and
cost of production (``COP'') information contained in Chandan's
questionnaire responses at the company's production facilities located
in Umbergaon, Gujarat, India. The verification report was issued on
July 22, 2005. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales
and Cost Responses of Chandan Steel, Ltd. in the 2003/2004 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India,''
(``SCVR'') dated July 22, 2005. The report is on file in the Central
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (``CRU'').
On June 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register
an extension of the time limit for the final results in the antidumping
duty administrative review to no later than August 25, 2005, in
accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''). See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 31425 (June 1, 2005).
On July 29, 2005, we received a case brief from the petitioners. We
did not receive a case or a rebuttal brief from Chandan.
On August 24, 2005, the Department published in the Federal
Register an extension of the time limit for the final results in the
antidumping duty administrative review to no later than September 6,
2005, in accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless Steel
Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 49567 (August 24, 2005).
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is shipments of stainless steel
bar (``SSB''). SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight
lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn,
cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform
solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles,
segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire,
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other
deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and
angles, shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this proceeding. See
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless
Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final
Scope Ruling (May 23, 2005).
Period of Review
The POR is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification
of the sales and cost information submitted by Chandan. We used
standard verification procedures, including an on-site examination of
Chandan's production facilities, and an examination of the relevant
sales, cost, and financial records.
Analysis of Comments Received
The issue raised in the case brief submitted by the petitioners in
this review is addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Stainless Steel Bar from India'' from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September
6, 2005 (``Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this
notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a description of the
issue that the petitioners have raised and to which we have responded
in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of
the issue raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in
this
[[Page 54025]]
public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. In
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
A. Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department
will apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party (A) withholds
information requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D)
provides information which cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i).
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide the party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency within the applicable
time limits. If that party submits further deficient information, then,
subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all
or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides further that the Department shall
not decline to consider submitted information by an interested party
that is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the
applicable requirements established by the Department if (1) the
information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without
undue difficulties. Thus, if any one of these criteria is not met, the
Department may decline to consider the information at issue in making
its determination.
As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, on March 28,
2005, the Department received a submission from Chandan with additional
information and data with respect to sales of SSFB, which is covered
under the scope of this order. On May 12, 2005, we determined that the
information and data contained in the submission represented untimely
filed factual information; therefore, we rejected this submission. See
section 351.302(c)(2) of the Department's regulations. At verification,
we verified the quantity of sales of SSFB to the United States.
Additionally, we reviewed invoices for two of the sales of SSFB to the
United States and confirmed that, according to the product
characteristics, these sales should have been reported in Chandan's
U.S. sales listing.
In addition, at verification we found numerous errors and omissions
with respect to Chandan's sales information contained in its comparison
market (``CM'') and U.S. sales databases. Specifically, Chandan: (1)
failed to report marine insurance expenses on certain U.S. sales and
reported all marine insurance expenses in U.S. dollars rather than the
currency in which they were incurred (i.e., rupees); (2) misreported
foreign inland freight charges and international freight charges for
certain U.S. and CM sales; (3) calculated credit expenses in both the
U.S. and CM sales listings incorrectly; and (4) misclassified its
fumigation expenses incurred on CM sales as indirect selling expenses
rather than direct selling expenses in accordance with 19 CFR
351.410(c) of the Department's regulations.
Similarly, in verifying Chandan's cost information, we identified
errors and information from Chandan's response that could not be
supported. Specifically, Chandan (1) provided revised production
quantities during the course of verification which precluded the
Department from verifying this information; (2) could not support its
billet cost allocation for certain raw materials such as chromium,
nickel, and titanium to certain grades of SSB; (3) could not support
its allocation of rolling costs; (4) could not support its allocation
of costs at the bright bar stage of production; and (5) misreported the
scrap value in offsetting its reported rolling and bright bar costs for
certain grades of bright bar. See Decision Memorandum.
For some of the deficiencies and omissions cited above, the
Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an
accurate and otherwise reliable margin for Chandan is not available on
the record. Furthermore, the Department finds that Chandan failed to
provide information requested by the Department in a timely manner and
in the form required, significantly impeded the proceeding, and
provided unverifiable information pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and
(D) of the Act. Although, in isolation, the aforementioned deficiencies
may not have warranted the application of facts otherwise available,
the multitude of missing and incorrect data, in conjunction with
Chandan's inability to support much of its submitted cost data at
verification and the fact that Chandan submitted the information
regarding sales and cost data for SSFB after the established deadline,
leads the Department to conclude that Chandan's sales and cost
information does not meet the standards for consideration of
information as outlined in section 782(e) of the Act. For these
reasons, we find that the use of facts otherwise available is necessary
for Chandan.
B. Adverse Facts Available
According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best
of its ability to comply with a request for information, the Department
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of
Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997) and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon'').
In determining the appropriate facts available to assign to
Chandan, we find that Chandan did not act to the best of its ability in
this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. See
Nippon 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83; see also Decision Memorandum. In not
reporting its sales and cost data for SSFB at the time it provided its
questionnaire responses for other categories of SSB, Chandan did not
provide the Department with full and complete answers. With respect to
discrepancies in its reporting of sales expenses, we note that Chandan
did not put forth its maximum effort, resulting in numerous errors
discovered by the Department at verification. With respect to its
reporting of costs, although the
[[Page 54026]]
Department did not find inherent flaws in Chandan's cost methodology,
we find that Chandan did not act to the best of its ability by virtue
of its inadequate record keeping. We note that, for each stage of
production (i.e., billet, rolling, and bright bar), Chandan failed to
retain essential documentation to support its allocation methodologies.
Therefore, we find that an adverse inference is warranted in
selecting facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use as adverse facts available
(``AFA''), information derived from: (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review, or (4) any
other information placed on the record.
As AFA for Chandan, we have assigned a margin of 19.80 percent.
This margin was calculated for Uday Engineering Works in the 2001
antidumping duty new shipper review and represents the highest
calculated weighted-average margin determined for any respondent in any
segment of this proceeding. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final
Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR
69721 (November 19, 2002) (``New Shipper Review Final Results'').
Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See 19 CFR 351.308(d).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated dumping margin
from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question
the reliability of the margin for that time period. See Heavy Forged
Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR
55581 (September 15, 2004), and attached Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 18.
The highest calculated margin in the history of this proceeding is
19.80 percent. See New Shipper Review Final Results. In this review,
there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate
as facts available. There are no calculated margins for any other
respondents in this administrative review. Therefore, there is no
reason to question the relevance of this margin for Chandan, and for
the reasons stated above, we find that the 19.80 percent rate is
corroborated to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with
section 776(c) of the Act.
Final Results of the Review
For the firm listed below, we find that the following percentage
margin exists for the period February 1, 2003, through January 31,
2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandan Steel, Ltd.................................. 19.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For Chandan, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
entries at the rate indicated above. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days
of publication of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Rates
The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all
shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, effective 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 listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a
company's weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent); (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, the previous review, or the
original 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) if neither the exporter nor
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the
cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the ``all others'' rate
established in the less than fair value investigation. See Stainless
Steel Bar from India; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These cash deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX I
Comment in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Use of Total Adverse Facts Available for Chandan
[FR Doc. E5-4976 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
