Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 51595-51598 [E7-17749]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Notices
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.
This administrative review and this
notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR
351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: August 31, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–17751 Filed 9–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–533–810)
Notice of Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Bar from India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2007, the
Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the 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 sales of stainless steel bar from
India with respect to eight producers/
exporters. We provided interested
parties with an opportunity to comment
on the preliminary results of this
review. We have noted the changes
made since the preliminary results
below in the ‘‘Changes Since the
Preliminary Results’’ section, below.
The final results are listed below in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 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 and (202)
482–0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On March 7, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published Notice of Preliminary Results
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Sep 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel
Bar from India, 72 FR 10151 (March 7,
2007) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’) in the
Federal Register.
On March 14, 2007, we issued a
supplemental questionnaire to
respondent Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt.
Ltd (‘‘Bhansali’’) to correct information
contained in the initial questionnaire
responses. On March 28, 2007, we
received a timely response to this
questionnaire from Bhansali. On April
5, 2007, we met with counsel for
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’’) to discuss the review–
specific average rate applied at the
Preliminary Results to the respondents
that were not selected for individual
examination in the review by the
Department.1
On May 19, 2007, Bhansali submitted
a listing of pre–verification corrections
to its home market sales listing. On July
5, 2007, the Department published in
the Federal Register an extension of the
time limit for the final results in the
antidumping duty administrative review
to no later than September 4, 2007, in
accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). See Stainless Steel Bar from
India: Extension of Time Limit for the
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 36668
(July 5, 2007).
On July 24, 2007, we notified
interested parties that comments on the
Preliminary Results were due on July
31, 2007, and rebuttal comments were
due on August 10, 2007. See
Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Briefing
Schedule for Comments on the
Preliminary Results in the 2005/2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Stainless Steel Bar from
India,’’ dated July 24, 2007. On July 25,
2007, we requested that Bhansali and
Venus submit revised sales and cost
listings to the Department. We received
revised home market sales listings from
Venus, and revised sales and cost
listings from Bhansali in August 2007.
On July 31, 2007, we received case
briefs from the petitioners and Bhansali.
On August 2, 2007, we rejected
Bhansali’s case brief, in accordance with
1 For the Preliminary Results, the Department
applied the review-specific, average rate to the
following respondents: Isibars Limited, Grand
Foundry, Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited, Snowdrop
Trading Pvt. Ltd., Facor Steels, Ltd., and Mukand
Ltd. See the Preliminary Results at 10157.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51595
19 CFR 351.302(d)(i) of the
Department’s regulations, because it
contained new and untimely filed
information. On August 4, 2007, we
received a revised case brief from
Bhansali. On August 6, 2007, we
received a rebuttal brief from Bhansali.
On August 10, 2007, the petitioners and
interested parties Facor Steels, Ltd.
(‘‘Facor’’) and Mukand Ltd. (‘‘Mukand’’)
filed rebuttal briefs. We did not receive
comments from Venus. The Department
did not receive a request for a public
hearing from interested parties.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are
shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’).
SSB means articles of stainless steel in
straight lengths that have been either
hot–rolled, forged, turned, cold–drawn,
cold–rolled or otherwise cold–finished,
or ground, having a uniform solid cross
section along their whole length in the
shape of circles, segments of circles,
ovals, rectangles (including squares),
triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold–
finished SSBs that are turned or ground
in straight lengths, whether produced
from hot–rolled bar or from straightened
and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars
that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or
other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term
does not include stainless steel semi–
finished products, cut–to-length flat–
rolled products (i.e., cut–to-length
rolled products which if less than 4.75
mm in thickness have a width
measuring at least 10 times the
thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in
thickness having a width which exceeds
150 mm and measures at least twice the
thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed
products in coils, of any uniform solid
cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition
of flat–rolled products), and angles,
shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to these reviews is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50,
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45,
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department
issued a final scope ruling that SSB
manufactured in the United Arab
Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod
from India is not subject to the scope of
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
51596
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Notices
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 Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) located in room
B–099 of the main Department building.
See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR
55110 (September 20, 2005).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we conducted verification of the
sales information contained in the
questionnaire responses submitted by
respondent Venus Wire Industries Pvt.
Ltd. (‘‘Venus’’) in Mumbai, India, in
May 2007. The Department reported its
findings on July 24, 2007. See
Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Verification
of the Sales Responses of Venus Wire
Industries Pvt. Ltd. in the 2005/2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Stainless Steel Bar from
India,’’ (‘‘Verification Report—Venus’’)
dated July 24, 2007.
We also conducted verification of the
sales and cost information contained in
the questionnaire responses submitted
by Bhansali in May 2007. The
Department reported its findings on July
24, 2007. See Memorandum to the File,
‘‘Verification of the Sales and Cost
Responses of Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt.
Ltd. in the 2005/2006 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Bar from India,’’ (‘‘Verification
Report—Bhansali’’) dated July 24, 2007.
These reports are on file in the Central
Records Unit in room B–099 of the main
Department building (‘‘CRU’’).
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Partial Rescission of Review
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department preliminarily rescinded this
review with respect to Akai Asian
(‘‘Akai’’), Atlas Stainless (‘‘Atlas’’) and
Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
(‘‘Meltroll’’) pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3). The Department
confirmed that Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll
did not ship subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR using U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
data. We did not receive comments on
this issue. Therefore, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with
the Preliminary Results, we are
rescinding this review with respect to
Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll.
Affiliation
As explained in the Preliminary
Results, we have determined that Venus
and its 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
find that Venus and Precision Metals
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.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this review
are addressed in the September 4, 2007,
Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel
Bar from India (‘‘Decision
Memorandum’’), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. Attached to this
notice as an appendix is a list of the
issues which parties have raised and to
which we have responded in the
Decision Memorandum. Parties can find
a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Department’s CRU. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our findings at verification,
and analysis of comments received, we
have made adjustments to the
preliminary results calculations for
Bhansali and Venus. Brief descriptions
of the company–specific changes are
discussed below.
Bhansali
Based upon the information obtained
at verification, we are deducting billing
adjustments from the gross unit price on
certain home market sales. We are also
reducing billing adjustments for the
portion attributable to taxes included in
the invoice price. We are deducting
from U.S. gross unit price the per–unit
certificate of origin expenses incurred
on export sales. We are using the cost
information provided by Bhansali in its
March 28, 2007, submission for certain
products that did not have cost data in
the Preliminary Results.
Venus
We are using Venus’ revised home
market sales listing submitted on
August 13, 2007, which included the
verified recalculated credit expenses.
Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
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.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of
the Act. The sales were made within an
extended period of time in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
because we examined below–cost sales
occurring during the entire POR. In such
cases, because we compared prices to
POR–average costs, 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.
For Bhansali and Venus, we found
that, for certain products, more than 20
percent of comparison market sales
were at prices less than the COP and,
thus, the below–cost sales were made
within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities. In addition, these
sales were made at prices that did not
provide for the recovery of costs within
a reasonable period of time. Therefore,
we excluded these sales and used the
remaining sales, if any, as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
determine that the following weighted–
average margins exist for the period
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006:
Exporter/Manufacturer
Margin
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. .................................................................................................................................
Review–Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Sep 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
2.01
0.03 (de minimis)
51597
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Notices
Exporter/Manufacturer
Margin
Isibars Limited.
Grand Foundry, Ltd..
Sindia Steels Limited.
Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd..
Facor Steels, Ltd..
Mukand Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................
2.01
2 This
rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
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
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 applies 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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:27 Sep 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
calculated a weighted–average
assessment rate based on all importer–
specific assessment rates excluding any
which are zero, de minimis or
determined entirely on adverse facts
available. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada, 70 FR 73437,
73440 (December 12, 2005). The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of these final results
of review.
Cash Deposit Rates
The following antidumping duty
deposits will be required on all
shipments of SSB from India entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, effective on or after the
publication date of these final results of
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash
deposit rates for the reviewed company
will be the rate listed above (except no
cash deposit will be required if a
company’s weighted–average margin is
de minimis; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters
not covered in this review but covered
in the original less–than-fair–value
investigation or a previous review, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
most recent rate published in the final
determination or final results for which
the manufacturer or exporter received
an individual rate; (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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
covered in this or any previous reviews,
the cash deposit rate will be 12.45
percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established
in the less than fair value investigation.
See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28,
1994). These cash deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these
results of review in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
51598
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Notices
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments in the Decision
Memorandum
General Comments
Comment 1: Application of Review–
Specific Rate to Non–Reviewed
Companies
Comment 2: Treatment of Sales Made
Above Normal Value
Comments Relating to Bhansali Bright
Bars Pvt. Ltd.
Comment 3: Treatment of DEPB
Application Charges
Comment 4: Comment on Verification:
Correct Payment Date
Comment 5: Comment on Verification:
Correct Gross Unit Price
Comment 6: Inclusion of Implied
Interest on Non–Interest Bearing Loans
Comment 7: Calculation of Home
Market Imputed Credit Expenses
Comment 8: Treatment of Billing
Adjustments
Comments Relating to Venus Wire
Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Comment 9: Calculation of Home
Market Imputed Credit Expenses
[FR Doc. E7–17749 Filed 9–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–489–807
Notice of Preliminary Results of New
Shipper Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by
Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S., a producer of subject merchandise,
and its affiliated export trading
company, Ege Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ‘‘Ege Celik’’), the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting a new
shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on certain steel concrete
reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey for
the period April 1, 2006, through
September 30, 2006. We preliminarily
determine that, during the period of
review (POR), Ege Celik did not sell the
subject merchandise at less than normal
value (NV). If the preliminary results are
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:56 Sep 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries covered by this
review if the importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
The final results will issued 90 days
after the date of issuance of these
preliminary results, unless extended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 6, 2006, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department
received a timely request from Ege Celik
for a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on rebar from
Turkey. On November 7, 2006, the
Department found that the request for
review with respect to Ege Celik met all
of the regulatory requirements set forth
in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated an
antidumping duty new shipper review
covering the period April 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2006. See Notice
of Initiation of New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,
71 FR 66503 (Nov. 15, 2006).
We issued the antidumping duty
questionnaire to Ege Celik in November
2006. Ege Celik submitted a response to
this questionnaire in December 2006. In
January 2007, we issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Ege Celik. Ege Celik
responded to this supplemental
questionnaire in the same month.
Also in January 2007, the domestic
interested parties requested that the
Department initiate a sales–below-cost
investigation of Ege Celik. After
analyzing this request, we initiated a
sales–below-cost investigation for Ege
Celik in February 2007. See the
Memorandum to James Maeder from
The Team entitled, ‘‘Petitioners’
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production for Ege Celik Endustrisi
Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and Ege Dis
Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik Cost Allegation
Memo), dated February 26, 2007.
In February 2007, the domestic
interested parties alleged that Ege Celik
was engaged in anti–competitive
practices in the home and U.S. markets
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
during the POR, as evidenced by a 2005
finding by the Turkish Government
Competition Board (Competition Board).
As a result, the domestic industry
requested that the Department
determine that Ege Celik is affiliated
with all Turkish rebar producers named
in the Competition Board report and
rescind the new shipper review for it on
the basis of this affiliation finding. In
February and March 2007, we received
comments from Ege Celik on these
allegations, as well as reply comments
from the domestic industry. For further
discussion, see the ‘‘Turkish
Government Competition Board
Finding’’ section below.
In March 2007, the Department
published an extension of the time
period for issuing the preliminary
results of this review by an additional
120 days, or until September 4, 2007, in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). See
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars
from Turkey; Notice of Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
72 FR 13747 (Mar. 23, 2007).
Also in March 2007, we issued an
additional supplemental questionnaire
to Ege Celik. Ege Celik submitted a
response to this questionnaire, as well
as a response to the cost of production
(COP) questionnaire, in April 2007.
In April 2007, the domestic interested
parties submitted a second report by the
Competition Board, which they allege:
1) demonstrates that several rebar
producers/exporters were engaged in
close supplier relationships; and 2)
should be relied upon by the
Department to make a finding that Ege
Celik and other rebar producers/
exporters are affiliated.
We issued supplemental COP
questionnaires in May and June 2007
and received responses in June 2007.
Sales and cost verifications of Ege
Celik were conducted in June and July
2007.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all stock deformed steel concrete
reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths
and coils. This includes all hot–rolled
deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,
rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel.
It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)
rebar that a processor has further
worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated
rebar. Deformed rebar is currently
classifiable under subheadings
7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 174 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51595-51598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17749]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-533-810)
Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the 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 sales of
stainless steel bar from India with respect to eight producers/
exporters. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results of this review. We have noted the
changes made since the preliminary results below in the ``Changes Since
the Preliminary Results'' section, below. The final results are listed
below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 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
and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published 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,
72 FR 10151 (March 7, 2007) (``Preliminary Results'') in the Federal
Register.
On March 14, 2007, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to
respondent Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd (``Bhansali'') to correct
information contained in the initial questionnaire responses. On March
28, 2007, we received a timely response to this questionnaire from
Bhansali. On April 5, 2007, we met with counsel for 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'') to discuss the review-specific
average rate applied at the Preliminary Results to the respondents that
were not selected for individual examination in the review by the
Department.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the Preliminary Results, the Department applied the
review-specific, average rate to the following respondents: Isibars
Limited, Grand Foundry, Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited, Snowdrop
Trading Pvt. Ltd., Facor Steels, Ltd., and Mukand Ltd. See the
Preliminary Results at 10157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2007, Bhansali submitted a listing of pre-verification
corrections to its home market sales listing. On July 5, 2007, the
Department published in the Federal Register an extension of the time
limit for the final results in the antidumping duty administrative
review to no later than September 4, 2007, in accordance with
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 36668
(July 5, 2007).
On July 24, 2007, we notified interested parties that comments on
the Preliminary Results were due on July 31, 2007, and rebuttal
comments were due on August 10, 2007. See Memorandum to the File,
``Briefing Schedule for Comments on the Preliminary Results in the
2005/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar
from India,'' dated July 24, 2007. On July 25, 2007, we requested that
Bhansali and Venus submit revised sales and cost listings to the
Department. We received revised home market sales listings from Venus,
and revised sales and cost listings from Bhansali in August 2007.
On July 31, 2007, we received case briefs from the petitioners and
Bhansali. On August 2, 2007, we rejected Bhansali's case brief, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d)(i) of the Department's regulations,
because it contained new and untimely filed information. On August 4,
2007, we received a revised case brief from Bhansali. On August 6,
2007, we received a rebuttal brief from Bhansali. On August 10, 2007,
the petitioners and interested parties Facor Steels, Ltd. (``Facor'')
and Mukand Ltd. (``Mukand'') filed rebuttal briefs. We did not receive
comments from Venus. The Department did not receive a request for a
public hearing from interested parties.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of stainless steel bar
(``SSB''). SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths
that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-
rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid
cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles,
segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire,
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other
deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and
angles, shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of
[[Page 51596]]
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 Central Records Unit (``CRU'')
located in room B-099 of the main Department building. See also Notice
of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification
of the sales information contained in the questionnaire responses
submitted by respondent Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus'') in
Mumbai, India, in May 2007. The Department reported its findings on
July 24, 2007. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales
Responses of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. in the 2005/2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from
India,'' (``Verification Report--Venus'') dated July 24, 2007.
We also conducted verification of the sales and cost information
contained in the questionnaire responses submitted by Bhansali in May
2007. The Department reported its findings on July 24, 2007. See
Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales and Cost Responses
of Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. in the 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India,''
(``Verification Report--Bhansali'') dated July 24, 2007. These reports
are on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main
Department building (``CRU'').
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 2005, through January
31, 2006.
Partial Rescission of Review
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded
this review with respect to Akai Asian (``Akai''), Atlas Stainless
(``Atlas'') and Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (``Meltroll'') pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department confirmed that Akai, Atlas, and
Meltroll did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during
the POR using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data. We did
not receive comments on this issue. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Preliminary Results, we are
rescinding this review with respect to Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll.
Affiliation
As explained in the Preliminary Results, we have determined that
Venus and its 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 find that Venus and Precision
Metals 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.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the September 4, 2007, Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Stainless Steel Bar from India (``Decision Memorandum''), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix
is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have
responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the
Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments
received, we have made adjustments to the preliminary results
calculations for Bhansali and Venus. Brief descriptions of the company-
specific changes are discussed below.
Bhansali
Based upon the information obtained at verification, we are
deducting billing adjustments from the gross unit price on certain home
market sales. We are also reducing billing adjustments for the portion
attributable to taxes included in the invoice price. We are deducting
from U.S. gross unit price the per-unit certificate of origin expenses
incurred on export sales. We are using the cost information provided by
Bhansali in its March 28, 2007, submission for certain products that
did not have cost data in the Preliminary Results.
Venus
We are using Venus' revised home market sales listing submitted on
August 13, 2007, which included the verified recalculated credit
expenses.
Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of 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.''
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an
extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the
Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire
POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, 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.
For Bhansali and Venus, we found that, for certain products, more
than 20 percent of comparison market sales were at prices less than the
COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period
of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made
at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through
January 31, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd............. 2.01
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd............ 0.03 (de minimis)
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to
the Following Companies:\2\
[[Page 51597]]
Isibars Limited...................
Grand Foundry, Ltd................
Sindia Steels Limited.............
Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd.........
Facor Steels, Ltd.................
Mukand Ltd........................ 2.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated
for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de
minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.
Assessment Rates
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 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 applies 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 calculated a
weighted-average assessment rate based on all importer-specific
assessment rates excluding any which are zero, de minimis or determined
entirely on adverse facts available. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada, 70 FR 73437, 73440 (December 12, 2005). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Rates
The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all
shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption, effective on or after the publication date of these final
results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed company will be
the rate listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a
company's weighted-average margin is de minimis; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a
previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review,
or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the ``all
others'' rate established in the less than fair value investigation.
See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These cash
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 51598]]
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum
General Comments
Comment 1: Application of Review-Specific Rate to Non-Reviewed
Companies
Comment 2: Treatment of Sales Made Above Normal Value
Comments Relating to Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.
Comment 3: Treatment of DEPB Application Charges
Comment 4: Comment on Verification: Correct Payment Date
Comment 5: Comment on Verification: Correct Gross Unit Price
Comment 6: Inclusion of Implied Interest on Non-Interest Bearing Loans
Comment 7: Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses
Comment 8: Treatment of Billing Adjustments
Comments Relating to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Comment 9: Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses
[FR Doc. E7-17749 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
