Stainless Steel Bar from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 16839-16842 [E8-6568]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 62 (Monday, March 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16839-16842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6568]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-820]


Stainless Steel Bar from France: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely request by Ascometal, S.A. 
(Ascometal), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel bar (SSB) from France with respect to Ascometal. The period of 
review (POR) is March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007.
    We preliminarily determine that Ascometal did not sell SSB below 
normal value (NV) during the POR. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on the preliminary results. If the preliminary results are 
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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Terre Keaton 
Stefanova, 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) 482-4136 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on SSB from 
France. See Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from France, 67 
FR 10385 (March 7, 2002). On March 2, 2007, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on SSB from 
France for the POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 9505 (March 2, 2007). On March 30 and 
April 2, 2007, Ugitech, S.A. (Ugitech) and Ascometal submitted timely 
letters requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review 
of their sales of SSB made during the POR, pursuant to section 751 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On April 27, 2007, the 
Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review 
with respect to Ascometal and Ugitech. See Initiation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 2007). On April 
30, 2007, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to both companies.
    On May 24, 2007, Ugitech timely withdrew its request for an 
administrative review. The Department published the rescission of the 
administrative review with respect to Ugitech on June 15, 2007. See 
Stainless Steel Bar from France: Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 33202 (June 15, 2007).
    Ascometal submitted responses to sections A, B, and C of the 
Department's questionnaire in June 2007. We issued a supplemental 
questionnaire in July 2007, and received a response to this 
questionnaire later that month. Ascometal provided additional 
information in response to Department requests during November 2007.
    On June 27, 2007, the petitioners\1\ requested that the Department 
initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Ascometal. On August 8, 
2007, we initiated this investigation. See Memorandum to James Maeder, 
Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled ``Petitioners' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Ascometal S.A.,'' 
dated August 8, 2007 (COP Initiation Memo). On August 9, 2007, we 
instructed Ascometal to respond to section D of the Department's 
questionnaire. On September 10, 2007, we granted Ascometal's request to 
report its cost of production (COP) based on the period January 1, 
2006, through December 31, 2006, rather than the POR. Ascometal 
submitted its response to section D of the questionnaire on September 
28, 2007. On October 12, 2007, we issued a supplemental section D 
questionnaire to Ascometal, to which Ascometal submitted its response 
on November 2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners include the following companies: Carpenter 
Technology Corporation; Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible 
Materials Corporation; and Electroalloy Corporation, a Division of 
G.O. Carlson, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 2, 2007, we extended the time limit for the preliminary 
results in this review until March 31, 2008. See Notice of Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Bar From France, 72 FR 62209 (November 2, 
2007).
    We conducted a verification of Ascometal's reported U.S. sales data 
in December 2007, and issued our verification report on February 5, 
2008. In response to our February 6, 2008, request, Ascometal submitted 
a revised U.S. sales database reflecting certain verification 
corrections and findings on February 15, 2008.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the term ``stainless steel bar'' 
includes articles of

[[Page 16840]]

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 stainless steel bars that are 
turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled 
bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that 
have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during 
the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless 
steel sheet, strip or plate, wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do 
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, 
shapes and sections.
    The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSB by Ascometal to the United States 
were made at less than NV, we compared constructed export price (CEP) 
to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section 
below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Ascometal 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. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales to sales made 
in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which 
extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two 
months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of 
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the 
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. 
In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by Ascometal in the 
following order: general type of finish, grade, remelting process, type 
of final finishing operation, shape, and size range.

Constructed Export Price

    We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act 
because the subject merchandise was sold in the United States by 
Ascometal's affiliate, Lucchini USA Inc. (LUSA), to unaffiliated 
purchasers.
    We based CEP on the delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
These expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, transport insurance, 
U.S. inland freight expenses, U.S. customs duties and fees (including 
harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and port 
unloading and sorting charges. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of 
the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (credit expenses, warranty expenses, and credit insurance 
expenses), indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs.
    Ascometal did not report a shipment date and the credit expense for 
one U.S. sale. As facts available under section 776(a)(1) of the Act, 
we calculated the imputed credit expense for this sale by using the 
reported date of sale as the date of shipment and applying the credit 
expense calculation methodology reported in Ascometal's questionnaire 
response. For further discussion, see ``Preliminary Results Notes and 
Margin Calculation for Ascometal, S.A.,'' Memorandum to the File dated 
concurrently with this notice.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    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 volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    Because Ascometal's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that its 
home market was viable. Therefore, we used home market sales as the 
basis for NV in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

B. 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 export price (EP) or CEP. 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. See 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) (Plate from South 
Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison sales are at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
review the distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of 
distribution), including selling functions, 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 LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices), we consider the starting prices before 
any adjustments. Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we 
determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive 
selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, and profit for 
CV, where possible. See 19 CFR 351.412(c). For CEP sales, we consider 
only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction 
of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See id.; Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 
2001). When the Department

[[Page 16841]]

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 or CEP, the Department 
may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison 
market. In comparing EP or CEP sales to sales at a different LOT in the 
comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an 
LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 
sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability (i.e., no LOT 
adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, 
as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South 
Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
    We obtained information from Ascometal regarding the marketing 
stages involved in making the reported comparison market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for 
each channel of distribution.
    Ascometal reported that it made CEP sales to unaffiliated 
distributors in the U.S. market through its U.S. affiliate LUSA in a 
single channel of distribution. We examined the selling activities 
performed for this channel (after deducting expenses and profit 
pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act), and found that Ascometal 
performed the following selling functions: invoicing to LUSA, warranty 
claim services, technical support services, and freight and delivery 
services from France to the U.S. port. These selling activities were 
performed at the same relative level of intensity for all CEP sales. 
Accordingly, we find that all CEP sales constitute one LOT.
    With respect to the home market, Ascometal sold the subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated distributors through a single channel of 
distribution. We examined the selling activities performed for this 
channel, and found that Ascometal performed the following selling 
functions: price negotiations with customers, invoicing to customers, 
warranty claim services, and freight and delivery services from the 
factory to the customer. These selling activities were performed at the 
same relative level of intensity for all home market sales. 
Accordingly, we find that all home market sales constitute one LOT.
    Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for home market customers are 
virtually the same as performed for U.S. customers, and that these 
selling functions were performed at the same relative level of 
intensity, with the exception of price negotiation and technical 
support services. The fact that Ascometal conducts price negotiations 
only for home market sales and performs technical support services only 
for U.S. sales is not sufficient to conclude that the home market and 
U.S. sales were made at a different LOT. Furthermore, Ascometal stated 
at page B-18 of its June 20, 2007, response to section B of the 
questionnaire that it ``does not believe there to be a difference in 
levels of trade between the home and U.S. markets.'' Therefore, we 
conclude that Ascometal's U.S. and home market sales were made at the 
same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset under 
section 773(a)(7) of the Act is warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioners' allegations that 
Ascometal made home market sales below the COP, we found that there 
were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ascometal's sales of 
SSB in the home market were made at prices below their COP. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a 
sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether Ascometal's sales 
were made at prices below their respective COPs. See COP Initiation 
Memo.
A. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated 
Ascometal's COP based on the sum of Ascometal's costs of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses and interest expenses (see ``Test of Home 
Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home market 
selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by 
Ascometal in its most recent supplemental section D questionnaire 
response, dated November 2, 2007, for the COP calculation.
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale 
prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP 
exclusive of selling expenses. The prices (inclusive of billing 
adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable 
movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses, as 
described below under the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ascometal reported that it did not incur any packing 
expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Results of the COP Test
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act whether: (1) within an extended period 
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such 
sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where 
less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given 
product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-
cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances 
the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time 
and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we disregard the below-cost sales because: (1) they were made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    We found that less than 20 percent of Ascometal's home market sales 
of a given product were at prices less than the COP. Accordingly, we 
did not disregard any below-cost sales in determining NV.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting 
price for billing adjustments. See 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made 
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland 
freight and inland insurance, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the 
Act.
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for 
imputed credit expenses and liability insurance premium expenses.

[[Page 16842]]

    Ascometal did not incur packing costs in either the U.S. or home 
market. Accordingly, no adjustment was warranted under section 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions 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 certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for the period March 1, 2006, through 
February 28, 2007, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascometal S.A.......................................                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a 
statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a 
table of authorities.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone 
number; 2) the number of participants; and 3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. 
The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the 
companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after 
publication of the final results of this review.
    For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem 
duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping 
margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this 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) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in this 
review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the 
merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading 
company, or exporter) 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 intermediary involved in 
the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of 
this clarification.

Discontinuation of Cash Deposit Requirements

    On January 31, 2008, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (i.e., as a result of 
a five-year ``sunset'' review), that revocation of the antidumping duty 
order on the subject merchandise would not be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Stainless Steel 
Bar From France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and The United Kingdom, 73 FR 
5869 (January 31, 2008). Accordingly, the antidumping duty order on SSB 
from France was revoked effective March 7, 2007. See Revocation of 
Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, 
Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom and the Countervailing Duty 
Order on Stainless Steel Bar From Italy, 73 FR 7258 (February 7, 2008). 
As a result, we have instructed CBP to discontinue collection of cash 
deposits of antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise 
made on or after March 7, 2007.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: March 25, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-6568 File 3-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S