Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 6627-6631 [2010-2987]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices
discussed in the statement. Reviewers
may wish to refer to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions
of the National Environmental Policy
Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing
these points.
In the final EIS, the Forest Service is
required to respond to substantive
comments and responses received
during the comment period that pertain
to the environmental consequences
discussed in the draft EIS and
applicable laws, regulations, and
policies considered in making a
decision regarding the proposal. The
Responsible Official will document the
decision and rationale for the decision
in a Record of Decision. The final EIS
is scheduled for completion in
September, 2010. The decision will be
subject to review under Forest Service
Appeal Regulations.
Dated: January 29, 2010.
Robert G. MacWhorter,
Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest.
Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR
71902. (501–321–5318).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting is open to the public.
Committee discussion is limited to
Forest Service staff, Committee
members, and elected officials.
However, persons who wish to bring
matters to the attention of the
Committee may file written statements
with the Committee staff before or after
the meeting. Individuals wishing to
speak or propose agenda items must
send their names and proposals to Bill
Pell, DFO, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs,
AR 71902.
Dated: February 3, 2010.
Bill Pell,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2010–2762 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–52–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
[FR Doc. 2010–2516 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
[Docket No. 0907141137–0079–07]
RIN 0660–ZA28
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program
Forest Service
Ouachita-Ozark Resource Advisory
Committee
Forest Service, USDA.
Meeting notice for the OuachitaOzark Resource Advisory Committee
under Section 205 of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self
Determination Act of 2000, as part of
Public Law 110–343.
AGENCY:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This notice is published in
accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Meeting notice is hereby given for the
Ouachita-Ozark Resource Advisory
Committee pursuant to Section 205 of
the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self Determination Act of
2000 as part of Public Law 110–343.
Topics to be discussed include: General
information, proposals, updates on
current or completed Title II projects,
and next meeting agenda.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
March 2, 2010, beginning at 5:45 p.m.
and ending at approximately 9 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Janet Huckabee Arkansas River
Valley Nature Center, 8300 Wells Lake
Road, Barling, Arkansas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caroline Mitchell, Committee
Coordinator, USDA, Ouachita National
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:21 Feb 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
AGENCY: National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice announcing OMB
approval of an information collection
and publication of an OMB Control
Number.
SUMMARY: The National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) announces that
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the collection of
information contained in the Notice of
Funds Availability (NOFA) for the
Broadband Opportunities Program
(BTOP) published on January 22, 2010.
FOR FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION: For
general inquiries regarding BTOP,
contact Anthony Wilhelm, Director,
BTOP, Office of Telecommunications
and Information Applications, National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce (DOC), 1401 Constitution
Avenue, NW., HCHB, Room 4887,
Washington, DC 20230; Help Desk email: BroadbandUSA@usda.gov, Help
Desk telephone: 1–877–508–8364.
Additional information regarding BTOP
may be obtained at https://
www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 22, 2010, NTIA published a
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6627
Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) (75
FR 3792) announcing general policy and
application procedures for the
Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program (BTOP) established pursuant to
the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In
this second round of funding, NTIA will
award grants in three categories of
eligible projects: Comprehensive
Community Infrastructure (CCI), Public
Computer Centers (PCC), and
Sustainable Broadband Adoption (SBA).
The application requirements for the
BTOP contained in the NOFA are an
information collection subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). However, NTIA indicated
in the NOFA that the information
collection associated with BTOP had
not yet been approved by OMB and that
it would publish a subsequent notice in
the Federal Register when that event
occurred.
By this notice, NTIA announces that
OMB approved the amendment to the
information collection approved under
OMB Control Number 0660–0031. The
expiration date for this information
collection is July 31, 2010. This
collection of information was approved
by OMB in accordance with the
emergency processing provisions under
5 CFR 1320.13 to allow NTIA to fulfill
its ARRA requirements.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person is required to respond to,
nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection displays a currently valid
OMB Control Number.
Dated: February 5, 2010.
Kathy D. Smith,
Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–2967 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–822]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
From Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 7, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
6628
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip (S4) in coils from
Mexico. See Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils From Mexico; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not
To Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 39622
(August 7, 2009) (Preliminary Results).
This review covers sales of subject
merchandise made by ThyssenKrupp
Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox) for the
period July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008.
Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we have made changes to the
margin calculation; therefore, the final
results differ from the preliminary
results. The final weighted-average
dumping margin for the reviewed firm
is listed below in the section entitled
‘‘Final Results of Review.’’
DATES: Effective Date: February 10,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Edwards, Brian Davis, or
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–8029, (202) 482–
7924, and (202) 482–3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 7, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on S4 in coils from Mexico for the
period July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008.
See Preliminary Results. In response to
the Department’s invitation to comment
on the preliminary results of this
review, Mexinox submitted a request for
a public hearing and a case brief on
September 4, 2009, and September 15,
2009, respectively. See Letter from
respondent titled ‘‘Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Mexico—
Request for Hearing,’’ dated September
4, 2009; see also Case Brief from
respondent titled ‘‘Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Mexico—Case
Brief,’’ dated September 15, 2009.
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK
Steel Corporation, and North American
Stainless (collectively referred to as
petitioner), submitted their rebuttal brief
on September 24, 2009. See Letter from
petitioner, titled ‘‘Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Mexico—
Petitioner’s Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated
September 24, 2009. A public hearing
was held on October 2, 2009. See
Transcript of ‘‘In the Matter of: The
Administrative Review of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:21 Feb 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Mexico’’ dated October 9, 2009. On
December 9, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register our
notice extending the time limit for this
review until February 3, 2010. See
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Mexico: Extension of Time Limit
for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 65100
(December 9, 2009).
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is July 1,
2007, to June 30, 2008.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the
products covered are certain stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless
steel is 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
sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in
coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in
width and less than 4.75 mm in
thickness, and that is annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled. The subject sheet
and strip may also be further processed
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized,
coated, etc.) provided that it maintains
the specific dimensions of sheet and
strip following such processing.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) at subheadings:
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51,
7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81,
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65,
7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05,
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25,
7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36,
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42,
7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05,
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25,
7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36,
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42,
7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05,
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25,
7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35,
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15,
7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20,
7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00,
7220.12.50.00, 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,
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10,
7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60,
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00,
7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60,
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department’s written
description of the merchandise subject
to the order is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are the following: (1) Sheet and strip
that is not annealed or otherwise heat
treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut
to length; (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled
stainless steel products of a thickness of
4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e.,
cold-rolled sections, with a prepared
edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of
not more than 9.5 mm); and (5) razor
blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flatrolled product of stainless steel, not
further worked than cold-rolled (coldreduced), in coils, of a width of not
more than 23 mm and a thickness of
0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight,
12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and
certified at the time of entry to be used
in the manufacture of razor blades. See
Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional
U.S. Note’’ 1(d).
In response to comments by interested
parties, the Department has determined
that certain specialty stainless steel
products are also excluded from the
scope of the order. These excluded
products are described below.
Flapper valve steel is defined as
stainless steel strip in coils containing,
by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43
percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35
percent molybdenum, and between 0.20
and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel
also contains, by weight, phosphorus of
0.025 percent or less, silicon of between
0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of
0.020 percent or less. The product is
manufactured by means of vacuum arc
remelting, with inclusion controls for
sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent
and for oxide of no more than 0.05
percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile
strength of between 210 and 300 ksi,
yield strength of between 170 and 270
ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper
valve steel is most commonly used to
produce specialty flapper valves for
compressors.
Also excluded is a product referred to
as suspension foil, a specialty steel
product used in the manufacture of
suspension assemblies for computer
disk drives. Suspension foil is described
as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless
steel of a thickness between 14 and 127
microns, with a thickness tolerance of
plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface
glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs.
Suspension foil must be supplied in coil
widths of not more than 407 mm, and
with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices
may only be visible on one side, with
no scratches of measurable depth. The
material must exhibit residual stresses
of 2 mm maximum deflection, and
flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.
Certain stainless steel foil for
automotive catalytic converters is also
excluded from the scope of the order.
This stainless steel strip in coils is a
specialty foil with a thickness of
between 20 and 110 microns used to
produce a metallic substrate with a
honeycomb structure for use in
automotive catalytic converters. The
steel contains, by weight, carbon of no
more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no
more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no
more than 1.0 percent, chromium of
between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum
of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus
of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of
no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum
of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and
total rare earth elements of more than
0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
Permanent magnet iron-chromiumcobalt alloy stainless strip is also
excluded from the scope of the order.
This ductile stainless steel strip
contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent
chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt,
with the remainder of iron, in widths
228.6 mm or less, and a thickness
between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits
magnetic remanence between 9,000 and
12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of
between 50 and 300 oersteds. This
product is most commonly used in
electronic sensors and is currently
available under proprietary trade names
such as ‘‘Arnokrome III.’’ 1
Certain electrical resistance alloy steel
is also excluded from the scope of the
order. This product is defined as a nonmagnetic stainless steel manufactured to
American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) specification B344
and containing, by weight, 36 percent
nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46
percent iron, and is most notable for its
resistance to high temperature
corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390
degrees Celsius and displays a creep
rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square
millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This
steel is most commonly used in the
production of heating ribbons for circuit
breakers and industrial furnaces, and in
rheostats for railway locomotives. The
product is currently available under
proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Gilphy
36.’’ 2
Certain martensitic precipitationhardenable stainless steel is also
excluded from the scope of the order.
This high-strength, ductile stainless
steel product is designated under the
Unified Numbering System (UNS) as
S45500-grade steel, and contains, by
weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and
7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon,
manganese, silicon and molybdenum
each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent
or less, with phosphorus and sulfur
each comprising, by weight, 0.03
percent or less. This steel has copper,
niobium, and titanium added to achieve
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as
high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile
strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after
aging, with elongation percentages of 3
percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally
provided in thicknesses between 0.635
and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4
mm. This product is most commonly
used in the manufacture of television
tubes and is currently available under
proprietary trade names such as
‘‘Durphynox 17.’’ 3
Finally, three specialty stainless steels
typically used in certain industrial
blades and surgical and medical
instruments are also excluded from the
scope of the order. These include
stainless steel strip in coils used in the
production of textile cutting tools (e.g.,
carpet knives).4 This steel is similar to
ASTM grade 440F, but containing, by
weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of
molybdenum. The steel also contains,
by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and
1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or
less, and includes between 0.20 and
0.30 percent copper and between 0.20
and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is
sold under proprietary names such as
‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to
AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight,
carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and
0.50 percent, manganese of between
0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no
more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of
no more than 0.020 percent. This steel
has a carbide density on average of 100
carbide particles per square micron. An
example of this product is ‘‘GIN5’’ steel.
The third specialty steel has a chemical
composition similar to AISI 420 F, with
carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43
percent, molybdenum of between 1.15
and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese
of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent,
phosphorus of no more than 0.025
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and
0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than
0.020 percent. This product is supplied
with a hardness of more than Hv 500
guaranteed after customer processing,
1 ‘‘Arnokrome III’’ is a trademark of the Arnold
Engineering Company.
2 ‘‘Gilphy 36’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
17’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
list of uses is illustrative and provided for
descriptive purposes only.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:21 Feb 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
6629
and is supplied as, for example,
‘‘GIN6.’’ 5
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by interested parties in
this administrative review are addressed
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Mexico’’ (Issues and
Decision Memorandum), from John M.
Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, to
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
dated December 7, 2009, which are
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of
all issues, which parties have raised and
to which we have responded, in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum is
attached to this notice as an appendix.
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 Central Records Unit in room
1117 of the main Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly via the Internet at
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/fm/. The
paper copy and electronic version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
For purposes of the preliminary
results, we accepted Mexinox’s
reporting of the handling expenses
incurred by Mexinox Trading
(Mexinox’s home market affiliate) and
imputed credit expenses based on
reported payment dates. However, in
order to be consistent with past
administrative reviews of this case, we
placed respondent on notice that we
intended to request additional
information after the issuance of the
preliminary results regarding (1) the
reported handling expenses, and (2) the
actual date of payment for these sales,
and address these issues in our final
results. See Preliminary Results at
39630; see also Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for
the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Mexico (A–201–
822),’’ from Patrick Edwards and Brian
Davis, Case Analysts, through Angelica
3 ‘‘Durphynox
4 This
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the
proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
6630
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices
Mendoza, Program Manager, dated July
31, 2009, at page 18.
Accordingly, on August 24, 2009, we
requested Mexinox report, with regard
to handling expenses, (1) a worksheet
showing the total warehousing and
distribution expenses (separated by
warehouse) for all sales handled by
Mexinox Trading during the POR, and
(2) the total value of the sales on which
these expenses were incurred. See
Mexinox’s September 8, 2009, response
to the Department’s August 24, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire (SSSQR) at
pages 2–4 and attachment B–36.
Therefore, we have recalculated the
handling expenses incurred by Mexinox
Trading and applied the revised ratio to
those home market sales for which
Mexinox reported a handling expense.
See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Analysis
of Data Submitted by ThyssenKrupp
Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Mexico (A–201–822)’’ (Final Analysis
Memorandum), from Brian Davis and
Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, through
Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager,
dated February 3, 2010, at pages 10
through 12.
Also on August 24, 2009, we
requested that Mexinox (1) clarify
whether or not it was able to calculate
per-unit credit expenses based on the
actual number of days between the date
of shipment to the customer and the
date of payment and, if so, (2) report the
transaction-specific payment dates for
each customer as well as imputed credit
expenses based on those transaction
specific dates. See Mexinox’s September
8, 2009, response to the Department’s
August 24, 2009, supplemental
questionnaire (SSSQR) at pages 4–8 and
accompanying database revisions.
Therefore, we have recalculated the
handling expenses incurred by Mexinox
Trading and applied the revised ratio to
those home market sales for which
Mexinox reported a handling expense.
We calculated imputed credit
expenses based on the short-term
borrowing rate associated with the
currency of each home market sale
transaction and using transactionspecific payment dates (as reported by
Mexinox in its SSSQR at pages 4–7 and
corresponding home market sales
database) rather than customer-specific
weighted average ones (as originally
reported by Mexinox in its response to
section B of the Department’s
antidumping duty questionnaire at page
B–21 and attachment B–14). See Final
Analysis Memorandum at 9 through 10;
see also Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 5 for a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:21 Feb 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
further discussion of imputed credit
expenses.
Our methodology for calculating
handling charges and imputed credit
expenses is consistent with past
administrative reviews of this case. See,
e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils From Mexico; Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 45708 (August 6, 2008) at
45715 (unchanged in Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6365
(February 9, 2009)), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 (for imputed credit
expenses); see also Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Mexico;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
43600 (August 6, 2007) at 43605
(unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008),
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from Mexico: Amended Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 14215
(March 17, 2008)); see also Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Mexico; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 35618 (June 21, 2006) at
35623 (unchanged in Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 76978
(December 22, 2006)).
Furthermore, based on our analysis of
the comments received, we have made
the following changes to the margin
calculation:
• We have converted U.S. inventory
carrying costs (INVCARU) to a hundred
weight (CWT) basis.
• We included Ken-Mac Metals 6
sales that were further processed in the
margin calculation.
• We excluded non-subject sales,
made by Ken-Mac Metals, from the
margin calculation.
• We applied a corrected net interest
expense ratio to further processing costs
reported by Ken-Mac Metals.
• We included fuel surcharges
imposed by Ken-Mac Metals in the net
U.S. price calculation.
• We calculated a single importerspecific assessment rate for Mexinox
USA, Inc.
6 Ken-Mac Metals is an affiliated service center
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, whose primary
business is the resale and further-processing of
aluminum, stainless steel, and other metals. See
Mexinox’s October 7, 2008, response to the
Department’s section A antidumping duty
questionnaire at 15–18 for additional information
regarding Ken-Mac’s operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• We adjusted the assessment rate for
the entered value of merchandise sold
outside the United States.
• We recalculated Mexinox’s imputed
credit expenses to reflect transactionspecific payment dates (PAYDTACTH)
as noted above.
• We have recalculated the handling
expenses incurred by Mexinox’s home
market affiliate, Mexinox Trading, and
applied the revised ratio to those home
market sales for which Mexinox
reported a handling expense, as
discussed above.
These changes are discussed in the
relevant sections of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum and Final
Analysis Memorandum.
Final Results of Review
We determine the following weightedaverage percentage margin exists for the
period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008:
Manufacturer/exporter
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox
S.A. de C.V.
Weighted average margin
(percentage)
4.48
Assessment
The Department will determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries, pursuant to
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.212(b). The Department calculated
an assessment rate for each importer of
the subject merchandise covered by the
review. Upon issuance of the final
results of this review, for any importerspecific assessment rates calculated in
the final results that are above de
minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent),
we will issue appraisement instructions
directly to CBP to assess antidumping
duties on appropriate entries by
applying the per-unit dollar amount
against each unit of merchandise on
each of that importer’s entries during
the review period. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR
356.8(a), the Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 41
days after the date of 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 POR
produced by Mexinox for which
Mexinox did not know the merchandise
was destined for the United States. In
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices
such instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the
30.69 percent all-others rate if there is
no company-specific rate for an
intermediary involved in the
transaction.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of these final results of
administrative review, consistent with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for the reviewed company
will be the rate listed above; (2) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, but was covered in a previous
review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, 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 prior
review, or the original 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 30.69
percent, the all-others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From
Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999).
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notifications to Interested Parties
This notice also 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
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (APOs) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:21 Feb 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return or destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 3, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
List of Issues in Issues and Decision
Memorandum
General Issues
Comment 1: Clerical Errors.
Comment 2: Offsetting for U.S. Sales that
Exceed Normal Value.
Sales Issues
Comment 3: Date of Sale.
Comment 4: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses.
Adjustments to Normal Value
Comment 5: Calculation of Credit
Expenses.
Cost of Production
Comment 6: Whether to Apply an
Alternative Cost Averaging Methodology.
Comment 7: General and Administrative
Expense Ratio (Employee Profit Sharing).
Comment 8: General and Administrative
Expense Ratio (Gains on Sale of Warehouse).
Comment 9: Financial Expenses.
[FR Doc. 2010–2987 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–588–845]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Japan: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 7, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC)
from Japan. This review covers two
producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States. The
period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007,
through June 30, 2008.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6631
certain changes to the margin
calculations for Hitachi Cable Ltd.
(Hitachi Cable) and Nippon Kinzoku
Co., Ltd. (NKKN), producers/exporters
selected for individual review.
Therefore, the final results for Hitachi
Cable and NKKN differ from the
preliminary results. The final weighted–
average dumping margins for the
reviewed firms are listed below in the
section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
Review.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, 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) 482–4929 or (202) 482–
4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This review covers two producers/
exporters: Hitachi Cable and NKKN.
On August 7, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the 2007–2008
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSSSC from
Japan. See Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Japan: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 39615
(August 7, 2009) (Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on those
preliminary results.
Since the Preliminary Results, we
conducted the cost verification of
Hitachi Cable from September 28
through October 2, 2009.
On October 28, 2009, we extended the
deadline for the final results until no
later than February 3, 2010. See
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Japan: Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the 2007–
2008 Administrative Review, 74 FR
55539 (October 28, 2009).
On November 18, 2009, we received
case briefs from the domestic producers
of the subject merchandise (i.e., AK
Steel Corporation and Allegheny
Technologies, Inc.) and NKKN. A
rebuttal brief was received from Hitachi
on November 25, 2009.
The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the
products covered are certain SSSSC.
Stainless steel is an alloy steel
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or
less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6627-6631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2987]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-822]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 7, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary
[[Page 6628]]
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
stainless steel sheet and strip (S4) in coils from Mexico. See
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not To
Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 39622 (August 7, 2009) (Preliminary
Results). This review covers sales of subject merchandise made by
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox) for the period July 1,
2007, to June 30, 2008. Based on our analysis of the comments received,
we have made changes to the margin calculation; therefore, the final
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average
dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards, Brian Davis, or
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-8029, (202) 482-7924, and (202) 482-3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 7, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on S4 in coils from Mexico for the period July 1, 2007, to
June 30, 2008. See Preliminary Results. In response to the Department's
invitation to comment on the preliminary results of this review,
Mexinox submitted a request for a public hearing and a case brief on
September 4, 2009, and September 15, 2009, respectively. See Letter
from respondent titled ``Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Mexico--Request for Hearing,'' dated September 4, 2009; see also Case
Brief from respondent titled ``Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Mexico--Case Brief,'' dated September 15, 2009. Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, and North American Stainless
(collectively referred to as petitioner), submitted their rebuttal
brief on September 24, 2009. See Letter from petitioner, titled
``Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico--Petitioner's
Rebuttal Brief,'' dated September 24, 2009. A public hearing was held
on October 2, 2009. See Transcript of ``In the Matter of: The
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico'' dated October 9, 2009. On
December 9, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register our
notice extending the time limit for this review until February 3, 2010.
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Extension of
Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 65100 (December 9, 2009).
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the products covered are certain
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is 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 sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such
processing.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at
subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71,
7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90,
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35,
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44,
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35,
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44,
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30,
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30,
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00,
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, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15,
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30,
7220.20.90.60, 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 Department's written description
of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) Sheet
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; (3)
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of
4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5
mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also
excluded from the scope of the order. These excluded products are
described below.
Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves for compressors.
Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks
[[Page 6629]]
may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth.
The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection,
and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.
Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent,
lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth
elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also
excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less,
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such
as ``Arnokrome III.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the
scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless
steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18
percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its
resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of
1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms
per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most
commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers
and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The
product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as
``Gilphy 36.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is
also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese,
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less,
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g.,
carpet knives).\4\ This steel is similar to ASTM grade 440F, but
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains,
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent,
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100
carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent,
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied
as, for example, ``GIN6.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for
descriptive purposes only.
\5\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested
parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico'' (Issues and Decision
Memorandum), from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 7, 2009, which are
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of all issues, which parties have
raised and to which we have responded, in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. 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 Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Commerce
building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/fm/. The paper copy and electronic version
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
For purposes of the preliminary results, we accepted Mexinox's
reporting of the handling expenses incurred by Mexinox Trading
(Mexinox's home market affiliate) and imputed credit expenses based on
reported payment dates. However, in order to be consistent with past
administrative reviews of this case, we placed respondent on notice
that we intended to request additional information after the issuance
of the preliminary results regarding (1) the reported handling
expenses, and (2) the actual date of payment for these sales, and
address these issues in our final results. See Preliminary Results at
39630; see also Memorandum to the File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Mexico (A-201-822),'' from Patrick Edwards and
Brian Davis, Case Analysts, through Angelica
[[Page 6630]]
Mendoza, Program Manager, dated July 31, 2009, at page 18.
Accordingly, on August 24, 2009, we requested Mexinox report, with
regard to handling expenses, (1) a worksheet showing the total
warehousing and distribution expenses (separated by warehouse) for all
sales handled by Mexinox Trading during the POR, and (2) the total
value of the sales on which these expenses were incurred. See Mexinox's
September 8, 2009, response to the Department's August 24, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire (SSSQR) at pages 2-4 and attachment B-36.
Therefore, we have recalculated the handling expenses incurred by
Mexinox Trading and applied the revised ratio to those home market
sales for which Mexinox reported a handling expense. See Memorandum to
the File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de
C.V. for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico (A-201-
822)'' (Final Analysis Memorandum), from Brian Davis and Patrick
Edwards, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager,
dated February 3, 2010, at pages 10 through 12.
Also on August 24, 2009, we requested that Mexinox (1) clarify
whether or not it was able to calculate per-unit credit expenses based
on the actual number of days between the date of shipment to the
customer and the date of payment and, if so, (2) report the
transaction-specific payment dates for each customer as well as imputed
credit expenses based on those transaction specific dates. See
Mexinox's September 8, 2009, response to the Department's August 24,
2009, supplemental questionnaire (SSSQR) at pages 4-8 and accompanying
database revisions. Therefore, we have recalculated the handling
expenses incurred by Mexinox Trading and applied the revised ratio to
those home market sales for which Mexinox reported a handling expense.
We calculated imputed credit expenses based on the short-term
borrowing rate associated with the currency of each home market sale
transaction and using transaction-specific payment dates (as reported
by Mexinox in its SSSQR at pages 4-7 and corresponding home market
sales database) rather than customer-specific weighted average ones (as
originally reported by Mexinox in its response to section B of the
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire at page B-21 and attachment
B-14). See Final Analysis Memorandum at 9 through 10; see also Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 for a further discussion of
imputed credit expenses.
Our methodology for calculating handling charges and imputed credit
expenses is consistent with past administrative reviews of this case.
See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
45708 (August 6, 2008) at 45715 (unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009)), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (for imputed credit
expenses); see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
72 FR 43600 (August 6, 2007) at 43605 (unchanged in Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008), and Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 14215 (March 17, 2008));
see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
35618 (June 21, 2006) at 35623 (unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 76978 (December 22, 2006)).
Furthermore, based on our analysis of the comments received, we
have made the following changes to the margin calculation:
We have converted U.S. inventory carrying costs (INVCARU)
to a hundred weight (CWT) basis.
We included Ken-Mac Metals \6\ sales that were further
processed in the margin calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ken-Mac Metals is an affiliated service center headquartered
in Cleveland, Ohio, whose primary business is the resale and
further-processing of aluminum, stainless steel, and other metals.
See Mexinox's October 7, 2008, response to the Department's section
A antidumping duty questionnaire at 15-18 for additional information
regarding Ken-Mac's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We excluded non-subject sales, made by Ken-Mac Metals,
from the margin calculation.
We applied a corrected net interest expense ratio to
further processing costs reported by Ken-Mac Metals.
We included fuel surcharges imposed by Ken-Mac Metals in
the net U.S. price calculation.
We calculated a single importer-specific assessment rate
for Mexinox USA, Inc.
We adjusted the assessment rate for the entered value of
merchandise sold outside the United States.
We recalculated Mexinox's imputed credit expenses to
reflect transaction-specific payment dates (PAYDTACTH) as noted above.
We have recalculated the handling expenses incurred by
Mexinox's home market affiliate, Mexinox Trading, and applied the
revised ratio to those home market sales for which Mexinox reported a
handling expense, as discussed above.
These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum and Final Analysis Memorandum.
Final Results of Review
We determine the following weighted-average percentage margin
exists for the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V....... 4.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by
the review. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, for any
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results that
are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue
appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties
on appropriate entries by applying the per-unit dollar amount against
each unit of merchandise on each of that importer's entries during the
review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a),
the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days
after the date of 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
POR produced by Mexinox for which Mexinox did not know the merchandise
was destined for the United States. In
[[Page 6631]]
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the 30.69 percent all-others rate if there is no company-specific rate
for an intermediary involved in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date of these final results of administrative
review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above;
(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 published for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
original 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 30.69 percent, the
all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From
Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notifications to Interested Parties
This notice also 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition 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 or destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 3, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Issues in Issues and Decision Memorandum
General Issues
Comment 1: Clerical Errors.
Comment 2: Offsetting for U.S. Sales that Exceed Normal Value.
Sales Issues
Comment 3: Date of Sale.
Comment 4: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses.
Adjustments to Normal Value
Comment 5: Calculation of Credit Expenses.
Cost of Production
Comment 6: Whether to Apply an Alternative Cost Averaging
Methodology.
Comment 7: General and Administrative Expense Ratio (Employee
Profit Sharing).
Comment 8: General and Administrative Expense Ratio (Gains on
Sale of Warehouse).
Comment 9: Financial Expenses.
[FR Doc. 2010-2987 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
