Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 10151-10158 [E7-4057]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10151
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
interested parties claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of
the Act as U.S. producers of a domestic
like product and under section 771(9)(E)
as a trade association whose members
produce the domestic like product in
the United States. We received complete
substantive responses from domestic
interested parties within the 30-day
deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not
receive any responses from any
respondent interested parties. As a
result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B)
of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department
conducted expedited sunset reviews of
these orders.
Scope of the Orders
For purposes of these orders, the
products covered are natural honey,
artificial honey containing more than 50
percent natural honey by weight,
preparations of natural honey
containing more than 50 percent natural
honey by weight, and flavored honey.
The subject merchandise includes all
grades and colors of honey whether in
liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or
chunk form, and whether packaged for
retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise covered by these
orders is currently classifiable under
subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90,
and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
merchandise under this order is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in these cases are
addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’ from Stephen Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD
Operations, Import Administration, to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, dated March
1, 2007 (Decision Memorandum), which
is hereby adopted by this notice. The
issues discussed in the Decision
Memorandum include the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and the magnitude of the margin likely
to prevail if the orders were revoked.
Parties can find a complete discussion
of all issues raised in these sunset
reviews and the corresponding
recommendations in this public
memorandum, which is on file in room
B–099 of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Sunset Reviews
We determine that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders on honey from
Argentina and the PRC would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the following percentage
weighted-average margins:
Weighted-average
margin
(percent)
Manufacturers/exporters/producers
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Argentina:
Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA) .....................................................................................................................
Radix S.R.L. (Radix) ...............................................................................................................................................................
ConAgra Argentina .................................................................................................................................................................
All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................
PRC:
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation .................
Kunshan Foreign Trading Co .................................................................................................................................................
Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corp .........................................................................
High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp ........................................................................
Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd .....................................................................................................................................
Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corporation ..........................................................................................................
Henan Native Produce Import and Export Corporation .........................................................................................................
PRC-Wide rate .......................................................................................................................................................................
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and this notice in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1)
of the Act.
Dated: March 1, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–4052 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–533–810)
Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel
Bar from India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37.44
32.56
60.67
35.76
57.13
49.60
25.88
45.46
45.46
45.46
45.46
183.80
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
stainless steel bar from India. The
period of review is February 1, 2005,
through January 31, 2006. This review
covers imports of stainless steel bar
from eight producers/exporters.
We preliminarily find that sales of the
subject merchandise have been made
below normal value. In addition, based
on the preliminary results for the
respondents selected for individual
review, we have preliminarily
determined a weighted–average margin
for those companies for which a review
was requested, but that were not
selected for individual review.
If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to assess antidumping duties
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
10152
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
on appropriate entries. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue the
final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–1279 or (202) 482–
0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department
of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’)
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from India. See
Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless
Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan,
60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On
February 1, 2006, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register providing an opportunity for
interested parties to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSB from
India for the period of review (‘‘POR’’),
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 5239 (February 1, 2006).
On February 4, 2006, we received a
timely request for review from Isibars
Limited (‘‘Isibars’’). On February 28,
2005, Carpenter Technology
Corporation, Crucible Specialty Metals,
a division of Crucible Materials
Corporation, Electralloy Company,
North American Stainless, Universal
Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless
(collectively, the ‘‘petitioners’’)
requested an administrative review of 9
companies: the Viraj Group, including
but necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys,
Ltd. (‘‘VAL’’), Viraj Forgings, Ltd.
(‘‘VFL’’), Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (‘‘VIL’’),
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd.;1 Akai Asian (‘‘Akai’’); Atlas
Stainless (‘‘Atlas’’); Bhansali Bright Bars
Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Bhansali’’); Grand Foundry,
Ltd. (‘‘Grand Foundry’’); Meltroll
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Meltroll’’);
Sindia Steels Limited (‘‘Sindia’’);
Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd.
(‘‘Snowdrop’’); and Venus Wire
Industries Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Venus’’). On
February 28, 2006, we received timely
1 For this Federal Register notice, we use the
terms ‘‘Viraj,’’ ‘‘the Viraj Group’’ and ‘‘the Viraj
entities’’ interchangeably.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
review requests from Facor Steels, Ltd.
(‘‘Facor’’), and Mukand Ltd.
(‘‘Mukand’’).
On April 5, 2006, in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we initiated an
administrative review on Akai Asian,
Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry,
Isibars, Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia,
Snowdrop, Venus, and conditionally
initiated an administrative review with
respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.,
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd., (collectively, the ‘‘Viraj
entities’’). See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Deferral of Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). For further
discussion of the Department’s
treatment of the Viraj entities in this
administrative review, please see the
‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’ section
of this notice.
In April 2006, we requested
information concerning the quantity and
value of sales to the United States from
the 12 producers/exporters listed in the
Initiation Notice. The Department
received responses from all of the
exporters/producers in April and May of
2006. Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll notified
the Department that they had no
shipments of the subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR.
On June 7, 2006, the Department
determined that it was not practicable to
make individual antidumping duty
findings for each of the 12 companies
involved in this administrative review.
Therefore, we selected Venus and
Bhansali (collectively, ‘‘the
respondents’’) for individual reviews.
See Memorandum from Scott Holland to
Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office
Director, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from
India: Respondent Selection,’’ dated
June 7, 2006, (‘‘Respondent Selection
Memorandum’’) which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room
B–099 of the main Department building.
For further discussion see the
‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section below.
On June 8, 2006, the Department
issued antidumping duty questionnaires
to the respondents. At that time, we
instructed each of the respondents to
respond to the cost section of the
questionnaire because we had
disregarded certain below–cost sales in
the most recently completed review in
which the companies participated. See
Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review, 64 FR 13771 (March 22,
1999) (Bhansali); see also Stainless Steel
Bar from India; Final Results of
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 47543 (August 11, 2003)
(Venus).
The respondents submitted their
initial responses to the antidumping
questionnaire from July 2006 through
August 2006. After analyzing these
responses, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to the respondents to
clarify or correct information contained
in the initial questionnaire responses.
We received timely responses to these
questionnaires. The petitioners
submitted comments on the
questionnaire responses in August,
September and October 2006.
On October 20, 2006, the Department
found that, due to the complexity of the
issues in this case, including affiliation
and cost of production, and outstanding
supplemental responses, it was not
practicable to complete this review
within the time period prescribed.
Accordingly, we extended the time limit
for completing the preliminary results of
this review to no later than February 28,
2007, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless
Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results in
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 61958 (October 20, 2006).
In January 2007, we requested
comments from interested parties
regarding the proper hierarchical order
of one the model matching
characteristics as described in the ‘‘Fair
Value Comparisons’’ section, below. On
February 12, 2007, we received
comments from petitioners. We received
no other comments.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are
shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of
stainless steel in straight lengths that
have been either hot–rolled, forged,
turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled or
otherwise cold–finished, or ground,
having a uniform solid cross section
along their whole length in the shape of
circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex
polygons. SSB includes cold–finished
SSBs that are turned or ground in
straight lengths, whether produced from
hot–rolled bar or from straightened and
cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that
have indentations, ribs, grooves, or
other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term
does not include stainless steel semi–
finished products, cut–to-length flat–
rolled products (i.e., cut–to-length
rolled products which if less than 4.75
mm in thickness have a width
measuring at least 10 times the
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in
thickness having a width which exceeds
150 mm and measures at least twice the
thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed
products in coils, of any uniform solid
cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition
of flat–rolled products), and angles,
shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to these reviews is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50,
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45,
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department
issued a final scope ruling that SSB
manufactured in the United Arab
Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod
from India is not subject to the scope of
this order. See Memorandum from Team
to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping
Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from
India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May
23, 2005, which is on file in the CRU in
room B–099 of the main Department
building. See also Notice of Scope
Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20,
2005).
Selection of Respondents
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs
the Department to calculate individual
dumping margins for each known
exporter and producer of the subject
merchandise. However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department the discretion, when faced
with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a
reasonable number of such companies if
it is not practicable to examine all
companies. Where it is not practicable
to examine all known exporters/
producers of subject merchandise, this
provision permits the Department to
review either: (1) a sample of exporters,
producers, or types of products that is
statistically valid based on the
information available at the time of
selection, or (2) exporters and producers
accounting for the largest volume of the
subject merchandise that can reasonably
be examined.
Responses to the Department’s
information request were received in
April through May 2006. After
consideration of the data submitted, we
selected the two largest exporters/
producers of the subject merchandise, as
explained in our Respondent Selection
Memorandum.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
Therefore, for those companies for
which a review was requested, but
which were not selected for individual
review, the Department has determined
a review–specific weighted–average
margin. The review–specific average
rate for these companies can be found
in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of the
Review’’ section below. This is
distinguished from the ‘‘All Others’’
rate, which is the weighted–average
margin calculated in the investigation
and which continues to apply to all
exporters and producers which have not
participated in a review. See Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada, 70 FR 73437, 73440 (December
12, 2005) (‘‘Softwood Lumber Final
Results’’).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we intend to verify sales
information submitted by Bhansali in
these proceedings to be used in making
our final results. Due to resource and
time constraints facing the Department,
we will not verify Venus in this
proceeding.
Period of Review
The POR is February 1, 2005, through
January 31, 2006.
Partial Rescission of Review
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that, although the
Department revoked the order in part
with respect to entries of the
merchandise subject to the order
produced and exported by Viraj (Viraj
Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj
Forgings, Ltd.), the Department was
conditionally initiating a review with
respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.,
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd., pending further information
from the requestor as to sales of subject
merchandise not covered by the
revocation.2
On April 6, 2006, the Department
requested that, in light of the previous
revocation determination, the
petitioners clarify the specific producers
or exporters for which they were
seeking review and, for each company,
whether they were requesting a review
2 The Department revoked the order in part, with
respect to entries of merchandise subject to the
order produced and exported by ‘‘Viraj,’’ a
collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.;
Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The
revocation was effective February 1, 2003. See
Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, and Determination to Revoke in
Part, 69 FR 55409, 55410-11 (September 14, 2004).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10153
as to merchandise produced by that
company, or only merchandise exported
by that company. Moreover, the
Department indicated that absent
adequate clarification, it intended to
rescind the administrative review with
respect to the Viraj Group. See Letter
from Julie H. Santoboni, Program
Manager, to the petitioners, dated April
6, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in
room B–099 of the main Department
building.
On April 7, 2006, the petitioners
responded to the Department’s request
for further information stating that they
were seeking a review of any of the
listed companies (i.e., the Viraj Group)
in their capacity as either a producer or
exporter (or both, with the exception of
VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise
subject to the order during the POR.
Furthermore, the petitioners urged the
Department to seek information as to
whether the named companies shipped
merchandise subject to the order to the
United States during the POR. The
petitioners also referred to the changes
in operation among the various Viraj
entities that the Department recognized
in pre–revocation reviews.
Therefore, in light of the revocation
and the petitioners’ request, we
determined that it was appropriate to
ascertain whether there were suspended
entries of merchandise subject to the
order during the POR from the Viraj
entities. We examined shipment data
obtained from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) and placed these
data on the record on May 9, 2006. See
Memorandum from Team to the File,
‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Data,’’ dated May 9, 2006, which is on
file in the CRU in room B–099 of the
main Department building. Based on
this information, we determined that
there are no suspended entries of
merchandise subject to the order
involving any of the Viraj entities for the
POR. See Memorandum from Susan
Kuhbach, Office Director to Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on
Stainless Steel Bar from India Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group
Companies,’’ dated May 18, 2006,
which is on file in the CRU in room B–
099 of the main Department building.
Accordingly, on May 24, 2006, the
Department published in the Federal
Register its intent to rescind the
administrative review with respect to
the Viraj entities. See Stainless Steel Bar
from India: Notice of Intent to Partially
Rescind Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 29916
(May 24, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
10154
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
We invited interested parties to
comment on this notice. No comments
were received. Therefore, the
Department is rescinding the
administrative review with respect to
the Viraj entities and will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions
to CBP within 15 days of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
Intent to Rescind Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the
Department will rescind an
administrative review with respect to a
particular exporter or producer if it
concludes that during the period of
review there were ‘‘no entries, exports,
or sales of the subject merchandise.’’
Accordingly, the Department requires
that there be entries during the POR
upon which to assess antidumping
duties, to conduct an administrative
review.
As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section
above, Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll each
indicated that it had no shipments of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. The Department
examined CBP data to confirm whether
these companies shipped subject
merchandise during the POR. After
reviewing the data, we confirmed that
the CBP data showed no entries of
subject merchandise to the United
States from these companies during the
POR. See Memorandum from Team to
the File, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from India:
No Shipments During the Period of
Review,’’ dated May 26, 2006, which is
on file in the CRU in room B–099 of the
main Department building.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily
rescinding the administrative review
with respect to Akai, Atlas, and
Meltroll.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Affiliation
On February 28, 2007, the Department
determined that Venus and exporter
Precision Metals are affiliated within
the meaning of section 771(33) of the
Act, and also that the two companies
should be treated as a single entity for
the purposes of this administrative
review. Therefore, we preliminarily find
that the companies should receive a
single antidumping duty rate. See
Memorandum from Scott Holland to
Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office
Director, ‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire
Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Precision
Metals,’’ dated February 28, 2007,
which is on file in the CRU in room B–
099 of the main Department building.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SSB
from India to the United States were
made at less than NV, we compared
export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described
in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice.
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products sold
by the respondents in the comparison
market covered by the description in the
‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to
be foreign–like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act,
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, we compared the
respondents’ volume of home market
sales of the foreign–like product to the
volumes of their U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. See the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section, below, for further details.
We compared U.S. sales to monthly
weighted–average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the
comparison market. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the
comparison market made in the
ordinary course of trade, we compared
U.S. sales to sales of the most similar
foreign like product made in the
ordinary course of trade. Where there
were no sales of identical or similar
merchandise made in the ordinary
course of trade in the comparison
market, we compared U.S. sales to
constructed value (‘‘CV’’). In making
product comparisons, consistent with
our determination in the original
investigation, we matched foreign like
products based on the physical
characteristics reported by the
respondent in the following order: type,
grade, remelting process, finishing
operation, shape, and size. See
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value and Postponement
of Final Determination: Stainless Steel
Bar from India, 59 FR 39733–35 (August
4, 1994); unchanged in the final.
In the Department’s standard
questionnaire for these proceedings, all
respondents are instructed to assign a
unique code for each AISI grade of SSB
sold in both the home and U.S. markets
for matching purposes. There are 9
standard AISI grades listed in the
questionnaire. Furthermore,
respondents are instructed to assign a
unique code for all additional AISI
grades of SSB sold. In their initial
responses to the Department’s
questionnaire, the respondents in this
review reported that during the POR,
they made sales of several AISI grades
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of SSB beyond the standard 9 AISI
grades and correctly assigned a unique
code for each additional grade.
On September 28, 2006, we received
comments from the petitioners arguing
that, because the respondents did not
properly order the additional grades in
a hierarchical manner, the Department’s
model match program would select
dissimilar grades of SSB instead of the
most similar grades. Accordingly, the
petitioners argued that the Department
should itself assign the proper weight
for these additional grades to ensure a
proper hierarchical order for matching
purposes. Moreover, the petitioners
proposed their own hierarchical
ordering of the grades.
These comments led the Department
to reconsider the weights assigned to the
reported AISI grades. After consulting
with Department experts, we instructed
the respondents to re–order the grade
hierarchy in their responses to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaires and we assigned new
weight codes for each reported grade.
The Department also requested
comments regarding the proper
hierarchical ordering. See Letter from
Brandon Farlander, Program Manager to
Interested Parties, dated January 29,
2007, which is on file in the CRU in
room B–099 of the main Department
building.
On February 12, 2007, we received
comments from the petitioners
regarding the proper order of one AISI
grade. We did not receive comments
from any other interested party.
Therefore, for the preliminary results we
are re–ordering the grade hierarchy and
we are assigning new weight codes for
each reported grade.
Date of Sale
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the
date of sale is normally the date of
invoice unless satisfactory evidence is
presented that the material terms of sale,
price and quantity, are established on
some other date. In its initial
questionnaire responses, Venus reported
its sales using invoice date as the date
of sale. However, on November 30,
2006, the company requested that it be
allowed to use purchase order date as
the date of sale for both its U.S. and
home market sales. Venus reported that
no changes in the terms of sale occurred
between the purchase order and the
invoice date.
In the U.S. market, Venus stated that
all of its sales are made to order under
contracts which can include a price
adjustment factor reflecting market price
changes for certain alloys used in the
production of stainless steel bar.
However, because the terms of the price
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
Export Price
We based EP on the packed, DDP, or
CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in
the United States. We adjusted the
reported gross unit price, where
applicable, for billing adjustments. We
made deductions for movement
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These
deductions included, where
appropriate, freight incurred in
transporting merchandise to the Indian
port, domestic brokerage and handling,
international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. brokerage and handling, freight
incurred in the United States, and U.S.
customs duties. See Memorandum from
Team to the File, ‘‘Preliminary Results
Calculation Memorandum for Venus
Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated
February 28, 2007, (‘‘Venus Preliminary
Calculation Memorandum’’) which is on
file in the CRU in room B–099 of the
main Department building.
For sales to the United States, we
calculated EP, in accordance with
section 772 of the Act. Section 772(a) of
the Act defines EP as the price at which
the subject merchandise is first sold
before the date of importation by the
exporter or producer outside the United
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States, or to an unaffiliated
purchaser for exportation to the United
States. We calculated EP for both
Bhansali and Venus because the
merchandise was sold prior to
importation by the exporter or producer
outside the United States to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States, and because constructed export
price methodology was not otherwise
warranted.
We made company–specific
adjustments as follows:
(A) Bhansali
We based EP on the packed, delivered
duty paid (‘‘DDP’’), cost, insurance, and
freight (‘‘CIF’’), or cost and freight
(‘‘CFR’’) price to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States. We made
deductions for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These deductions included,
where appropriate, freight incurred in
transporting merchandise to the Indian
port, domestic brokerage and handling,
international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. brokerage and handling, terminal
handling charges and documentation
fees. See Memorandum from Team to
the File, ‘‘Preliminary Results
Calculation Memorandum for Bhansali
Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated February
28, 2007, (‘‘Bhansali Preliminary
Calculation Memorandum’’) which is on
file in the CRU in room B–099 of the
main Department building.
(B) Venus
Duty Drawback
Bhansali and Venus claimed a duty
drawback adjustment based on their
participation in the Indian government’s
Duty Entitlement Passbook Program.
Such adjustments are permitted under
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
The Department will grant a
respondent’s claim for a duty drawback
adjustment where the respondent has
demonstrated that there is (1) a
sufficient link between the import duty
and the rebate, and (2) a sufficient
amount of raw materials imported and
used in the production of the final
exported product. See Rajinder Pipe Ltd.
v. United States (Rajinder Pipes), 70 F.
Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999)
(‘‘Rajinder Pipes’’). In Rajinder Pipes,
the Court of International Trade upheld
the Department’s decision to deny a
respondent’s claim for duty drawback
adjustments because there was not
substantial evidence on the record to
establish that part one of the
Department’s test had been met. See
also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States,
162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (CIT August 15,
2001); and Stainless Steel Bar from
India; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review, and Notice of
Intent to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 10666,
10671 (March 8, 2004).
In this administrative review,
Bhansali and Venus have failed to
demonstrate that there is a link between
the import duty paid and the rebate
received, and that imported raw
materials are used in the production of
the final exported product. Therefore,
because they have failed to meet the
Department’s requirements, we are
denying the respondents’ requests for a
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
adjustment are set in advance, there are
no changes to the material terms of sale
negotiated by the parties involved in the
transaction after the purchase order
date. Therefore, we instructed Venus to
use the purchase order date as the date
of sale. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene–Butadiene
Rubber from Mexico, 64 FR 14872,
14880 (March 29, 1999), for an
explanation of our practice in these
circumstances. Furthermore, we
instructed Venus to report the gross unit
price on the invoice (inclusive of any
surcharges) in the sales listings.
Bhansali reported that the material
terms of sale can change up until the
date of the invoice. Therefore, we are
using invoice date as the date of sale for
Bhansali for both markets.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10155
duty drawback adjustment. See
Bhansali Preliminary Calculation
Memorandum; see also Venus
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum
for further details.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs
that NV be based on the price at which
the foreign like product is sold in the
home market, provided that the
merchandise is sold in sufficient
quantities (or value, if quantity is
inappropriate) and that there is no
particular market situation that prevents
a proper comparison with the EP. The
Act contemplates that quantities (or
value) will normally be considered
insufficient if they are less than five
percent of the aggregate quantity (or
value) of sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States.
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, we compared each
respondent’s volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product to its
volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Bhansali and Venus reported that
their home market sales of SSB during
the POR were more than five percent of
their sales of SSB to the United States.
Therefore, Bhansali’s and Venus’ home
markets were viable for purposes of
calculating NV. Accordingly, Bhansali
and Venus reported their home market
sales.
To derive NV for the respondents, we
made the adjustments detailed in the
‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Comparison Market Prices’’ and
‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value’’ sections, below.
B. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Bhansali made one sale in the home
market to an affiliated customer. To test
whether this sale was made at arm’s
length, we compared the starting price
of the sale to the affiliated customer to
those of unaffiliated customers, net of
all movement charges, direct and
indirect selling expenses, discounts, and
packing. If the price to the affiliated
party was, on average, within a range of
98 to 102 percent of the price of the
same or comparable merchandise to the
unaffiliated parties, we determined that
the sale made to the affiliated party was
at arm’s length. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR
69186 (November 15, 2002). In
accordance with the Department’s
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
10156
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
practice, we excluded the sale from our
margin analysis because the sale was
not made at arm’s length.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding at the time of
initiation, the Department found that
Bhansali and Venus made sales in the
comparison market at prices below the
cost of producing the merchandise and
excluded such sales from the
calculation of NV. Therefore, the
Department determined that there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that SSB sales were made in the
comparison market at prices below the
cost of production (‘‘COP’’) in this
administrative review for Bhansali and
Venus. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act. As a result, the Department
initiated a COP inquiry for these two
respondents.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of
the Act, we calculated the COP based on
the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for G&A expenses,
financial expenses, and comparison
market packing costs, where
appropriate. We relied on the COP data
submitted by Bhansali and Venus
except where noted below:
2. Individual Company Adjustments
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
(A) Bhansali
1) We recalculated Bhansali’s G&A
and financial expense ratios, based on
the relevant accounts identified in
Bhansali’s fiscal year 2005–06 trial
balance.
2) Under section 773(f)(2) of the Act,
we calculated the implied interest
expenses incurred on Bhansali’s zero–
interest loans which were outstanding
to shareholders and directors during
fiscal year 2005–2006. We added the
implied interest expenses to Bhansali’s
financial expenses in our calculation of
its financial expense ratio. See
Memorandum from Joe Welton to Neal
Halper, Director Office of Accounting,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd,’’
dated February 28, 2007, which is on
file in the CRU in room B–099 of the
main Department building.
(B) Venus
1) For Venus and Precision Metals, we
increased the direct material costs by
the unreconciled difference between the
raw material purchase prices
incorporated in the reported costs of
production and the related raw material
purchase prices which reconcile to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
companies’ respective accounting
systems.
2) We recalculated Venus’ and
Precision Metals’ G&A and financial
expense ratios, based on the relevant
accounts identified in their respective
fiscal year 2005–06 trial balances. See
Memorandum from Joe Welton to Neal
Halper, Director Office of Accounting,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - Venus Wire Industries Pvt.
Ltd,’’ dated February 28, 2007, which is
on file in the CRU in room B–099 of the
main Department building.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
Act, where less than 20 percent of a
respondent’s sales of a given product
were at prices less than the COP, we did
not disregard any below–cost sales of
that product because we determined
that the below–cost sales were not made
in substantial quantities.
Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the POR were at prices less than
the COP, we determined such sales to
have been made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of
time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we
compared prices to the POR average
COP, we also determined that such sales
were not made at prices which would
permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, we disregarded the below–
cost sales.
For Bhansali and Venus, we found
that more than 20 percent of the
comparison market sales of SSB within
an extended period of time were made
at prices less than the COP. Further, the
prices at which the merchandise under
review was sold did not provide for the
recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. Therefore, we
disregarded these below–cost sales and
used the remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those
U.S. sales of SSB for which there were
no useable comparison market sales in
the ordinary course of trade, we
compared EPs to the CV in accordance
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See
‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value’’ section, below.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Home Market Prices
We calculated NV based on ex–factory
or delivered prices to unaffiliated
customers in the home market. We
made adjustments for differences in
packing in accordance with sections
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the
Act, and we deducted movement
expenses consistent with section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition,
where applicable, we made adjustments
for differences in cost attributable to
differences in physical characteristics of
the merchandise pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for
differences in circumstances of sale
(‘‘COS’’) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We also made adjustments, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for
indirect selling expenses incurred on
comparison market or U.S. sales where
commissions were granted on sales in
one market but not in the other (the
‘‘commission offset’’). Specifically,
where commissions were granted in the
U.S. market but not in the comparison
market, we made a downward
adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the
amount of the commission paid in the
U.S. market, or (2) the amount of
indirect selling expenses incurred in the
comparison market. If commissions
were granted in the comparison market
but not in the U.S. market, we made an
upward adjustment to NV following the
same methodology. Company–specific
adjustments are described below.
(A) Bhansali
We based comparison market prices
on the packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in India. We adjusted the
starting price by the amount of
movement expenses: inland freight
expenses from the plant to the customer.
We made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for home market sales (i.e.,
credit expenses, bank charges and
commissions) and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses,
commissions, bank charges and bank
interest expenses, fumigation charges
and fees for duty drawback application).
See Bhansali Preliminary Calculation
Memorandum.
Bhansali reported billing adjustments
in its home market sales listing.
However, the information on the record
shows that these adjustments are
actually bad debt write–offs. Therefore,
for the preliminary results, we have
treated Bhansali’s reported billing
adjustments as indirect selling
expenses. See Bhansali Preliminary
Calculation Memorandum.
(B) Venus
Venus
We based comparison market prices
on the packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in India. We adjusted the
starting price by the amount of billing
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
adjustments and movement expenses,
including inland freight expenses from
the plant to the customer.3 We made
COS adjustments by deducting direct
selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (i.e., credit expenses and
commissions) and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses,
commissions, bank charges and bank
interest expenses, fumigation charges
and certificate of origin fees). See Venus
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
D. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act
states that, to the extent practicable, the
Department will calculate NV based on
sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’)
as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different
marketing stages (or their equivalent).
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial
differences in selling activities are a
necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for determining that there is a difference
in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November
19, 1997). In order to determine whether
the comparison sales were at different
stages in the marketing process than the
U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution
system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain
of distribution’’),4 including selling
functions,5 class of customer (‘‘customer
category’’), and the level of selling
expenses for each type of sale.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, in identifying levels of trade for
EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,
NV based on either comparison market
or third country prices),6 we consider
3 Venus reported discounts in its home market
sales listing. However, the information on the
record indicates that these discounts are actually
billing adjustments (i.e., adjustments to price).
Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have
treated Venus’ reported discounts as billing
adjustments and adjusted gross unit price
accordingly. See Venus Preliminary Calculation
Memorandum.
4 The marketing process in the United States and
comparison market begins with the producer and
extends to the sale to the final user or customer.
The chain of distribution between the two may have
many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur
somewhere along this chain. In performing this
evaluation, we considered each respondent’s
narrative response to properly determine where in
the chain of distribution the sale occurs.
5 Selling functions associated with a particular
chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s)
of trade in a particular market. For purposes of
these preliminary results, we have organized the
common selling functions into four major
categories: sales process and marketing support,
freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing,
and quality assurance/warranty services.
6 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV
LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we
derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV,
where possible.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
the starting prices before any
adjustments. When the Department is
unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison
market at the same LOT as the EP, the
Department may compare the U.S. sale
to sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market. In comparing EP
sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market, where available
data make it practicable, we make a LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act.
Bhansali reported that it sells to end–
users and trading companies in the
home market, and to trading companies
and distributors in the United States.
Venus reported that it sells to end–users
and distributors in the home market,
and to end–users and trading companies
in the United States. Bhansali and
Venus reported the same level of trade
and the same channel of distribution for
sales in the United States and the home
market, and neither company has
requested a LOT adjustment.
We examined the information
reported by Bhansali and Venus, and
found that home market sales to all
customer categories were identical with
respect to sales process, freight services,
warehouse/inventory maintenance,
advertising activities, technical service,
and warranty service. Accordingly, we
preliminarily find that each company
had only one level of trade for its home
market sales. Bhansali’s and Venus’ EP
selling activities differ from the home
market selling activities only with
respect to freight and delivery, and
advertising. These differences are not
substantial. Therefore, we find that the
EP level of trade is similar to the home
market LOT and a level–of-trade
adjustment is not necessary. See section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
10157
Review–Specific Average Rate
Applicable To The Following
Companies:
Isibars Limited, Grand Foundry,
Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited,
Snowdrop Trading Pvt.,
Ltd.Facor Steels, Ltd., Mukand
Ltd. ..........................................
2.10
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this
notice. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held 42 days after the publication of
this notice, or the first workday
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing
will be limited to those raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed not later than 35 days after the
date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
each argument: 1) a statement of the
issue; and 2) a brief summary of the
argument with an electronic version
included.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the
administrative review, the Department
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for
all sales made by respondents for which
they have reported the importer of
record and the entered value of the U.S.
sales, we have calculated importer–
specific assessment rates based on the
ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales
Currency Conversion
to the total entered value of those sales.
Where the respondents did not report
We made currency conversions into
the entered value for U.S. sales, we have
U.S. dollars in accordance with section
calculated importer–specific assessment
773A(a) of the Act based on the
rates for the merchandise in question by
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
Reserve Bank.
importer and dividing this amount by
the total quantity of those sales. To
Preliminary Results of the Review
determine whether the duty assessment
For the firms listed below, we find
rates were de minimis, in accordance
that the following percentage margins
with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
exist for the period February 1, 2005,
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–
through January 31, 2006:
specific ad valorem rates based on the
estimated entered value. Where the
Exporter/Manufacturer
Margin
assessment rate is above de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to assess duties on all
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. ....
2.10
entries of subject merchandise by that
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. ..
0.03 (de
importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR
minimis)
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
10158
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent).
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by the respondent for which
it did not know its merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–
others rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of
this clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
For those companies for which this
review is rescinded, antidumping duties
shall be assessed at rates equal to the
cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). For the companies
requesting a review, but not selected for
examination and calculation of
individual rates, we will calculate a
weighted–average assessment rate based
on all importer–specific assessment
rates excluding any which are de
minimis or margins determined entirely
on adverse facts available. See Softwood
Lumber Final Results, at 70 FR 73442.
The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon completion of the
final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of SSB from
India entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed
company will be the rate established in
the final results of this administrative
review (except no cash deposit will be
required if its weighted–average margin
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent); 2) for the non–selected
companies we will calculate a
weighted–average cash deposit rate
based on all the company–specific cash
deposit rates, excluding de minimis
margins or margins determined entirely
on adverse facts available; 3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, the previous review, or the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and 4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous reviews,
the cash deposit rate will be 12.45
percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar
from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28,
1994).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results of review in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: February 23, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–4057 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China; Initiation
of New Shipper Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) received timely
requests to conduct new shipper
reviews of the antidumping duty order
on wooden bedroom furniture from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1),
we are initiating new shipper reviews
for Golden Well International (HK), Ltd.
(‘‘Golden Well’’) and its supplier
Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product Co.,
Ltd. (Zhangzhou XYM), and for Mei Jia
Ju Furniture Industrial (Shenzhen) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Mei Jia’’).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Paul
Stolz or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482–
0414, respectively.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
Department received timely requests
from Golden Well and Mei Jia on
January 24 and 22, 2007 respectively,
pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), and in accordance with 19 CFR
351.214(c), for new shipper reviews of
the antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January
4, 2005). Although Mei Jia submitted a
timely request, on February 7, 2007, the
Department rejected Mei Jia’s request
due to improper filing. However,
because Mei Jia originally filed its
request on January 22, 2007, but the
request was not rejected by the
Department until February 7, 2007, the
Department allowed Mei Jia to refile its
request by February 21, 2007. See the
letter from the Department to Mei Jia
dated February 7, 2007. On February 16,
2007, Mei Jia re–submitted its request
for a new shipper review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i),
19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii), 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), in their requests for
new shipper reviews, Golden Well (as
an exporter), Zhangzhou XYM, and Mei
Jia (as a producing exporter) certified
that they did not export wooden
bedroom furniture to the United States
during the period of investigation
(‘‘POI’’); that since the initiation of the
investigation they have never been
affiliated with any company that
exported subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI; and that
their export activities were not
controlled by the central government of
the PRC.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv), Golden Well and Mei
Jia submitted documentation
establishing the following: (1) The date
on which they first shipped wooden
bedroom furniture for export to the
United States; (2) the volume of their
first shipment; and (3) the date of their
first sale to an unaffiliated customer in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10151-10158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4057]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-533-810)
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India.
The period of review is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006.
This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from eight producers/
exporters.
We preliminarily find that sales of the subject merchandise have
been made below normal value. In addition, based on the preliminary
results for the respondents selected for individual review, we have
preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin for those companies
for which a review was requested, but that were not selected for
individual review.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties
[[Page 10152]]
on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on
these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later
than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1279
or (202) 482-0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty
order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India. See Antidumping Duty
Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661
(February 21, 1995). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a
notice in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for interested
parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on SSB from India for the period of review (``POR''), February 1,
2005, through January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006).
On February 4, 2006, we received a timely request for review from
Isibars Limited (``Isibars''). On February 28, 2005, Carpenter
Technology Corporation, Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of
Crucible Materials Corporation, Electralloy Company, North American
Stainless, Universal Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless
(collectively, the ``petitioners'') requested an administrative review
of 9 companies: the Viraj Group, including but necessarily limited to
Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (``VAL''), Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (``VFL''), Viraj
Impoexpo, Ltd. (``VIL''), Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd.;\1\ Akai Asian (``Akai''); Atlas Stainless (``Atlas'');
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (``Bhansali''); Grand Foundry, Ltd.
(``Grand Foundry''); Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (``Meltroll'');
Sindia Steels Limited (``Sindia''); Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd.
(``Snowdrop''); and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus''). On
February 28, 2006, we received timely review requests from Facor
Steels, Ltd. (``Facor''), and Mukand Ltd. (``Mukand'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this Federal Register notice, we use the terms
``Viraj,'' ``the Viraj Group'' and ``the Viraj entities''
interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we initiated an administrative
review on Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, Isibars,
Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop, Venus, and conditionally initiated
an administrative review with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles,
and VSL Wires, Ltd., (collectively, the ``Viraj entities''). See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5,
2006) (``Initiation Notice''). For further discussion of the
Department's treatment of the Viraj entities in this administrative
review, please see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this
notice.
In April 2006, we requested information concerning the quantity and
value of sales to the United States from the 12 producers/exporters
listed in the Initiation Notice. The Department received responses from
all of the exporters/producers in April and May of 2006. Akai, Atlas,
and Meltroll notified the Department that they had no shipments of the
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
On June 7, 2006, the Department determined that it was not
practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of
the 12 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we
selected Venus and Bhansali (collectively, ``the respondents'') for
individual reviews. See Memorandum from Scott Holland to Susan H.
Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, ``Stainless Steel Bar from India:
Respondent Selection,'' dated June 7, 2006, (``Respondent Selection
Memorandum'') which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in
room B-099 of the main Department building. For further discussion see
the ``Respondent Selection'' section below.
On June 8, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to the respondents. At that time, we instructed each of
the respondents to respond to the cost section of the questionnaire
because we had disregarded certain below-cost sales in the most
recently completed review in which the companies participated. See
Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 13771 (March 22,
1999) (Bhansali); see also Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 47543 (August
11, 2003) (Venus).
The respondents submitted their initial responses to the
antidumping questionnaire from July 2006 through August 2006. After
analyzing these responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the
respondents to clarify or correct information contained in the initial
questionnaire responses. We received timely responses to these
questionnaires. The petitioners submitted comments on the questionnaire
responses in August, September and October 2006.
On October 20, 2006, the Department found that, due to the
complexity of the issues in this case, including affiliation and cost
of production, and outstanding supplemental responses, it was not
practicable to complete this review within the time period prescribed.
Accordingly, we extended the time limit for completing the preliminary
results of this review to no later than February 28, 2007, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless Steel
Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 61958 (October 20, 2006).
In January 2007, we requested comments from interested parties
regarding the proper hierarchical order of one the model matching
characteristics as described in the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section,
below. On February 12, 2007, we received comments from petitioners. We
received no other comments.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times the
[[Page 10153]]
thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which
exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e.,
cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along
their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-
rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. See
Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, ``Antidumping Duty Orders
on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
India: Final Scope Ruling,'' dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in
the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. See also Notice
of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).
Selection of Respondents
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department the discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it
is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of subject
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to review either:
(1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is
statistically valid based on the information available at the time of
selection, or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest
volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
Responses to the Department's information request were received in
April through May 2006. After consideration of the data submitted, we
selected the two largest exporters/producers of the subject
merchandise, as explained in our Respondent Selection Memorandum.
Therefore, for those companies for which a review was requested,
but which were not selected for individual review, the Department has
determined a review-specific weighted-average margin. The review-
specific average rate for these companies can be found in the
``Preliminary Results of the Review'' section below. This is
distinguished from the ``All Others'' rate, which is the weighted-
average margin calculated in the investigation and which continues to
apply to all exporters and producers which have not participated in a
review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 73437,
73440 (December 12, 2005) (``Softwood Lumber Final Results'').
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify sales
information submitted by Bhansali in these proceedings to be used in
making our final results. Due to resource and time constraints facing
the Department, we will not verify Venus in this proceeding.
Period of Review
The POR is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006.
Partial Rescission of Review
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that, although the
Department revoked the order in part with respect to entries of the
merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by Viraj (Viraj
Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.), the
Department was conditionally initiating a review with respect to Viraj
Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj
Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., pending further
information from the requestor as to sales of subject merchandise not
covered by the revocation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department revoked the order in part, with respect to
entries of merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by
``Viraj,'' a collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.;
Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The revocation was
effective February 1, 2003. See Stainless Steel Bar From India;
Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
in Part, and Determination to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409, 55410-11
(September 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 6, 2006, the Department requested that, in light of the
previous revocation determination, the petitioners clarify the specific
producers or exporters for which they were seeking review and, for each
company, whether they were requesting a review as to merchandise
produced by that company, or only merchandise exported by that company.
Moreover, the Department indicated that absent adequate clarification,
it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to the
Viraj Group. See Letter from Julie H. Santoboni, Program Manager, to
the petitioners, dated April 6, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in
room B-099 of the main Department building.
On April 7, 2006, the petitioners responded to the Department's
request for further information stating that they were seeking a review
of any of the listed companies (i.e., the Viraj Group) in their
capacity as either a producer or exporter (or both, with the exception
of VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise subject to the order during the
POR. Furthermore, the petitioners urged the Department to seek
information as to whether the named companies shipped merchandise
subject to the order to the United States during the POR. The
petitioners also referred to the changes in operation among the various
Viraj entities that the Department recognized in pre-revocation
reviews.
Therefore, in light of the revocation and the petitioners' request,
we determined that it was appropriate to ascertain whether there were
suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order during the POR
from the Viraj entities. We examined shipment data obtained from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') and placed these data on the
record on May 9, 2006. See Memorandum from Team to the File, ``U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data,'' dated May 9, 2006, which is on
file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Based on
this information, we determined that there are no suspended entries of
merchandise subject to the order involving any of the Viraj entities
for the POR. See Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, Office Director to
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, ``2005-2006
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel
Bar from India - Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group Companies,''
dated May 18, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the
main Department building. Accordingly, on May 24, 2006, the Department
published in the Federal Register its intent to rescind the
administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities. See Stainless
Steel Bar from India: Notice of Intent to Partially Rescind Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 29916 (May 24, 2006).
[[Page 10154]]
We invited interested parties to comment on this notice. No
comments were received. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the
administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities and will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions to CBP within 15 days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Intent to Rescind Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an
administrative review with respect to a particular exporter or producer
if it concludes that during the period of review there were ``no
entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise.'' Accordingly,
the Department requires that there be entries during the POR upon which
to assess antidumping duties, to conduct an administrative review.
As noted in the ``Background'' section above, Akai, Atlas, and
Meltroll each indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR. The Department examined CBP data
to confirm whether these companies shipped subject merchandise during
the POR. After reviewing the data, we confirmed that the CBP data
showed no entries of subject merchandise to the United States from
these companies during the POR. See Memorandum from Team to the File,
``Stainless Steel Bar from India: No Shipments During the Period of
Review,'' dated May 26, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099
of the main Department building.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are
preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to
Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll.
Affiliation
On February 28, 2007, the Department determined that Venus and
exporter Precision Metals are affiliated within the meaning of section
771(33) of the Act, and also that the two companies should be treated
as a single entity for the purposes of this administrative review.
Therefore, we preliminarily find that the companies should receive a
single antidumping duty rate. See Memorandum from Scott Holland to
Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, ``Relationship of Venus Wire
Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Precision Metals,'' dated February 28, 2007,
which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department
building.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SSB from India to the United States
were made at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to NV, as
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by
the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be
foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii)
of the Act, 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, we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the
foreign-like product to the volumes of their U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. See the ``Normal Value'' section, below, for further
details.
We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of
contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the
ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most
similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade.
Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in
the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we compared U.S.
sales to constructed value (``CV''). In making product comparisons,
consistent with our determination in the original investigation, we
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics
reported by the respondent in the following order: type, grade,
remelting process, finishing operation, shape, and size. See
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59
FR 39733-35 (August 4, 1994); unchanged in the final.
In the Department's standard questionnaire for these proceedings,
all respondents are instructed to assign a unique code for each AISI
grade of SSB sold in both the home and U.S. markets for matching
purposes. There are 9 standard AISI grades listed in the questionnaire.
Furthermore, respondents are instructed to assign a unique code for all
additional AISI grades of SSB sold. In their initial responses to the
Department's questionnaire, the respondents in this review reported
that during the POR, they made sales of several AISI grades of SSB
beyond the standard 9 AISI grades and correctly assigned a unique code
for each additional grade.
On September 28, 2006, we received comments from the petitioners
arguing that, because the respondents did not properly order the
additional grades in a hierarchical manner, the Department's model
match program would select dissimilar grades of SSB instead of the most
similar grades. Accordingly, the petitioners argued that the Department
should itself assign the proper weight for these additional grades to
ensure a proper hierarchical order for matching purposes. Moreover, the
petitioners proposed their own hierarchical ordering of the grades.
These comments led the Department to reconsider the weights
assigned to the reported AISI grades. After consulting with Department
experts, we instructed the respondents to re-order the grade hierarchy
in their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires and
we assigned new weight codes for each reported grade. The Department
also requested comments regarding the proper hierarchical ordering. See
Letter from Brandon Farlander, Program Manager to Interested Parties,
dated January 29, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of
the main Department building.
On February 12, 2007, we received comments from the petitioners
regarding the proper order of one AISI grade. We did not receive
comments from any other interested party. Therefore, for the
preliminary results we are re-ordering the grade hierarchy and we are
assigning new weight codes for each reported grade.
Date of Sale
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale is normally the
date of invoice unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the
material terms of sale, price and quantity, are established on some
other date. In its initial questionnaire responses, Venus reported its
sales using invoice date as the date of sale. However, on November 30,
2006, the company requested that it be allowed to use purchase order
date as the date of sale for both its U.S. and home market sales. Venus
reported that no changes in the terms of sale occurred between the
purchase order and the invoice date.
In the U.S. market, Venus stated that all of its sales are made to
order under contracts which can include a price adjustment factor
reflecting market price changes for certain alloys used in the
production of stainless steel bar. However, because the terms of the
price
[[Page 10155]]
adjustment are set in advance, there are no changes to the material
terms of sale negotiated by the parties involved in the transaction
after the purchase order date. Therefore, we instructed Venus to use
the purchase order date as the date of sale. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from Mexico, 64 FR 14872, 14880 (March 29, 1999), for
an explanation of our practice in these circumstances. Furthermore, we
instructed Venus to report the gross unit price on the invoice
(inclusive of any surcharges) in the sales listings.
Bhansali reported that the material terms of sale can change up
until the date of the invoice. Therefore, we are using invoice date as
the date of sale for Bhansali for both markets.
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance
with section 772 of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the
date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. We
calculated EP for both Bhansali and Venus because the merchandise was
sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the
United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States,
and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise
warranted.
We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
(A) Bhansali
We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid (``DDP''), cost,
insurance, and freight (``CIF''), or cost and freight (``CFR'') price
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in
transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and
handling, terminal handling charges and documentation fees. See
Memorandum from Team to the File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation
Memorandum for Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated February 28,
2007, (``Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum'') which is on
file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building.
(B) Venus
We based EP on the packed, DDP, or CIF price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit
price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in
transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and
handling, freight incurred in the United States, and U.S. customs
duties. See Memorandum from Team to the File, ``Preliminary Results
Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated
February 28, 2007, (``Venus Preliminary Calculation Memorandum'') which
is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building.
Duty Drawback
Bhansali and Venus claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on
their participation in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement
Passbook Program. Such adjustments are permitted under section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
The Department will grant a respondent's claim for a duty drawback
adjustment where the respondent has demonstrated that there is (1) a
sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and (2) a
sufficient amount of raw materials imported and used in the production
of the final exported product. See Rajinder Pipe Ltd. v. United States
(Rajinder Pipes), 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999) (``Rajinder
Pipes''). In Rajinder Pipes, the Court of International Trade upheld
the Department's decision to deny a respondent's claim for duty
drawback adjustments because there was not substantial evidence on the
record to establish that part one of the Department's test had been
met. See also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656
(CIT August 15, 2001); and Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review, and Notice of Intent to Revoke in
Part, 69 FR 10666, 10671 (March 8, 2004).
In this administrative review, Bhansali and Venus have failed to
demonstrate that there is a link between the import duty paid and the
rebate received, and that imported raw materials are used in the
production of the final exported product. Therefore, because they have
failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are denying the
respondents' requests for a duty drawback adjustment. See Bhansali
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum; see also Venus Preliminary
Calculation Memorandum for further details.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The Act
contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered
insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate
quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States.
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,
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Bhansali and Venus reported that their home market sales of SSB
during the POR were more than five percent of their sales of SSB to the
United States. Therefore, Bhansali's and Venus' home markets were
viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, Bhansali and Venus
reported their home market sales.
To derive NV for the respondents, we made the adjustments detailed
in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market
Prices'' and ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value''
sections, below.
B. Sales to Affiliated Customers
Bhansali made one sale in the home market to an affiliated
customer. To test whether this sale was made at arm's length, we
compared the starting price of the sale to the affiliated customer to
those of unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct
and indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. If the price to
the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102
percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sale made to the
affiliated party was at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings:
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186
(November 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's
[[Page 10156]]
practice, we excluded the sale from our margin analysis because the
sale was not made at arm's length.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the
time of initiation, the Department found that Bhansali and Venus made
sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing
the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV.
Therefore, the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that SSB sales were made in the comparison market
at prices below the cost of production (``COP'') in this administrative
review for Bhansali and Venus. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for these two
respondents.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses, financial
expenses, and comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. We
relied on the COP data submitted by Bhansali and Venus except where
noted below:
2. Individual Company Adjustments
(A) Bhansali
1) We recalculated Bhansali's G&A and financial expense ratios,
based on the relevant accounts identified in Bhansali's fiscal year
2005-06 trial balance.
2) Under section 773(f)(2) of the Act, we calculated the implied
interest expenses incurred on Bhansali's zero-interest loans which were
outstanding to shareholders and directors during fiscal year 2005-2006.
We added the implied interest expenses to Bhansali's financial expenses
in our calculation of its financial expense ratio. See Memorandum from
Joe Welton to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, ``Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd,'' dated February 28, 2007,
which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department
building.
(B) Venus
1) For Venus and Precision Metals, we increased the direct material
costs by the unreconciled difference between the raw material purchase
prices incorporated in the reported costs of production and the related
raw material purchase prices which reconcile to the companies'
respective accounting systems.
2) We recalculated Venus' and Precision Metals' G&A and financial
expense ratios, based on the relevant accounts identified in their
respective fiscal year 2005-06 trial balances. See Memorandum from Joe
Welton to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, ``Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd,'' dated February 28, 2007,
which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department
building.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
substantial quantities.
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product
during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such
sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended
period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
Because we compared prices to the POR average COP, we also determined
that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-
cost sales.
For Bhansali and Venus, we found that more than 20 percent of the
comparison market sales of SSB within an extended period of time were
made at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices at which the
merchandise under review was sold did not provide for the recovery of
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded
these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For
those U.S. sales of SSB for which there were no useable comparison
market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to the CV
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See ``Calculation of
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section, below.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
We calculated NV based on ex-factory or delivered prices to
unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made adjustments for
differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted movement expenses
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling
expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the
``commission offset''). Specifically, where commissions were granted in
the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward
adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the amount of the commission
paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses
incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the
comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward
adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-specific
adjustments are described below.
(A) Bhansali
We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted the starting price by the
amount of movement expenses: inland freight expenses from the plant to
the customer. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit expenses, bank
charges and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e.,
credit expenses, commissions, bank charges and bank interest expenses,
fumigation charges and fees for duty drawback application). See
Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
Bhansali reported billing adjustments in its home market sales
listing. However, the information on the record shows that these
adjustments are actually bad debt write-offs. Therefore, for the
preliminary results, we have treated Bhansali's reported billing
adjustments as indirect selling expenses. See Bhansali Preliminary
Calculation Memorandum.
(B) Venus
Venus
We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted the starting price by the
amount of billing
[[Page 10157]]
adjustments and movement expenses, including inland freight expenses
from the plant to the customer.\3\ We made COS adjustments by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit
expenses and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(i.e., credit expenses, commissions, bank charges and bank interest
expenses, fumigation charges and certificate of origin fees). See Venus
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Venus reported discounts in its home market sales listing.
However, the information on the record indicates that these
discounts are actually billing adjustments (i.e., adjustments to
price). Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have treated
Venus' reported discounts as billing adjustments and adjusted gross
unit price accordingly. See Venus Preliminary Calculation
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.;
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\4\ including selling
functions,\5\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final
user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have
many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
\5\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we
have organized the common selling functions into four major
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on
either comparison market or third country prices),\6\ we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable
to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the
comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare
the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In
comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where
available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhansali reported that it sells to end-users and trading companies
in the home market, and to trading companies and distributors in the
United States. Venus reported that it sells to end-users and
distributors in the home market, and to end-users and trading companies
in the United States. Bhansali and Venus reported the same level of
trade and the same channel of distribution for sales in the United
States and the home market, and neither company has requested a LOT
adjustment.
We examined the information reported by Bhansali and Venus, and
found that home market sales to all customer categories were identical
with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory
maintenance, advertising activities, technical service, and warranty
service. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that each company had only
one level of trade for its home market sales. Bhansali's and Venus' EP
selling activities differ from the home market selling activities only
with respect to freight and delivery, and advertising. These
differences are not substantial. Therefore, we find that the EP level
of trade is similar to the home market LOT and a level-of-trade
adjustment is not necessary. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
For the firms listed below, we find that the following percentage
margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd............................... 2.10
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.............................. 0.03 (de
minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable To The Following Companies:
Isibars Limited, Grand Foundry, Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited, 2.10
Snowdrop Trading Pvt., Ltd.Facor Steels, Ltd., Mukand Ltd..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice,
or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a
statement of the issue; and 2) a brief summary of the argument with an
electronic version included.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by respondents
for which they have reported the importer of record and the entered
value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
those sales.
Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S.
sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the
merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the
total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment
rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem rates
based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries
of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
[[Page 10158]]
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which
the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping
duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i). For the companies requesting a review, but not
selected for examination and calculation of individual rates, we will
calculate a weighted-average assessment rate based on all importer-
specific assessment rates excluding any which are de minimis or margins
determined entirely on adverse facts available. See Softwood Lumber
Final Results, at 70 FR 73442. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate
established in the final results of this administrative review (except
no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); 2) for the non-selected
companies we will calculate a weighted-average cash deposit rate based
on all the company-specific cash deposit rates, excluding de minimis
margins or margins determined entirely on adverse facts available; 3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous
review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the ``all
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel
Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 23, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-4057 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
