Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 72671-72674 [E7-24856]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72671-72674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24856]



[[Page 72671]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting a 
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar 
from India manufactured and exported by Ambica Steels Limited 
(``Ambica''). The period of review is February 1, 2006, through July 
31, 2006. In these final results, we have determined to apply adverse 
facts available.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri 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) 482-3853 
and (202) 482-0182, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 23, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India. See Stainless 
Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 72 FR 40113 (July 23, 2007). Following the preliminary 
results, we conducted verification of Ambica's sales and costs in New 
Delhi, India, from September 24, 2007, through October 5, 2007. We 
invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results, and 
the Department's verification findings. On November 26, 2007, we 
received a case brief from Ambica. On November 28, 2007, we received a 
rebuttal brief from Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater 
Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, 
Inc. (collectively, ``the Petitioners'').

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 2006, through July 
31, 2006.

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 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).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the December 14, 2007, ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the New Shipper 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 Central 
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (``CRU''). In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Web at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the 
``Act''), as amended, we conducted verification of Ambica's sales and 
costs in New Delhi, India, from September 24, 2007, through October 5, 
2007. See Memorandum from Brandon Farlander and Devta Ohri to the File: 
Verification of the Sales and Cost Response of Ambica Steels Limited in 
the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India, 
dated November 16, 2007 (``Verification Report'').

Bona Fide Analysis

    Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated whether 
the U.S. transaction reported by Ambica during the POR was a bona fide 
sale. Among the factors examined was the relationship between Ambica 
and its reported U.S. customer. See Memorandum from Devta Ohri, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst to the File entitled, ``Bona 
Fide Nature of Ambica Steels Limited's Sales in the New Shipper Review 
for Stainless Steel Bar from India,'' dated July 17, 2007, on file in 
room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. We also 
examined the bona fide nature of Ambica's sale at verification. See 
Verification Report. Based on our investigation, we continue to find 
that Ambica's sale was made on a bona fide basis. See Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.

Application of Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority, (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) 
provides such

[[Page 72672]]

information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 
section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department shall promptly inform the person 
submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to 
the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to 
remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits 
established for the completion of the administrative review. Section 
782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to 
consider information determined to be ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if all of the following requirements are met: (1) the 
information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party has failed to co-operate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information, the Department may use an inference adverse to the 
interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103- 316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870 
(SAA), reflects the Department's practice that it may employ an adverse 
inference ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate to the best of its ability than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' It also instructs the Department to consider, 
in employing adverse inferences, ``the extent to which a party may 
benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' Id.
    We determine that Ambica's home market sales database submitted on 
May 11, 2007, (entitled ``ASLIHM02'') cannot serve as the basis for 
calculating a margin for Ambica because we are unable to depend on the 
accuracy and reliability of the information in this database. In our 
questionnaire, we described the form and manner in which the respondent 
should report its sales data. Specifically, we stated:
    For sales of merchandise that have been shipped to the customer 
and invoiced by the time this response is prepared, each ``record'' 
in the computer data file should correspond to an invoice line item 
(i.e., each unique product included on the invoice). For sales of 
merchandise that have not yet been shipped and invoiced (in whole or 
in part) to the customer, a ``record'' should correspond to the 
unshipped portion of the sale.
See Questionnaire, dated September 26, 2006, at B-27, and C-57 
(emphasis added). In addition, our questionnaire also instructed Ambica 
to
    Report the unit price recorded on the invoice for sales shipped 
and invoiced in whole or in part. To report portions of sales not 
shipped, provide the agreed unit sale price for the quantity that 
will be shipped to complete the order. This value should be the 
gross price for a single unit of measure. Discounts and rebates 
should be reported separately in fields numbered 19.n and 20.n, 
respectively.
See Questionnaire, dated September 26, 2006, at B-40 to B-41, and C-70 
to C-71 (emphasis added).
    Despite these clear instructions in the Department's Questionnaire, 
we found at verification that Ambica did not report its home market 
(``HM'') sales as instructed. Specifically, at verification, the 
Department discovered that for a certain number of HM invoices, Ambica 
incorrectly reported weighted-average gross unit prices by grade, 
regardless of the control numbers (``CONNUM'') captured by that grade, 
instead of the actual gross unit prices listed on Ambica's invoices. 
See Verification Report at 21-23, and 25-26. Ambica officials stated 
that this error occurred because Ambica did not include size as part of 
the CONNUM when it first reported its HM sales database. See 
Verification Report at 21. Ambica made this error despite being 
instructed to consider all CONNUM characteristics, including size, in 
the Department's original questionnaire, dated September 26, 2006. 
Furthermore, Ambica failed to correct for this error when asked to do 
so in the Department's March 6, 2007, supplemental questionnaire. 
Ambica officials stated that they thought that they had corrected for 
this weighted-average price error in their May 11, 2007, supplemental 
questionnaire response. However, Ambica officials admitted, at 
verification, that Ambica, in fact, had failed to correct the weight-
averaged gross unit prices for CONNUMs on certain invoices.
    For the six-month POR, we examined all invoices issued in April, 
June, and July 2006. For these three months (which constitute half of 
the POR) Ambica's reporting error affected 8 percent, by weight, of 
Ambica's HM sales; and also 8 percent of the invoices. See Memorandum 
from Brandon Farlander and Devta Ohri to the File: Analysis of Ambica's 
Weighted-Average Gross Unit Prices Discovered at Verification, dated 
December 14, 2007. In addition, for certain sales for which Ambica 
incorrectly reported weighted-average gross unit prices, Ambica 
erroneously combined the quantities for two distinct sales of the same 
CONNUM on the same invoice. This resulted in a discrepancy in the 
number of sales reported in Ambica's HM sales database.
    Although we examined numerous invoices, we have insufficient 
information on the record to correct all the discrepancies related to 
the misreporting of gross unit prices. As previously noted, the 
Department examined three of the six months composing Ambica's home 
market sales database. The verification team did not examine the 
remaining three months of the POR, nor was it feasible to do so given 
the time constraints to complete verification. Lacking correct prices 
for the entire POR, we were not able to test whether Ambica's prices 
were below cost using the test described in section 773(b) of the Act. 
In addition, because Ambica incorrectly reported weighted-average gross 
unit prices for certain of its HM sales (instead of the actual gross 
unit price it charged the customer), the reported expenses which are 
based on gross unit prices, such as indirect selling expenses and 
imputed credit expenses, are also incorrect. Therefore, Ambica failed 
to provide information in the form and manner requested in the 
Department's original questionnaire. See section 776(a)(2)(B) of the 
Act.
    In addition, Ambica significantly impeded the new shipper review by 
not providing accurate and necessary information contained in its books 
and records. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The Department can 
decline to consider information Ambica submitted because, as 
demonstrated above, the requirements of sections 782(e)(2) and (3) of 
the Act are not met. Because of these deficiencies, the Department is 
forced to use facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a)(2) 
of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party 
in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstance in Part: Prestressed Concrete 
Steel Wire Strand From

[[Page 72673]]

Mexico, 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003), unchanged in the final 
determination (see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Mexico, 68 FR 68350 
(December 8, 2003)).
    Ambica had the documents necessary to report complete and correct 
information in the necessary and requested manner and format. Also, 
Ambica was given ample opportunities to correct its HM sales database 
but failed to do so. Therefore, we find that Ambica did not act to the 
best of its ability in reporting necessary and accurate information, 
and presenting its data in the requested manner that would enable us to 
calculate a margin. As a result, we find it appropriate to use an 
inference that is adverse to Ambica's interest in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that Ambica will 
not obtain a more favorable rate by failing to cooperate.
    As total AFA, we have assigned to exports of subject merchandise 
produced and exported by Ambica the rate of 22.63 percent, which is the 
rate assigned to Ambica in the Preliminary Results. We find that this 
rate is sufficiently adverse to serve the purposes of facts available, 
explained above, and is appropriate considering that this AFA rate is 
the highest rate previously determined in this proceeding. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 
2004); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Moldova, 67 FR 
55790, 55792 (August 30, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2 (``we are making an adverse inference and 
assigning to MSW the weighted-average margin of 369.10 percent 
calculated for the Preliminary Determination based on MSW's submitted 
information. This rate is the higher of the petition margin 
recalculated for the Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, 
Canada, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, 
Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela, 66 FR 50164, 50165 
(October 2, 2001), or the highest margin calculated in this 
proceeding.'').
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
submitted. See Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554 (February 4, 2000); Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996).
    In selecting the AFA rate for Ambica, we assigned the rate of 22.63 
percent, which was based on information submitted by Ambica in its 
questionnaire responses and database submissions, and remains on the 
record of this new shipper review as a rate higher than the other 
available AFA rates. Because this rate is based on information that was 
provided to us by the respondent, it is not considered to be secondary 
information and, therefore, need not be corroborated. We conclude that 
Ambica's own data continues to be appropriate to effectuate the purpose 
of AFA.

Final Results of Review

    We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period 
February 1, 2006, through July 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambica Steels Limited...............................               22.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. For subject merchandise produced and exported by 
Ambica, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rate indicated 
above. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of 
review.
    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 
period of review 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).

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)(2)(C) 
of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise produced and exported by 
Ambica, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above (except no 
cash deposit will be required if a company's weighted-average margin is 
de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
previous review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but 
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established 
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 
(4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 12.45 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 
28, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

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.

[[Page 72674]]

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 14, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Bona Fide Nature of Ambica's Sale
Comment 2: Weighted-Average Gross Unit Prices and Removal of Size from 
the Department's Control Number--Application of Total Adverse Facts 
Available
Comment 3: Adjustment to Ambica's International Freight Expenses
Comment 4: Inclusion of Excise Taxes in Ambica's Home Market Inland 
Insurance Expenses
Comment 5: Discrepancies (Rounding) Related to Ambica's Gross Unit 
Prices Used to Calculate Ambica's Per-Unit Adjustments
Comment 6: Multiple Payment Dates
[FR Doc. E7-24856 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S