Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 42802-42804 [E6-12057]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42802
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Notices
part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of notice of
initiation of the requested review,
unless the Secretary decides that it is
reasonable to extend this time limit. In
this case, the petitioner withdrew its
request for review of Himalya past the
90–day deadline. However, for the
reasons stated in the petitioner’s July 10,
2006, letter, we have retroactively
extended the deadline to withdraw the
review request, and accepted the
petitioner’s withdrawal request. Because
the petitioner was the only party to
request the administrative review of
Himalya, we are rescinding, in part, this
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain preserved mushrooms from
India with respect to Himalya. This
review will continue with respect to
Agro Dutch.
Background
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Antidumping duties
for the rescinded company shall be
assessed at a rate equal to the cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties
required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP within 15
days of publication of this notice.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: July 24, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12123 Filed 7–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–428–830
Stainless Steel Bar from Germany:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
17:47 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
Since the February 3, 2006,
publication of the preliminary results in
this review (see Stainless Steel Bar from
Germany: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 5811 (February 3, 2006)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’)), the following
events have occurred:
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results of the review. On
March 6, 2006, the respondent BGH
Edelstahl Freital GmbH, BGH Edelstahl
Lippendorf GmbH, BGH Edelstahl
Lugau GmbH, and BGH Edelstahl Siegen
GmbH (collectively, ‘‘BGH’’) filed a case
brief and requested a hearing. On March
7, 2006, Carpenter Technology Corp.,
Crucible Specialty Metals Division of
Crucible Materials Corp., and
Electralloy Corp. (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’) filed a case brief. At the
Department’s request, BGH removed
certain information from its case brief
and submitted a redacted case brief on
April 6, 2006. BGH also filed its rebuttal
brief on April 6, 2006. Petitioners filed
their rebuttal brief on April 7, 2006. The
Department met with BGH in lieu of a
hearing to discuss BGH’s concerns
regarding this final determination. See
‘‘March 8, 2006 - Ex Parte Meeting with
Counsel and Advisors for BGH Group,
Inc.’’ from Natalie Kempkey, Analyst,
dated May 8, 2005.
Scope of the Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published its preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar from Germany. The period of
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
review is March 1, 2004, through
February 28, 2005. Based on our
analysis of the comments received and
an examination of our calculations, we
have made certain changes for the final
results. Consequently, the final results
differ from the preliminary results. The
final weighted–average dumping margin
is listed below in the section entitled
‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brandon Farlander or Natalie Kempkey,
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) 482–0182 or (202) 482–
1698, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
For the purposes of the order, the
term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’ includes
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex
polygons. Stainless steel bar includes
cold–finished stainless steel bars 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 length flat–rolled
products (i.e., cut 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), products that have been cut
from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate,
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), angles, shapes and sections.
The stainless steel bar subject to this
review 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, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review is March 1,
2004, through February 28, 2005.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs and
rebuttal briefs filed by parties to this
review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for 2004–2005
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Bar from Germany’’ from Stephen
J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated July 17, 2006,
(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached
to this notice as an appendix is a list of
the issues that parties have raised and
to which we have responded in the
Decision Memorandum. Parties can find
a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Department’s Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’), located in Room B–099 of the
main Department building. In addition,
E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM
28JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Notices
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.
Fair Value Comparisons
Export Price
• We have recalculated BGH’s
imputed U.S. credit expenses using
a more appropriate U.S. dollar
short–term interest rate.
• We have included in our analysis
transactions that entered the United
States during the period of review,
but were sold prior to the period of
review.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Normal Value
• We have reclassified home market
commissions reported by BGH to a
certain commission agent as
indirect selling expenses, and,
consequently have recalculated
BGH’s indirect selling expense
ratio.
• We have included in our analysis
additional home market sales to
ensure an appropriate window
period for the added U.S. sales.
• We have discontinued the
preliminary adjustment to BGH’s
cost of manufacturing under the
Transactions Disregarded Rule (19
U.S.C. 1677b(f)(2)) with respect to
affiliated scrap and alloy purchases
• We recalculated certain allocable
common G&A expenses by
removing both the lease G&A
expenses and the lease depreciation
expenses from the company’s total
expenses.
These changes are discussed in the
Decision Memorandum and in the Final
Results calculation memoranda. See
‘‘Final Results Calculation
Memorandum for the BGH Group of
Companies,’’ dated July 17, 2006; see
also Memorandum from Joseph Welton,
Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Final Results- BGH Group,’’ dated July
17, 2006, which are on file in the CRU.
17:47 Jul 27, 2006
We determine that the following
percentage margin exists for the period
March 1, 2004, through February 28,
2005:
Weighted–average
margin percentage
Exporter/manufacturer
To determine whether sales of
stainless steel bar by BGH to the United
States were made at less than normal
value, we compared export price to
normal value. Our calculations followed
the methodologies described in the
Preliminary Results, except as noted
below and in the final results
calculation memorandum cited below,
which is on file in the CRU.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Final Results of the Review
Jkt 208001
BGH ..............................
0.62
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we have calculated exporter/importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review.
To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in
accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to that importer (or customer)
and dividing this amount by the total
value of the sales to that importer (or
customer).
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003, (68 FR 23954). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the period
of review produced by companies
included in these final results of review
for which the reviewed companies did
not know their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–
others rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company involved in the
transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to 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 stainless steel bar from
Germany 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 rate for
the reviewed company will be the rate
listed above (except no cash deposit will
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42803
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
16.96 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate
established in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from
Germany, 67 FR 3159 (January 23, 2002)
and Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Stainless Steel Bar from
Germany, 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002).
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 Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to Administrative
Protective Order (‘‘APO’’) 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 and this notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM
28JYN1
42804
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Notices
Dated: July 17, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482–
0133, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
APPENDIX I
List of Comments in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: The Department Should
Assign Total Adverse Facts Available to
BGH’s Sales Information
Comment 2: The Department Should
Assign Total Adverse Facts Available to
BGH’s Cost Information
Comment 3: BGH Mislead the
Department Regarding Its Home Market
Sales to BGH SL–Stahl GmbH
Comment 4: BGH Withheld Information
Regarding Its Claimed Levels of Trade
Comment 5: BGH Incorrectly Claimed
Home Market Commissions for Certain
Sales
Comment 6: BGH Incorrectly Claimed
Home Market Rebates on Certain Sales
Comment 7: The Department Should
Reject BGH’s Claim for Home Market
Inland Freight Because BGH’s Claim is
for Non–Qualifying Expenses
Comment 8: BGH has Improperly
Reported Its Home Market Warranty
Expenses
Comment 9: BGH Improperly Classified
Certain U.S. Sales as Export Price Sales,
when Those Sales are Constructed
Export Price Sales
Comment 10: BGH Has Understated its
U.S. Credit Expenses
Comment 11: Affiliated Purchases of
Scrap and Alloy Inputs
Comment 12: BOB’s Common G&A
Expenses
Comment 13: Company–Specific G&A
Expense Ratios
Comment 14: The Department Erred in
Rejecting Certain Portions of BGH’s Case
Brief
[FR Doc. E6–12057 Filed 7–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
International Trade Administration
A–428–830
Stainless Steel Bar from Germany:
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brandon Farlander or Damian Felton,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
On March 7, 2002, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published an antidumping duty order
on stainless steel bar from Germany. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless
Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 10382
(March 7, 2002). On October 10, 2003,
the Department published an amended
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar from Germany. See Notice of
Amended Antidumping Duty Orders:
Stainless Steel Bar from France,
Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United
Kingdom, 68 FR 58660 (October 10,
2003).
On March 2, 2006, the Department
published its Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 10642 (March 2, 2006). In response
to a request made on March 29, 2006,
by BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH, BGH
Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH
Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH
Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (collectively,
‘‘BGH’’), the Department initiated an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar from Germany, covering the
period March 1, 2005, through February
28, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 2006).
On May 23, 2006, BGH withdrew its
request for review. As a result of a
timely withdrawal of the request for
review by BGH, and because no other
parties requested a review, we are
rescinding this administrative review.
Scope of the Order
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AGENCY:
Background
For the purposes of this order, the
term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’ includes
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. Stainless steel bar includes
cold–finished stainless steel bars that
are turned or ground in straight lengths,
whether produced from hot–rolled bar
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 length flat–rolled
products (i.e., cut 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), products that have been cut
from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate,
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 stainless steel bar subject to this
review 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, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Rescission of Review
The Department’s regulations at
351.213(d)(1) provide that the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review. BGH
withdrew its request for an
administrative review on May 23, 2006,
which is within the 90-day deadline,
and no other party requested a review
with respect to this company, or any
other company. Therefore, the
Department is rescinding this
administrative review.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 771(i) and
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: July 21, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12062 Filed 7–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM
28JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 145 (Friday, July 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42802-42804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12057]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-428-830
Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published its preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from
Germany. The period of review is March 1, 2004, through February 28,
2005. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination
of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final
results. Consequently, the final results differ from the preliminary
results. The final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in
the section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Natalie Kempkey,
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-
0182 or (202) 482-1698, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the February 3, 2006, publication of the preliminary results
in this review (see Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 5811 (February
3, 2006) (``Preliminary Results'')), the following events have
occurred:
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results of the
review. On March 6, 2006, the respondent BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH,
BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH
Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (collectively, ``BGH'') filed a case brief and
requested a hearing. On March 7, 2006, Carpenter Technology Corp.,
Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., and
Electralloy Corp. (collectively, ``Petitioners'') filed a case brief.
At the Department's request, BGH removed certain information from its
case brief and submitted a redacted case brief on April 6, 2006. BGH
also filed its rebuttal brief on April 6, 2006. Petitioners filed their
rebuttal brief on April 7, 2006. The Department met with BGH in lieu of
a hearing to discuss BGH's concerns regarding this final determination.
See ``March 8, 2006 - Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel and Advisors for
BGH Group, Inc.'' from Natalie Kempkey, Analyst, dated May 8, 2005.
Scope of the Order
For the purposes of the order, the term ``stainless steel bar''
includes 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. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless
steel bars 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 length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut 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), products that have been cut from stainless
steel sheet, strip or plate, 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), angles, shapes
and sections.
The stainless steel bar subject to this review 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, the written description
of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs filed by
parties to this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision
Memorandum for 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar
from Germany'' from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated July 17, 2006, (``Decision Memorandum''),
which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an
appendix is a list of the issues that parties have raised and to which
we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on
file in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), located in
Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition,
[[Page 42803]]
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.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar by BGH to the
United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export
price to normal value. Our calculations followed the methodologies
described in the Preliminary Results, except as noted below and in the
final results calculation memorandum cited below, which is on file in
the CRU.
Export Price
We have recalculated BGH's imputed U.S. credit expenses
using a more appropriate U.S. dollar short-term interest rate.
We have included in our analysis transactions that entered
the United States during the period of review, but were sold prior to
the period of review.
Normal Value
We have reclassified home market commissions reported by
BGH to a certain commission agent as indirect selling expenses, and,
consequently have recalculated BGH's indirect selling expense ratio.
We have included in our analysis additional home market
sales to ensure an appropriate window period for the added U.S. sales.
We have discontinued the preliminary adjustment to BGH's
cost of manufacturing under the Transactions Disregarded Rule (19
U.S.C. 1677b(f)(2)) with respect to affiliated scrap and alloy
purchases
We recalculated certain allocable common G&A expenses by
removing both the lease G&A expenses and the lease depreciation
expenses from the company's total expenses.
These changes are discussed in the Decision Memorandum and in the
Final Results calculation memoranda. See ``Final Results Calculation
Memorandum for the BGH Group of Companies,'' dated July 17, 2006; see
also Memorandum from Joseph Welton, Accountant, to Neal Halper,
Director, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Final Results- BGH Group,'' dated July 17, 2006,
which are on file in the CRU.
Final Results of the Review
We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the
period March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGH................................................. 0.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates
for merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer
(or customer).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003, (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies
included in these final results of review for which the reviewed
companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to 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 stainless steel bar from Germany 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 rate 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 16.96 percent, the
``all others'' rate established in Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR
3159 (January 23, 2002) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless
Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002).
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 Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') 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 and this notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 42804]]
Dated: July 17, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: The Department Should Assign Total Adverse Facts Available
to BGH's Sales Information
Comment 2: The Department Should Assign Total Adverse Facts Available
to BGH's Cost Information
Comment 3: BGH Mislead the Department Regarding Its Home Market Sales
to BGH SL-Stahl GmbH
Comment 4: BGH Withheld Information Regarding Its Claimed Levels of
Trade
Comment 5: BGH Incorrectly Claimed Home Market Commissions for Certain
Sales
Comment 6: BGH Incorrectly Claimed Home Market Rebates on Certain Sales
Comment 7: The Department Should Reject BGH's Claim for Home Market
Inland Freight Because BGH's Claim is for Non-Qualifying Expenses
Comment 8: BGH has Improperly Reported Its Home Market Warranty
Expenses
Comment 9: BGH Improperly Classified Certain U.S. Sales as Export Price
Sales, when Those Sales are Constructed Export Price Sales
Comment 10: BGH Has Understated its U.S. Credit Expenses
Comment 11: Affiliated Purchases of Scrap and Alloy Inputs
Comment 12: BOB's Common G&A Expenses
Comment 13: Company-Specific G&A Expense Ratios
Comment 14: The Department Erred in Rejecting Certain Portions of BGH's
Case Brief
[FR Doc. E6-12057 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S
