Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 45024-45030 [E6-12798]
Download as PDF
45024
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2005, the Department
initiated and the ITC instituted a sunset
review of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel wire rods from India
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See
Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,
70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005) and Stainless
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France and
India, Investigation Nos. 731–TA–636,
731–TA–637, and 731–TA–638 (Second
Review), 70 FR 38207 (July 1, 2005).
As a result of its review, the
Department found that revocation of the
antidumping duty order would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping, and notified the ITC of the
magnitude of the margins likely to
prevail were the order to be revoked.
See Stainless Steel Wire Rods from
Brazil, France and India: Notice of Final
Results of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of
Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 67447
(November 7, 2005). The ITC
determined, pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Act, that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel wire rods from India would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the
United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time. See USITC Publication
3866 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, France and India, Investigations
Nos. 731–TA–636–638 (Second Review)
(July 2006) and Stainless Steel Wire Rod
From Brazil, France, and India (Inv.
Nos. 731–TA–636–638) 71 FR 42118
(July 25, 2006).
United States (HTSUS).1 The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description remains dispositive.
Determination
As a result of the determinations by
the Department and the ITC that
revocation of this antidumping duty
order would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the antidumping
duty order on stainless steel wire rods
from India. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection will continue to collect
antidumping duty cash deposits at the
rates in effect at the time of entry for all
imports of subject merchandise.
The effective date of continuation of
this order will be the date of publication
in the Federal Register of this Notice of
Continuation. Pursuant to sections
751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the
Department intends to initiate the next
five-year review of this order not later
than June 2011.
This five-year (sunset) review and this
notice are in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act.
Dated: August 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12860 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
International Trade Administration
Imports covered by this order are
certain stainless steel wire rods (SSWR)
from India. SSWR are products which
are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed
and/or pickled rounds, squares,
octagons, hexagons, or other shapes, in
coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels
containing, by weight 1.2 percent or less
of carbon and 10.5 percent of
chromium, with or without other
elements. These products are only
manufactured by hot-rolling and
normally sold in coiled form, and are
solid cross-section. The majority of
SSWR sold in the United States are
round in cross-section shape, annealed
and pickled. The most common size is
5.5 millimeters in diameter.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7221.00.0005,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0075 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
(A–428–825)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
From Germany; Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
Allegheny Ludlum, North American
Stainless, United Auto Workers Local
3303, United Steelworkers, and
Zanesville Armco Independent
Organization, Inc. (collectively,
petitioners) and the collapsed
AGENCY:
1 The merchandise subject to the scope of these
orders was originally classifiable under all of the
following HTS subheadings: 7221.00.0005,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060,
7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080. HTSUS
subheadings 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0040,
7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0080 are no longer contained
in the HTSUS.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respondents ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
GmbH (ThyssenKrupp Nirosta),
ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH (TKVDM),
and ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
Prazisionsband GmbH (TKNP)
(collectively, TKN), 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) from
Germany. The review covers exports of
the subject merchandise to the United
States produced by TKN. The period of
review (POR) is July 1, 2004, through
June 30, 2005.
We preliminarily find that TKN made
sales at less than normal value during
the POR. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties based on the
difference between the constructed
export price (CEP) and normal value
(NV).
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit arguments in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
the arguments: (1) a statement of the
issues, (2) a brief summary of the
arguments (no longer than five pages,
including footnotes) and (3) a table of
authorities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Scott, Tyler Weinhold, or
Robert James, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)
482–2657, (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published an
antidumping duty order on S4 from
Germany on July 27, 1999. 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
Germany, 64 FR 40557 (July 27, 1999).
On July 1, 2005, the Department
published the notice of opportunity to
request administrative review of S4
from Germany for the period July 1,
2004, through June 30, 2005. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 70 FR 38099
(July 1, 2005).
On July 29, 2005, petitioners and TKN
both requested an administrative review
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
of TKN’s sales for the period July 1,
2004, through June 30, 2005. On August
29, 2005, the Department published in
the Federal Register a notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009
(August 29, 2005).
On September 7, 2005, the
Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to TKN. TKN submitted
its response to section A of the
questionnaire on September 28, 2005,
and its response to sections B through
D of the questionnaire on November 7,
2005. On February 27, 2006, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire requesting additional
information regarding TKN’s response
to section D of the questionnaire. On
March 20, 2006, the Department issued
a supplemental questionnaire for
sections A and B, to which TKN
responded on April 21, 2006. On March
28, 2006, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire for section
C, to which TKN responded on May 2,
2006. On May 24, 2006, the Department
issued another supplemental
questionnaire, to which TKN responded
on June 12, 2006.
Because it was not practicable to
complete this review within the normal
time frame, on March 10, 2006, we
published in the Federal Register a
notice of the extension for this review.
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils From Germany: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 12342 (March 10, 2006).
This extension established the deadline
for these preliminary results as July 31,
2006.
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 it 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 (HTS) at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
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, 7220.90.0060, and
7220.90.0080. Although the HTS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
merchandise under this order is
dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of 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 steel 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 (coldreduced), 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 HTS, ‘‘Additional U.S.
Note’’ 1(d).
Flapper valve steel is also excluded
from the scope of the order. This
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
1 Due to changes to the HTS 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45025
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent
manganese. This steel also 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
inclusion 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 steel 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
12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of
between 50 and 300 oersteds. This
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45026
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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 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
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
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
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
molybdenum. 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 is 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/Collapsing
Section 351.401(f)(1) of the
Department’s regulations provides that
certain persons found to be affiliated in
accordance with section 771(33) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Tariff Act), may be treated as a single
entity (collapsed), if certain
circumstances exist. In the July 1, 2003,
to June 30, 2004, administrative review
of S4 from Germany, the Department
treated ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, TKNP,
and TKVDM as a single entity (i.e.,
collapsed them) because the three
companies were affiliated, would not
need to engage in major retooling to
shift production of S4 from one
company to another and were found
capable through their sales and
production operations of manipulating
prices or affecting production decisions.
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils From Germany; Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
45682, 45684–45685 (August 8, 2005)
(unchanged in Final Results, 70 FR
73729 (December 13, 2005)).
As in the previous administrative
review, the record establishes that
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM are
affiliated based on their common
6 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the
proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
control by ThyssenKrupp Stainless
GmbH (TK Stainless), another entity
within the ThyssenKrupp group of
companies. Section 771(33)(F) of the
Tariff Act provides that two or more
persons directly or indirectly
controlling, controlled by, or under
common control of another entity are
affiliated. A ‘‘person’’ may be an
individual, corporation, or group.
Further, as provided by section 771(33)
of the Tariff Act, ‘‘a person shall be
considered to control another person if
the person is legally or operationally in
a position to exercise restraint or
direction over the other person.’’ The
Department has analyzed the
information on the record of this
administrative review regarding the
affiliation of ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and
TKVDM and has determined
preliminarily that ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta and TKVDM should be
considered affiliated under section
771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act. See
Memorandum to Richard Weible,
Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Germany: Affiliation
and Collapsing of ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
¨
Prazisionsband GmbH and
ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH,’’ dated June
30, 2006 (Collapsing Memorandum).
Moreover, as in the previous
administrative review, the Department
has determined preliminarily that
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM
should be treated as a single entity or
‘‘collapsed’’ for the purpose of
calculating an antidumping duty
margin. As explained in the Collapsing
Memorandum, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
and TKVDM have production facilities
to produce similar or identical
merchandise without substantial
retooling and should be treated as a
single entity in accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(f)(1). Additionally, in
determining whether there is a
significant potential for manipulation of
price or production, as contemplated by
19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department
considers the totality of the
circumstances of the situation and may
place more reliance on some factors
than others. The totality of the
circumstances here shows there is a
significant potential for the
manipulation of price or production.
In addition to Thyssen Krupp Nirosta
and TKVDM, the record also establishes
that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP
are affiliated based on Thyssen Krupp
Nirosta’s 100 percent ownership of
TKNP. Section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff
Act provides that ‘‘any person directly
or indirectly owning, controlling, or
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
holding with power to vote, 5 percent or
more of the outstanding voting stock or
shares of any organization and such
organization’’ shall be considered to be
affiliated. Further, as provided by
section 771(33) of the Tariff Act, ‘‘a
person shall be considered to control
another person if the person is legally or
operationally in a position to exercise
restraint or direction over the other
person.’’ The Department has analyzed
the information on the record of this
administrative review regarding the
affiliation of ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and
TKNP and, as in the previous
administrative review, has determined
preliminarily that the two entities
should be considered affiliated under
section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act. See
the Collapsing Memorandum at page 8.
Furthermore, as in the previous
administrative review, the Department
has also determined preliminarily that
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP
should be treated as a single entity or
‘‘collapsed’’ for the purpose of
calculating an antidumping duty
margin. As explained in the Collapsing
Memorandum, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
and TKNP also have production
facilities to produce similar or identical
merchandise without substantial
retooling and should be treated as a
single entity in accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(f)(1). Additionally, information
on the record demonstrates there is a
significant potential for manipulation of
price or production, within the meaning
of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2).
In summary, we find that: (1)
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta is affiliated with
both TKNP and TKVDM under section
771(33) of the Tariff Act; (2) a shift in
production between ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta and TKVDM or between
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP would
not require substantial retooling of the
facilities of these companies; and (3)
there is a significant potential for price
and production manipulation between
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM and
also between ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and
TKNP. Therefore, the Department
preliminarily finds that ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta is affiliated with both TKNP and
TKVDM and should be treated as a
single entity or ‘‘collapsed’’ for the
purpose of calculating an antidumping
duty margin for this administrative
review.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of S4 in
the United States were made at less than
fair value, we compared U.S. price to
normal value (NV), as described in the
‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly
weighted–average NVs and compared
these to individual U.S. transactions.
Because TKN made no ‘‘export price’’
transactions during the POR, we used
only CEP sales in our comparisons.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Tariff Act, we considered all
products produced by TKN covered by
the description in the ‘‘Scope of the
Order’’ section, above, and sold in the
home market during the POR, to be
foreign like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. 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 priority): 1) grade; 2) cold/
hot 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 product characteristics and
reporting instructions listed in the
Department’s September 7, 2005,
questionnaire. Because there were sales
of identical or similar merchandise in
the home market suitable for
comparison to each U.S. sale, we did
not compare any U.S. sales to
constructed value (CV).
Constructed Export Price (CEP)
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Tariff Act, CEP is the price at which
the subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or
exporter of such merchandise, or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as
adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d)
of the Tariff Act. In accordance with
section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used
CEP for all of TKN’s U.S. sales because
TKN sold merchandise to affiliated
companies in the United States which,
in turn, sold subject merchandise to
unaffiliated U.S. customers. TKN
reported that sales made through its
affiliated importers ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta North America, Inc. (TKNNA),
Mexinox USA, Inc. (MXXUSA), and
ThyssenKrupp VDM USA, Inc.
(TKVDMUSA) consisted of two
channels of distribution: back–to-back
sales and inventory sales. See
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta’s November 7,
2005, questionnaire response at C–15
and C–16 and TKVDM’s November 7,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45027
2005, questionnaire response at C–15
and C–16. We have preliminarily found
that TKN’s U.S. sales are properly
classified as CEP sales because these
sales occurred in the United States and
were made through TKN’s U.S. affiliates
to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
We based CEP on the packed,
delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. We made adjustments for
price or billing errors and early payment
discounts, where applicable. We also
made deductions for movement
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which
included, where appropriate, foreign
inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling, international freight, marine
insurance, war risk insurance, customs
duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland
freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of
the Tariff Act, we deducted those selling
expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States,
including direct selling expenses (credit
costs, warranty expenses, and
commissions), inventory carrying costs,
and indirect selling expenses. We also
made an adjustment for profit in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Tariff Act. Finally, for those sales in
which merchandise was sent to an
unaffiliated U.S. processor to be further
processed, we made an adjustment
based on the transaction–specific
further processing amounts reported by
TKN; for sales through MXXUSA that
were further processed in Mexico prior
to importation into the United States,
we made an adjustment to account for
these expenses.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there
was a sufficient volume of 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 was equal to or
greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales), we compared the
respondent’s volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. As
TKN’s aggregate volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product was
greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, we determined the home
market was viable. Therefore, we have
based NV on home market sales in the
usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45028
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
D. Calculation of Cost of Production
B. Affiliated–Party Transactions and
Arm’s–Length Test
Sales to affiliated customers in the
home market not made at arm’s–length
prices were excluded from our analysis
because we considered them to be
outside the ordinary course of trade. See
19 CFR 351.102. If sales were not made
at arm’s–length, then the Department
used the sale from the affiliated party to
the first unaffiliated party. To test
whether sales to affiliates were made at
arm’s–length prices, we compared on a
model–specific basis the starting prices
of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers net of all billing adjustments,
early payment discounts, rebates,
movement charges, commissions, direct
selling expenses, imputed credit
expense, and packing. Where, for the
tested models of subject merchandise,
prices to the affiliated party were, on
average, between 98 and 102 percent of
the price of identical or comparable
merchandise to the unaffiliated parties,
we determined that sales made to the
affiliated party were at arm’s length. See
19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where
no price ratio could be calculated for an
affiliated customer because identical or
similar merchandise was not sold to
unaffiliated customers, we were unable
to determine whether these sales were
made at arm’s–length prices. Therefore,
we excluded any such sales from our
analysis.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In the segment of this proceeding
most recently completed at the time of
our initiation of this review, the
Department disregarded certain sales
made by TKN in the home market
because these sales were made at prices
less than the cost of production (COP).
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from Germany; Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
47900, 47903 (August 6, 2004); Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Germany; Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 75930 (December 20,
2004). Thus, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, there
are reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that TKN’s sales of the foreign
like product in the home market were
made at prices below their COP in the
current review period. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act, we initiated a cost
investigation to determine whether
TKN’s sales made during the POR were
at prices below their respective COP.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like
product, plus an amount for home
market selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses and
interest expenses. We relied on the COP
data submitted by TKN, except for the
changes noted below.
In accordance with section 773(f)(2) of
the Tariff Act, where TKN’s reported
transfer prices for purchases of nickel
from an affiliated party were not at
arm’s–length, we increased these prices
to reflect the prevailing market prices.
See Memorandum to Neal Halper, ‘‘Cost
of Production and Constructed Value
Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results,’’ dated July 31, 2006 (COP/CV
Adjustment Memorandum). We also
revised the interest expense ratio for
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, TKVDM, and
TKNP to exclude packing costs from the
denominator of the financial expense
calculation. See id. Finally, we revised
TKVDM’s general and administrative
expense rate to include other operating
incomes and expenses. See id.
E. Test of Home Market Prices
We compared the weighted–average
COP of TKN’s home market sales to
home market sales prices (net of billing
adjustments, early payment discounts,
rebates, any applicable movement
expenses, direct and indirect selling
expenses, commissions, and packing) of
the foreign like product as required
under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act in
order to determine whether these sales
had been made at prices below the COP.
In determining whether to disregard
home market sales made at prices below
the COP, we examined, in accordance
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Tariff Act, whether such sales were
made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time, and whether
such sales were made at prices which
would permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time.
F. Results of the Cost Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of
TKN’s sales of a given model were at
prices less than the COP, we did not
disregard any below–cost sales of that
model because these below–cost sales
were not made in substantial quantities.
Where 20 percent or more of TKN’s
home market sales of a given model
were at prices less than the COP, we
disregarded the below–cost sales
because such sales were made: (1) in
substantial quantities within the POR
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(i.e., within an extended period of time)
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B)
of the Tariff Act, and (2) at prices which
would not permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Tariff Act (i.e., the sales were made
at prices below the weighted–average
per–unit COP for the POR). We used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, if such sales existed, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act. In this review, we have found
sales below the COP and have, as
described above, disregarded such sales
from our margin calculations.
G. Price–to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to
unaffiliated customers or prices to
affiliated customers that we determined
to be at arm’s length. We made
adjustments for billing adjustments,
early payment discounts, and rebates,
where appropriate. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for
foreign inland freight and warehousing,
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing
sales of similar merchandise, we made
adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise (i.e.,
DIFMER) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19
CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments
for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19
CFR 351.410. We made COS
adjustments for commissions, imputed
credit expenses and warranty expenses;
we offset imputed credit expenses by
interest revenue. We also made an
adjustment, where appropriate, for the
CEP offset in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. See ‘‘Level
of Trade and CEP Offset’’ section below.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e),
we made an adjustment (i.e., the
commission offset) to account for
commissions paid in one market but not
the other. Finally, we deducted home
market packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the
Tariff Act.
H. Constructed Value (CV)
In accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Tariff Act, we base NV on CV if
we are unable to find a
contemporaneous comparison market
match of such or similar merchandise
for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the
Tariff Act provides that CV shall be
based on the sum of the cost of materials
and fabrication employed in making the
subject merchandise, SG&A expenses,
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
profit, and U.S. packing costs. We
calculate the cost of materials and
fabrication for TKN based on the
methodology described in the COP
section of this notice. In accordance
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff
Act, we base SG&A expenses and profit
on the amounts incurred and realized by
the respondent in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like
product in the ordinary course of trade,
for consumption in the foreign country.
However, for these preliminary results,
we did not base NV on CV in any
instances.
Level of Trade and CEP Offset
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV
based on sales in the comparison market
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the
CEP transaction. The NV LOT is based
on the starting price of sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is
based on CV, that of the sales from
which we derive SG&A expenses and
profit. For CEP, it is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the
affiliated importer after the deductions
required under section 772(d) of the
Tariff Act.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than CEP sales, we
examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and
the unaffiliated customer. See, e.g.,
Final Determination of Sales at less
Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes
From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26,
2002) and the accompanying Issues and
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8.
If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects
price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences
between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison market sales at the LOT
of the export transaction, we make a
LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. If the NV
level is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level and there is no basis
for determining whether the differences
in the levels between NV and CEP affect
price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff
Act (the CEP offset provision). See e.g.,
Certain Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon
Quality Steel Products From Brazil;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005)
(unchanged in Final Results, 70 FR
58683 (October 7, 2005)); Certain
Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings
from Taiwan: Final Results and Final
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Administrative Review, 67 FR 78417
(December 24, 2002).
In implementing these principles in
this review, we asked TKN to identify
the specific differences and similarities
in selling functions and support services
between all phases of marketing in the
home market and the United States.
TKN reported home market sales made
through four channels of distribution:
(1) mill direct sales, (2) mill inventory
sales, (3) service center inventory sales,
and (4) service center processed sales.
See ThyssenKrupp Nirosta’s November
7, 2005, questionnaire response at B–20,
TKVDM’s November 7, 2005,
questionnaire response at B–21, and
TKNP’s November 7, 2005,
questionnaire response at B–16 to B–17.
For all channels, TKN performs similar
selling functions such as negotiating
prices with customers, setting credit
terms and collecting payment, arranging
freight to the customer, conducting sales
calls and visits, providing technical
service, and processing customer orders.
See, e.g., TKN’s September 28, 2005,
questionnaire response at Exhibit 3. The
remaining selling activities did not
differ significantly by channel of
distribution. Because channels of
distribution do not qualify as separate
LOTs when the selling functions
performed for each customer class or
channel are sufficiently similar, we
determined that one LOT exists for
TKN’s home market sales.
In the U.S. market, TKN made sales of
subject merchandise through TKNNA,
MXXUSA, and TKVDMUSA. As stated
above, TKN reported that sales made
through these affiliated importers
consisted of two channels of
distribution, back–to-back sales and
inventory sales. See ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta’s November 7, 2005,
questionnaire response at C–15 to C–16
and TKVDM’s November 7, 2005,
questionnaire response at C–15 to C–16.
All U.S. sales were CEP transactions and
TKN performed the same selling
functions in its sale to the affiliated
importer in each instance. See, e.g.,
TKN’s September 28, 2005,
questionnaire response at A–23 to A–25
and Exhibit 3. Therefore, the U.S.
market has one LOT.
When we compared CEP sales (after
deductions made pursuant to section
772(d) of the Tariff Act) to home market
sales, we determined that for CEP sales
TKN performed fewer customer sales
contacts, technical services, delivery
services, and warranty services. In
addition, the differences in selling
functions performed for home market
and CEP transactions indicate home
market sales involved a more advanced
stage of distribution than CEP sales. In
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45029
the home market TKN provides
marketing further down the chain of
distribution by providing certain
downstream selling functions that are
normally performed by the affiliated
resellers in the U.S. market (e.g.,
technical advice, sales calls and visits).
Based on our analysis, we determined
that CEP and the starting price of home
market sales represent different stages in
the marketing process, and are thus at
different LOTs. Therefore, when we
compared CEP sales to comparison
market sales, we examined whether a
LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In
this case, because TKN sold at one LOT
in the home market, there is no basis
upon which to determine whether there
is a pattern of consistent price
differences between LOTs. Further, we
do not have the information which
would allow us to examine pricing
patterns of TKN’s sales of other similar
products, and there is no other record
evidence upon which such an analysis
could be based.
Because the data available do not
provide an appropriate basis for making
a LOT adjustment and the LOT of TKN’s
home market sales is at a more
advanced stage than the LOT of CEP
sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Tariff Act, as claimed by TKN. We
based the amount of the CEP offset on
home market indirect selling expenses,
and limited the deduction for home
market indirect selling expenses to the
amount of indirect selling expenses
deducted from CEP in accordance with
section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act.
We applied the CEP offset to NV,
whether based on home market prices or
CV.
Currency Conversions
In accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Tariff Act, we made Euro–U.S.
Dollar currency conversions based on
the exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales, as certified by the
Federal Reserve Board. For certain U.S.
sales made by MXXUSA, we converted
adjustments denominated in Mexican
pesos to U.S. dollars based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal
Reserve Board. Finally, for certain U.S.
sales denominated in Canadian dollars,
we made currency conversions based on
the exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales, as certified by the
Federal Reserve Board.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily find the following
weighted–average dumping margin
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45030
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
appraisement instructions directly to
CBP within fifteen days of publication
of the final results of review.
Weighted Average
Manufacturer/Exporter
Furthermore, the following deposit
Margin (percentage)
requirements will be effective upon
TKN .............................
2.51% completion of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
The Department will disclose
of S4 from Germany entered, or
calculations performed within five days withdrawn from warehouse, for
of the date of publication of this notice
consumption on or after the publication
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
date of the final results of this
An interested party may request a
administrative review, as provided by
hearing within thirty days of
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
1) The cash deposit rate for TKN will
hearing, if requested, will be held 37
days after the date of publication, or the be the rate established in the final
results of review;
first business day thereafter, unless the
Department alters the date pursuant to
2) If the exporter is not a firm covered
19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties
in this review or the less–than-fair–
may submit case briefs no later than 30
value (LTFV) investigation, but the
days after the date of publication of
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
these preliminary results of review.
will be the rate established for the most
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
recent period for the manufacturer of
in the case briefs, may be filed no later
the merchandise; and
than 35 days after the date of
3) If neither the exporter nor the
publication of this notice. Parties who
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
submit arguments in these proceedings
any previous review conducted by the
are requested to submit with the
argument: 1) A statement of the issue; 2) Department, the cash deposit rate will
a brief summary of the argument; and 3) be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 13.48 percent
a table of authorities. Further, parties
from the LTFV investigation. See
submitting written comments should
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
provide the Department with an
from Germany: Amended Final
additional copy of the public version of
Determination of Antidumping Duty
any such comments on diskette. The
Investigation, 67 FR 15178 (March 29,
Department will issue final results of
2002).
this administrative review, including
This notice also serves as a
the results of our analysis of the issues
preliminary reminder to importers of
in any such written comments or at a
their responsibility under 19 CFR
hearing, within 120 days of publication
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
of these preliminary results.
the reimbursement of antidumping
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
all appropriate entries. Upon
period. Failure to comply with this
completion of this administrative
requirement could result in the
review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b),
Secretary’s presumption that
the Department will calculate an
assessment rate on all appropriate
reimbursement of antidumping duties
entries. TKN has reported entered
occurred and the subsequent assessment
values for all of its sales of subject
of double antidumping duties.
merchandise to the U.S. during the POR.
We are issuing and publishing this
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
notice in accordance with sections
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
importer–specific duty assessment rates
Dated: July 31, 2006.
on the basis of the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
David M. Spooner,
calculated for the examined sales to the
Assistant Secretary for Import
total entered value of the examined
Administration.
sales of that importer. These rates will
[FR Doc. E6–12798 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
be assessed uniformly on all entries the
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
respective importers made during the
POR if these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of review.
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
Department will issue appropriate
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
exists for the period July 1, 2004,
through June 30, 2005:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–A–351–819, A–427–811]
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From Brazil
and France: Revocation of
Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated sunset reviews of
the antidumping duty (AD) orders on
stainless steel wire rods from Brazil,
France, and India, pursuant to section.
Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the
International Trade Commission (the
ITC) determined that revocation of these
orders would not be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time. Therefore, pursuant to section
751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(i)(l)(iii), the Department is
revoking the AD orders on stainless
steel wire rods from Brazil and France.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Dana
Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–5255 and (202) 482–1391,
respectively.
AGENCY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Scope of the Orders
Imports covered by these orders are
certain stainless steel wire rods (SSWR)
from Brazil and France. SSWR are
products which are hot-rolled or hotrolled annealed and/or pickled rounds,
squares, octagons, hexagons, or other
shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy
steels containing, by weight 1.2 percent
or less of carbon and 10.5 percent of
chromium, with or without other
elements. These products are only
manufactured by hot-rolling and
normally sold in coiled form, and are
solid cross-section. The majority of
SSWR sold in the United States are
round in cross-section shape, annealed
and pickled. The most common size is
5.5 millimeters in diameter.
The merchandise subject to these
orders is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7221.00.0005,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0075 of the
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45024-45030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12798]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-428-825)
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from Allegheny Ludlum, North American
Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, United Steelworkers, and
Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. (collectively,
petitioners) and the collapsed respondents ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH
(ThyssenKrupp Nirosta), ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH (TKVDM), and ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta Prazisionsband GmbH (TKNP) (collectively, TKN), 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) from Germany. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise
to the United States produced by TKN. The period of review (POR) is
July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.
We preliminarily find that TKN made sales at less than normal value
during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference
between the constructed export price (CEP) and normal value (NV).
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the arguments: (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a
brief summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including
footnotes) and (3) a table of authorities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott, Tyler Weinhold, or
Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202) 482-2657, (202) 482-1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on S4 from
Germany on July 27, 1999. 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 Germany, 64 FR 40557 (July 27,
1999). On July 1, 2005, the Department published the notice of
opportunity to request administrative review of S4 from Germany for the
period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 38099 (July 1,
2005).
On July 29, 2005, petitioners and TKN both requested an
administrative review
[[Page 45025]]
of TKN's sales for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. On
August 29, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review.
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29,
2005).
On September 7, 2005, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to TKN. TKN submitted its response to section A of the
questionnaire on September 28, 2005, and its response to sections B
through D of the questionnaire on November 7, 2005. On February 27,
2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting
additional information regarding TKN's response to section D of the
questionnaire. On March 20, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire for sections A and B, to which TKN responded on April 21,
2006. On March 28, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire for section C, to which TKN responded on May 2, 2006. On
May 24, 2006, the Department issued another supplemental questionnaire,
to which TKN responded on June 12, 2006.
Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the
normal time frame, on March 10, 2006, we published in the Federal
Register a notice of the extension for this review. See Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
12342 (March 10, 2006). This extension established the deadline for
these preliminary results as July 31, 2006.
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 it 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 (HTS) 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, 7220.90.0060,
and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description
of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Due to changes to the HTS 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 scope of 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 steel 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 HTS, ``Additional
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order.
This 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 also 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 inclusion 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 steel 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
[[Page 45026]]
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 molybdenum. 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 is 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/Collapsing
Section 351.401(f)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that
certain persons found to be affiliated in accordance with section
771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), may be
treated as a single entity (collapsed), if certain circumstances exist.
In the July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, administrative review of S4 from
Germany, the Department treated ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, TKNP, and TKVDM
as a single entity (i.e., collapsed them) because the three companies
were affiliated, would not need to engage in major retooling to shift
production of S4 from one company to another and were found capable
through their sales and production operations of manipulating prices or
affecting production decisions. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils From Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 45682, 45684-45685 (August 8, 2005)
(unchanged in Final Results, 70 FR 73729 (December 13, 2005)).
As in the previous administrative review, the record establishes
that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM are affiliated based on their
common control by ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH (TK Stainless), another
entity within the ThyssenKrupp group of companies. Section 771(33)(F)
of the Tariff Act provides that two or more persons directly or
indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control of
another entity are affiliated. A ``person'' may be an individual,
corporation, or group. Further, as provided by section 771(33) of the
Tariff Act, ``a person shall be considered to control another person if
the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise
restraint or direction over the other person.'' The Department has
analyzed the information on the record of this administrative review
regarding the affiliation of ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM and has
determined preliminarily that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM should be
considered affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act. See
Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations,
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Germany: Affiliation and Collapsing of ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta Pr[auml]zisionsband GmbH and
ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH,'' dated June 30, 2006 (Collapsing Memorandum).
Moreover, as in the previous administrative review, the Department
has determined preliminarily that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM should
be treated as a single entity or ``collapsed'' for the purpose of
calculating an antidumping duty margin. As explained in the Collapsing
Memorandum, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM have production facilities
to produce similar or identical merchandise without substantial
retooling and should be treated as a single entity in accordance with
19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). Additionally, in determining whether there is a
significant potential for manipulation of price or production, as
contemplated by 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department considers the
totality of the circumstances of the situation and may place more
reliance on some factors than others. The totality of the circumstances
here shows there is a significant potential for the manipulation of
price or production.
In addition to Thyssen Krupp Nirosta and TKVDM, the record also
establishes that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP are affiliated based on
Thyssen Krupp Nirosta's 100 percent ownership of TKNP. Section
771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act provides that ``any person directly or
indirectly owning, controlling, or
[[Page 45027]]
holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting
stock or shares of any organization and such organization'' shall be
considered to be affiliated. Further, as provided by section 771(33) of
the Tariff Act, ``a person shall be considered to control another
person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to
exercise restraint or direction over the other person.'' The Department
has analyzed the information on the record of this administrative
review regarding the affiliation of ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP and,
as in the previous administrative review, has determined preliminarily
that the two entities should be considered affiliated under section
771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act. See the Collapsing Memorandum at page 8.
Furthermore, as in the previous administrative review, the
Department has also determined preliminarily that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
and TKNP should be treated as a single entity or ``collapsed'' for the
purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin. As explained in the
Collapsing Memorandum, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP also have
production facilities to produce similar or identical merchandise
without substantial retooling and should be treated as a single entity
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). Additionally, information on
the record demonstrates there is a significant potential for
manipulation of price or production, within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.401(f)(2).
In summary, we find that: (1) ThyssenKrupp Nirosta is affiliated
with both TKNP and TKVDM under section 771(33) of the Tariff Act; (2) a
shift in production between ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM or between
ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP would not require substantial retooling
of the facilities of these companies; and (3) there is a significant
potential for price and production manipulation between ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta and TKVDM and also between ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
is affiliated with both TKNP and TKVDM and should be treated as a
single entity or ``collapsed'' for the purpose of calculating an
antidumping duty margin for this administrative review.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of S4 in the United States were made at
less than fair value, we compared U.S. price to normal value (NV), as
described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the
Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared
these to individual U.S. transactions. Because TKN made no ``export
price'' transactions during the POR, we used only CEP sales in our
comparisons.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered
all products produced by TKN covered by the description in the ``Scope
of the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the
POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 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
priority): 1) grade; 2) cold/hot 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 product
characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's
September 7, 2005, questionnaire. Because there were sales of identical
or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to
each U.S. sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value
(CV).
Constructed Export Price (CEP)
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or
by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser
not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section
772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for all of TKN's U.S. sales
because TKN sold merchandise to affiliated companies in the United
States which, in turn, sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S.
customers. TKN reported that sales made through its affiliated
importers ThyssenKrupp Nirosta North America, Inc. (TKNNA), Mexinox
USA, Inc. (MXXUSA), and ThyssenKrupp VDM USA, Inc. (TKVDMUSA) consisted
of two channels of distribution: back-to-back sales and inventory
sales. See ThyssenKrupp Nirosta's November 7, 2005, questionnaire
response at C-15 and C-16 and TKVDM's November 7, 2005, questionnaire
response at C-15 and C-16. We have preliminarily found that TKN's U.S.
sales are properly classified as CEP sales because these sales occurred
in the United States and were made through TKN's U.S. affiliates to
unaffiliated U.S. customers.
We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made
adjustments for price or billing errors and early payment discounts,
where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included,
where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling, international freight, marine insurance, war risk insurance,
customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.
warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling
expenses (credit costs, warranty expenses, and commissions), inventory
carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an
adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Tariff Act. Finally, for those sales in which merchandise was sent to
an unaffiliated U.S. processor to be further processed, we made an
adjustment based on the transaction-specific further processing amounts
reported by TKN; for sales through MXXUSA that were further processed
in Mexico prior to importation into the United States, we made an
adjustment to account for these expenses.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
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 was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act. As TKN's aggregate volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home
market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in
the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
[[Page 45028]]
B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-
length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered
them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102. If
sales were not made at arm's-length, then the Department used the sale
from the affiliated party to the first unaffiliated party. To test
whether sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we
compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments,
early payment discounts, rebates, movement charges, commissions, direct
selling expenses, imputed credit expense, and packing. Where, for the
tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party
were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the price of identical
or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined
that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19
CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could be calculated
for an affiliated customer because identical or similar merchandise was
not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine whether
these sales were made at arm's-length prices. Therefore, we excluded
any such sales from our analysis.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In the segment of this proceeding most recently completed at the
time of our initiation of this review, the Department disregarded
certain sales made by TKN in the home market because these sales were
made at prices less than the cost of production (COP). See Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany; Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 47900, 47903
(August 6, 2004); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Germany; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 75930 (December 20, 2004). Thus, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, there are reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that TKN's sales of the foreign like
product in the home market were made at prices below their COP in the
current review period. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of
the Tariff Act, we initiated a cost investigation to determine whether
TKN's sales made during the POR were at prices below their respective
COP.
D. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we
calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home
market selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and interest
expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by TKN, except for the
changes noted below.
In accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Tariff Act, where TKN's
reported transfer prices for purchases of nickel from an affiliated
party were not at arm's-length, we increased these prices to reflect
the prevailing market prices. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, ``Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results,'' dated July 31, 2006 (COP/CV Adjustment Memorandum). We also
revised the interest expense ratio for ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, TKVDM, and
TKNP to exclude packing costs from the denominator of the financial
expense calculation. See id. Finally, we revised TKVDM's general and
administrative expense rate to include other operating incomes and
expenses. See id.
E. Test of Home Market Prices
We compared the weighted-average COP of TKN's home market sales to
home market sales prices (net of billing adjustments, early payment
discounts, rebates, any applicable movement expenses, direct and
indirect selling expenses, commissions, and packing) of the foreign
like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act in
order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below
the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, whether such sales were made in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether
such sales were made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time.
F. Results of the Cost Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than
20 percent of TKN's sales of a given model were at prices less than the
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because
these below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where
20 percent or more of TKN's home market sales of a given model were at
prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because
such sales were made: (1) in substantial quantities within the POR
(i.e., within an extended period of time) in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act, and (2) at prices which would not
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act (i.e., the sales
were made at prices below the weighted-average per-unit COP for the
POR). We used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, if
such sales existed, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff
Act. In this review, we have found sales below the COP and have, as
described above, disregarded such sales from our margin calculations.
G. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or
prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's
length. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, early payment
discounts, and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions, where
appropriate, for foreign inland freight and warehousing, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing
sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in
cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise (i.e., DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the
Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences
in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS
adjustments for commissions, imputed credit expenses and warranty
expenses; we offset imputed credit expenses by interest revenue. We
also made an adjustment, where appropriate, for the CEP offset in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. See ``Level of
Trade and CEP Offset'' section below. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.410(e), we made an adjustment (i.e., the commission offset) to
account for commissions paid in one market but not the other. Finally,
we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
H. Constructed Value (CV)
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we base NV
on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market
match of such or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e)
of the Tariff Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject
merchandise, SG&A expenses,
[[Page 45029]]
profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculate the cost of materials and
fabrication for TKN based on the methodology described in the COP
section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the
Tariff Act, we base SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred
and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the foreign country. However, for these preliminary
results, we did not base NV on CV in any instances.
Level of Trade and CEP Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the
comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP
transaction. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from
which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of
the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer after
the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at less
Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February
26, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at
Comment 8. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we
make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. If
the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and
there is no basis for determining whether the differences in the levels
between NV and CEP affect price comparability, we adjust NV under
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). See
e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From
Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in Final Results, 70 FR
58683 (October 7, 2005)); Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 78417 (December 24,
2002).
In implementing these principles in this review, we asked TKN to
identify the specific differences and similarities in selling functions
and support services between all phases of marketing in the home market
and the United States. TKN reported home market sales made through four
channels of distribution: (1) mill direct sales, (2) mill inventory
sales, (3) service center inventory sales, and (4) service center
processed sales. See ThyssenKrupp Nirosta's November 7, 2005,
questionnaire response at B-20, TKVDM's November 7, 2005, questionnaire
response at B-21, and TKNP's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response
at B-16 to B-17. For all channels, TKN performs similar selling
functions such as negotiating prices with customers, setting credit
terms and collecting payment, arranging freight to the customer,
conducting sales calls and visits, providing technical service, and
processing customer orders. See, e.g., TKN's September 28, 2005,
questionnaire response at Exhibit 3. The remaining selling activities
did not differ significantly by channel of distribution. Because
channels of distribution do not qualify as separate LOTs when the
selling functions performed for each customer class or channel are
sufficiently similar, we determined that one LOT exists for TKN's home
market sales.
In the U.S. market, TKN made sales of subject merchandise through
TKNNA, MXXUSA, and TKVDMUSA. As stated above, TKN reported that sales
made through these affiliated importers consisted of two channels of
distribution, back-to-back sales and inventory sales. See ThyssenKrupp
Nirosta's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at C-15 to C-16 and
TKVDM's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at C-15 to C-16. All
U.S. sales were CEP transactions and TKN performed the same selling
functions in its sale to the affiliated importer in each instance. See,
e.g., TKN's September 28, 2005, questionnaire response at A-23 to A-25
and Exhibit 3. Therefore, the U.S. market has one LOT.
When we compared CEP sales (after deductions made pursuant to
section 772(d) of the Tariff Act) to home market sales, we determined
that for CEP sales TKN performed fewer customer sales contacts,
technical services, delivery services, and warranty services. In
addition, the differences in selling functions performed for home
market and CEP transactions indicate home market sales involved a more
advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. In the home market TKN
provides marketing further down the chain of distribution by providing
certain downstream selling functions that are normally performed by the
affiliated resellers in the U.S. market (e.g., technical advice, sales
calls and visits).
Based on our analysis, we determined that CEP and the starting
price of home market sales represent different stages in the marketing
process, and are thus at different LOTs. Therefore, when we compared
CEP sales to comparison market sales, we examined whether a LOT
adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, because TKN sold at one
LOT in the home market, there is no basis upon which to determine
whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between
LOTs. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to
examine pricing patterns of TKN's sales of other similar products, and
there is no other record evidence upon which such an analysis could be
based.
Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for
making a LOT adjustment and the LOT of TKN's home market sales is at a
more advanced stage than the LOT of CEP sales, a CEP offset is
appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act,
as claimed by TKN. We based the amount of the CEP offset on home market
indirect selling expenses, and limited the deduction for home market
indirect selling expenses to the amount of indirect selling expenses
deducted from CEP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Tariff
Act. We applied the CEP offset to NV, whether based on home market
prices or CV.
Currency Conversions
In accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, we made Euro-
U.S. Dollar currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect
on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve
Board. For certain U.S. sales made by MXXUSA, we converted adjustments
denominated in Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the
Federal Reserve Board. Finally, for certain U.S. sales denominated in
Canadian dollars, we made currency conversions based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the
Federal Reserve Board.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following
weighted-average dumping margin
[[Page 45030]]
exists for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TKN................................................ 2.51[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty
days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these
proceedings are requested to submit with the 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. The Department will issue final results
of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of
the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120
days of publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department
will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. TKN has
reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to
the U.S. during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment
rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
the examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed
uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR
if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of
review. 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 Department will issue appropriate appraisement
instructions directly to CBP within fifteen days of publication of the
final results of review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of S4 from Germany 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
Tariff Act:
1) The cash deposit rate for TKN will be the rate established in
the final results of review;
2) If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
3) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of 13.48 percent from the
LTFV investigation. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Germany: Amended Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation,
67 FR 15178 (March 29, 2002).
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: July 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-12798 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S