Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75398-75400 [E8-29410]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75398
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 239 / Thursday, December 11, 2008 / Notices
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of
this notice of final results of
administrative review for all shipments
of purified CMC from Finland entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act): 1) The cash deposit
rate for CP Kelco will be the rate
established in the final results of this
review; 2) for previously 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 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) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be the all-others rate of
6.65 percent from the LTFV
investigation. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified
Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland,
Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden,
70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). These cash
deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until further notice.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
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 or countervailing 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 (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Dec 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation that issubject to
sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Robinson or George McMahon at
(202) 482–3797 or (202) 482–1167,
respectively; Office of AD/CVD
Operations 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 6, 2008, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the sixth
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSPC from
Belgium. See Preliminary Results. On
September 15, 2008, the Department
published a notice extending the
deadline of the final results to December
3, 2008. See Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils From Belgium: Extension of Time
Limit for Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
53190 (September 15, 2008). Since the
Preliminary Results, the following
events have occurred. On October 17,
2008, the Department issued a Post–
Preliminary Determination which
applied an alternative cost–averaging
methodology. See Memorandum from
Angela Strom to Neal Halper titled,
‘‘Proposed Adjustments to the Cost of
Production and Constructed Value
Data–Ugine and ALZ Belgium,’’ dated
October 17, 2008 (Post–Preliminary
Determination).
The Department extended the briefing
schedule to provide interested parties
an opportunity to comment on the post–
preliminary results. Case and rebuttal
briefs were timely filed by the
respondent, U&A Belgium, and
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North
American Stainless, United Auto
Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco
Independent Organization, and the
United Steelworkers of America, AFL–
CIO/CLC (collectively, the petitioners).1
The issues raised in all case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the memorandum titled, ‘‘Issues and
Decisions for the Final Results of the
Sixth Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium (2006–
2007)’’, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration (December 3,
2008) (Decision Memorandum), which
is hereby adopted by this notice. A list
of the issues addressed in the Decision
Memorandum is appended to this
notice. The Decision Memorandum is
on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), room 1117 of the Department of
1 Case briefs and rebuttal briefs were submitted by
the following domestic interested parties and
respondent: on October 24, 2008, the petitioners
filed a case brief (the Petitioners’ Case Brief); on
October 29, 2008, the petitioners filed a rebuttal
brief (the Petitioners’ Rebuttal Brief); on October 24,
2008, U&A Belgium submitted a case brief (U&A
Belgium’s Case Brief); and on October 29, 2008,
U&A Belgium submitted a rebuttal brief (U&A
Belgium’s Rebuttal Brief).
Dated: December 4, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
Comments:
Comment 1: Whether to Increase CP
Kelco Oy’s Cost of Production for
Shut-down Costs Incurred by its
Swedish Affiliate
[FR Doc. E8–29388 Filed 12–10–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–423–808)
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 6, 2008, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC)
from Belgium. See Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 32298
(June 6, 2008) (Preliminary Results).
This review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise:
Ugine & ALZ Belgium (U&A Belgium).
The period of review (POR) is May 1,
2006, through April 30, 2007.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes to the Preliminary Results. For
the final dumping margins see the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section
below.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
December 11, 2008.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 239 / Thursday, December 11, 2008 / Notices
Commerce main building and can be
accessed directly at (https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/). The
paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The product covered by this order is
certain stainless steel plate in coils.
Stainless steel is an alloy steel
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or
less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more
of chromium, with or without other
elements. The subject plate products are
flat–rolled products, 254 mm or over in
width and 4.75 mm or more in
thickness, in coils, and annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled. The subject plate
may also be further processed (e.g.,
cold–rolled, polished, etc.) provided
that it maintains the specified
dimensions of plate following such
processing. Excluded from the scope of
this order are the following: (1) Plate not
in coils; (2) Plate that is not annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled; (3) Sheet and strip;
and (4) Flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) at subheadings:
7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60,
7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21,
7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51,
7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66,
7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81,
7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10,
7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80,
7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10,
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60,
7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05,
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15,
7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80,
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15,
7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise subject to these orders is
dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes in the calculations for the final
dumping margin. The changes made
since the Preliminary Results are listed
under the ‘‘List of Issues’’ which is
appended to this notice. The changes
are discussed in detail in the
memorandum to the File Through James
Terpstra from George McMahon titled,
‘‘Analysis Memorandum for Ugine &
ALZ, N.V. Belgium for the Final Results
of the Sixth Administrative Review of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Dec 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (SSPC)
from Belgium,’’ dated December 3, 2008
(Final Sales Analysis Memorandum),
and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper
from Angela Strom titled, ‘‘Cost of
Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Final
Results – Ugine and ALZ Belgium,’’
dated December 3, 2008 (Final Cost
Calculation Memorandum).
On January 28, 2008, U&A Belgium
requested that the Department use
quarterly weighted–average costs in its
antidumping analysis arguing that the
Department’s normal annual average
cost approach would result in
distortions and inappropriate
comparisons in our margin calculation.
On May 9, 2008, the Department issued
a general request for comment on the
issue of shorter cost averaging periods
in a Federal Register notice with a
deadline for submission of comments of
June 9, 2008.2 The preliminary results of
this administrative review were due
prior to the comment deadline; thus, we
found it was appropriate to follow our
normal methodology of using U&A
Belgium’s annual weighted–average
costs in our margin calculation. See
Preliminary Results. However, we stated
in the Preliminary Results that we
intended to consider this issue further
and provide a memorandum discussing
the results of our analysis in order to
give parties an opportunity to comment
before the final results.
On October 17, 2008, we provided a
post–preliminary calculation
memorandum, which disclosed our
intention to adopt an alternative cost
averaging methodology in these final
results. See Post–Preliminary
Determination. In the Post–Preliminary
Determination, the Department
concluded that our alternative cost
averaging approach is warranted in this
case for the following reasons: 1) the
changes in the cost of manufacturing
experienced by U&A Belgium during the
POR was clearly significant; and, 2) that
the alloy surcharge mechanism
demonstrates that costs were reasonably
linked to sales prices during the POR.
We have made no cost adjustments to
our post–preliminary calculations in
these final results.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
determine that the following weighted–
2 See Antidumping Methodologies for
Proceedings that Involve Significant Cost Changes
Throughout the Period of Investigation (POI)/Period
of Review (POR) that May Require Using Shorter
Cost Averaging Periods; Request for Comment, 73
FR 26364 (May 9, 2008) (Antidumping
Methodologies; Request for Comment).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75399
average margin exists for the period May
1, 2006, through April 30, 2007:
Manufacturer/Exporter
Ugine & ALZ Belgium ...
Margin (percent)
7.53
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and
CBP shall assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department
calculates an assessment rate for each
importer of the subject merchandise for
each respondent. Upon issuance of the
final results of this administrative
review, if any importer–specific
assessment rates calculated in the final
results are above de minimis (i.e., at or
above 0.5 percent), the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly
to CBP to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty
assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to that importer or customer
and dividing this amount by the total
value of the sales to that importer (or
customer). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, and the
respondent has reported reliable entered
values, we apply the assessment rate to
the entered value of the importer’s/
customer’s entries during the review
period. Where an importer (or
customer)- specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis and we do not
have reliable entered values, we
calculate a per–unit assessment rate by
aggregating the dumping duties due for
all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by
the total quantity sold to that importer
(or customer). The Department will
issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of
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). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by the respondent for which
it did not know its merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
75400
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 239 / Thursday, December 11, 2008 / Notices
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). The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of these final results of
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following antidumping duty
deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of SSPC from Belgium entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of these final results, as provided
for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for
U&A Belgium, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established in the final
results of this review; (2) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, but
was covered in a previous review or the
original less–than-fair–value (LTFV)
investigation, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate established for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review,
or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered by this
review, a prior review, or the LTFV
investigation, the cash deposit rate will
be 9.86 percent ad valorem, the ‘‘all–
others’’ rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31,
1999). These deposit rates, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Dec 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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 sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 3, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
APPENDIX
Background
List of Issues
Comment 1: Whether the Disallowance
of Offsets for Non–Dumped Sales is in
Accordance with the Statute and the
International Obligations of the United
States
Comment 2: Whether to Revise the Date
of Sale for Certain Home Market Sales
Comment 3: Whether to Incorporate the
Department’s Findings in the Ongoing
Scope Inquiry
Comment 4: Whether to apply an
Alternative Cost–Averaging
Methodology
[FR Doc. E8–29410 Filed 12–10–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
International Trade Administration
(A–475–818)
Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of
Final Results of the Eleventh
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2008, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the eleventh administrative
review for the antidumping duty order
on certain pasta from Italy. The review
covers four manufacturers/exporters: F.
Divella SpA (Divella), Pasta Zara SpA 1
and Pasta Zara SpA 2 (collectively,
Zara), Pastificio Di Martino Gaetano & F.
lli SrL (Gaetano), and Pastificio Felicetti
SrL (Felicetti). The period of review
(POR) is July 1, 2006, through June 30,
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
On August 6, 2008, the Department
published the preliminary results of the
eleventh administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain pasta
from Italy. See Certain Pasta from Italy:
Notice of Preliminary Results of
Eleventh Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 45716
(August 6, 2008) (Preliminary Results).
Petitioners2, Divella, and Zara
submitted case briefs on October 20,
2008, and rebuttal briefs on October 27,
2008. On August 15, 2008, Divella and
Zara requested a hearing. A public
hearing was held on October 29, 2008.
Scope of the Order
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PO 00000
2007. Divella and Zara were selected as
mandatory respondents.1
As a result of our analysis of the
comments received, the final results
differ from the preliminary results for
Zara, Gaetano and Felicetti. The final
weighted–average dumping margins for
these companies are listed below in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Moore (Zara) and Christopher
Hargett (Divella), AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–3692 and (202) 482–4161,
respectively.
Sfmt 4703
Imports covered by this order are
shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta
in packages of five pounds four ounces
or less, whether or not enriched or
fortified or containing milk or other
optional ingredients such as chopped
vegetables, vegetable purees, milk,
gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and
flavorings, and up to two percent egg
white. The pasta covered by this scope
is typically sold in the retail market, in
fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or
polyethylene or polypropylene bags of
varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of this order
are refrigerated, frozen, or canned
pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta,
with the exception of non–egg dry pasta
containing up to two percent egg white.
Also excluded are imports of organic
1 See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director,
Office 3, from Team regarding Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review, October 15,
2007.
2 Petitioners are New World Pasta Company,
Dakota Growers Pasta Company, and American
Italian Pasta Company.
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 239 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75398-75400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29410]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-423-808)
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on
stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium. See Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 32298 (June 6, 2008) (Preliminary
Results). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject
merchandise: Ugine & ALZ Belgium (U&A Belgium). The period of review
(POR) is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes to the Preliminary Results. For the final dumping margins see
the ``Final Results of Review'' section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson or George McMahon at
(202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively; Office of AD/CVD
Operations 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSPC from Belgium. See Preliminary Results.
On September 15, 2008, the Department published a notice extending the
deadline of the final results to December 3, 2008. See Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 53190 (September 15,
2008). Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have
occurred. On October 17, 2008, the Department issued a Post-Preliminary
Determination which applied an alternative cost-averaging methodology.
See Memorandum from Angela Strom to Neal Halper titled, ``Proposed
Adjustments to the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data-Ugine
and ALZ Belgium,'' dated October 17, 2008 (Post-Preliminary
Determination).
The Department extended the briefing schedule to provide interested
parties an opportunity to comment on the post-preliminary results. Case
and rebuttal briefs were timely filed by the respondent, U&A Belgium,
and Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto
Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, and the
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, the
petitioners).\1\
The issues raised in all case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the memorandum titled,
``Issues and Decisions for the Final Results of the Sixth
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Belgium (2006-2007)'', from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration (December 3, 2008) (Decision Memorandum), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the
Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the
Department of
[[Page 75399]]
Commerce main building and can be accessed directly at (https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/). The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or
without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-
rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope
of this order are the following: (1) Plate not in coils; (2) Plate that
is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled; (3) Sheet and strip; and (4) Flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06,
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56,
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is
dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes in the calculations for the final dumping margin. The changes
made since the Preliminary Results are listed under the ``List of
Issues'' which is appended to this notice. The changes are discussed in
detail in the memorandum to the File Through James Terpstra from George
McMahon titled, ``Analysis Memorandum for Ugine & ALZ, N.V. Belgium for
the Final Results of the Sixth Administrative Review of Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils (SSPC) from Belgium,'' dated December 3, 2008 (Final
Sales Analysis Memorandum), and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from
Angela Strom titled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results - Ugine and ALZ
Belgium,'' dated December 3, 2008 (Final Cost Calculation Memorandum).
On January 28, 2008, U&A Belgium requested that the Department use
quarterly weighted-average costs in its antidumping analysis arguing
that the Department's normal annual average cost approach would result
in distortions and inappropriate comparisons in our margin calculation.
On May 9, 2008, the Department issued a general request for comment on
the issue of shorter cost averaging periods in a Federal Register
notice with a deadline for submission of comments of June 9, 2008.\2\
The preliminary results of this administrative review were due prior to
the comment deadline; thus, we found it was appropriate to follow our
normal methodology of using U&A Belgium's annual weighted-average costs
in our margin calculation. See Preliminary Results. However, we stated
in the Preliminary Results that we intended to consider this issue
further and provide a memorandum discussing the results of our analysis
in order to give parties an opportunity to comment before the final
results.
On October 17, 2008, we provided a post-preliminary calculation
memorandum, which disclosed our intention to adopt an alternative cost
averaging methodology in these final results. See Post-Preliminary
Determination. In the Post-Preliminary Determination, the Department
concluded that our alternative cost averaging approach is warranted in
this case for the following reasons: 1) the changes in the cost of
manufacturing experienced by U&A Belgium during the POR was clearly
significant; and, 2) that the alloy surcharge mechanism demonstrates
that costs were reasonably linked to sales prices during the POR. We
have made no cost adjustments to our post-preliminary calculations in
these final results.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average margin exists for the period May 1, 2006, through
April 30, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugine & ALZ Belgium................................. 7.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the
subject merchandise for each respondent. Upon issuance of the final
results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific
assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis
(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or
customer)- specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing
this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or
customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an
importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). The Department will
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of 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). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-
[[Page 75400]]
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). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15
days after publication of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of SSPC from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final
results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for U&A
Belgium, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the
final results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate established for the most
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this
review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit
rate will be 9.86 percent ad valorem, the ``all-others'' rate
established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999). These deposit
rates, 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.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 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 sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 3, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX
List of Issues
Comment 1: Whether the Disallowance of Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales is
in Accordance with the Statute and the International Obligations of the
United States
Comment 2: Whether to Revise the Date of Sale for Certain Home Market
Sales
Comment 3: Whether to Incorporate the Department's Findings in the
Ongoing Scope Inquiry
Comment 4: Whether to apply an Alternative Cost-Averaging Methodology
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Case briefs and rebuttal briefs were submitted by the
following domestic interested parties and respondent: on October 24,
2008, the petitioners filed a case brief (the Petitioners' Case
Brief); on October 29, 2008, the petitioners filed a rebuttal brief
(the Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief); on October 24, 2008, U&A Belgium
submitted a case brief (U&A Belgium's Case Brief); and on October
29, 2008, U&A Belgium submitted a rebuttal brief (U&A Belgium's
Rebuttal Brief).
\2\ See Antidumping Methodologies for Proceedings that Involve
Significant Cost Changes Throughout the Period of Investigation
(POI)/Period of Review (POR) that May Require Using Shorter Cost
Averaging Periods; Request for Comment, 73 FR 26364 (May 9, 2008)
(Antidumping Methodologies; Request for Comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-29410 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
