Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 39663-39664 [2010-16912]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 132 / Monday, July 12, 2010 / Notices Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, which is accessible via http:// www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 482–0473. Dated: July 1, 2010. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2010–16915 Filed 7–9–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 12514 (March 16, 2010) (Preliminary Results). We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On May 5, 2010, we released a post– preliminary analysis in which we altered the cost–of-production methodology from that which we applied for the Preliminary Results. See discussion below. On May 13, 2010, we received a case brief from the petitioners (Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., and Universal Stainless). We did not receive a request for a hearing from any interested party. The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). International Trade Administration Scope of the Order [A–351–825] The scope of the order covers stainless steel bar (SSB). The term SSB with respect to the order means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot–rolled, forged, turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled or otherwise cold–finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold–finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot–rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi–finished products, cut–length flat–rolled products (i.e., cut–length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat–rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 16, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from Brazil. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Villares Metals S.A. (VMSA). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received one comment. The final weighted– average dumping margin for VMSA is listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–1757 or (202) 482– 1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 16, 2010, the Department published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from Brazil. See Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:19 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 39663 Alternative Cost Methodology In our Preliminary Results we relied on our standard methodology of comparing U.S. prices to monthly home–market prices (see Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12516), and we compared the home–market prices to POR costs for the cost–of-production test under section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We indicated in the Preliminary Results that we would consider applying an alternative cost methodology after analyzing product–specific quarterly cost information. We announced in the Preliminary Results that we would release revised analysis if we found it appropriate to use quarterly costs, based on VMSA’s supplemental cost data, and that we would give the parties an opportunity to comment on any revised analysis prior to the final results. See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 12516. Subsequent to our Preliminary Results, we analyzed VMSA’s quarterly cost data and determined that the use of the alternative cost methodology is appropriate in this case because the changes in the quarterly cost of manufacture were significant and we can reasonably link the prices of sales made during the quarters with the production costs during the same quarters. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399 (December 11, 2008), and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009). Accordingly, we applied the cost test using quarterly average costs and home– market transaction prices. Further, consistent with our practice in reviews, we continued to compare monthly average home–market prices to individual U.S. prices in the calculation of the margin but confined those comparisons to the same quarter. 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, 39629 (August 7, 2009) (unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 (February 10, 2010)). A detailed explanation of our analysis can be found in the May 5, 2010, memorandum entitled ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Post–Preliminary Analysis’’ and the May 5, 2010, memorandum entitled ‘‘Post Preliminary Calculations Analysis Memorandum’’ E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM 12JYN1 39664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 132 / Monday, July 12, 2010 / Notices which were released to interested parties for comment. Based on our cost–of-production analysis, we disregarded below–cost sales by VMSA in the home market. Analysis of Comments Received In their case brief, the petitioners claim that the Department made a ministerial error by neglecting to reduce the U.S. gross unit price for movement expenses VMSA reported under the computer variable for U.S. duties in calculating the net U.S. price for constructed export–price transactions, thereby resulting in an understatement of VMSA’s dumping margin. The petitioners request that the Department correct this ministerial error for the final results of the review. We reviewed the petitioners’ allegation and agree that correction of the error is appropriate. Accordingly, for the final results we have recalculated the net U.S. price for constructed export–price transactions by reducing the U.S. gross unit price for these movement expenses. See Final Analysis Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice, for detailed information on this change. erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the weighted–average dumping margin for VMSA is 3.70 percent for the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer/customer–specific assessment rates for these final results of review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each reported importer or customer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importer/customer–specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer or customer during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by VMSA for which VMSA did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of VMSA–produced merchandise at the all–others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:19 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. These final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 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 instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of these final results of review. Dated: July 1, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Cash–Deposit Requirements [FR Doc. 2010–16912 Filed 7–9–10; 8:45 am] The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of SSB from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash– deposit rate for VMSA will be 3.70 percent; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash–deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less–thanfair–value 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; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash–deposit rate will be the all–others rate for this proceeding, 19.43 percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, 59 FR 66914 (December 28, 1994). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Notification to Parties This notice serves as a 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 Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1689] Grant of Authority For Subzone Status Materials Science Technology, Inc. (Specialty Elastomers and Fire Retardant Chemicals) Conroe, Texas Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry; Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; Whereas, the City of Conroe, Texas, grantee of FTZ 265, has made application to the Board for authority to establish a special-purpose subzone at the specialty elastomer manufacturing and distribution facility of Materials Science Technology, Inc., located in Conroe, Texas, (FTZ Docket 46–2009, filed October 27, 2009); Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (74 FR 57149, 11/4/2009) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations; and, Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner’s report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board’s regulations are satisfied, and E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM 12JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39663-39664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16912]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-825]


Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 16, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from Brazil. The 
review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, 
Villares Metals S.A. (VMSA). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 
2008, through January 31, 2009. We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received one 
comment. The final weighted-average dumping margin for VMSA is listed 
below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
1757 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 16, 2010, the Department published the preliminary results 
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel bar from Brazil. See Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
12514 (March 16, 2010) (Preliminary Results). We invited interested 
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On May 5, 2010, we 
released a post-preliminary analysis in which we altered the cost-of-
production methodology from that which we applied for the Preliminary 
Results. See discussion below. On May 13, 2010, we received a case 
brief from the petitioners (Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna 
Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. 
Carlson, Inc., and Universal Stainless). We did not receive a request 
for a hearing from any interested party.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    The scope of the order covers stainless steel bar (SSB). The term 
SSB with respect to the order means articles of stainless steel in 
straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, 
cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a 
uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of 
circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), 
triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes 
cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, 
whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod 
or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or 
other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as 
specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-
finished products, cut-length flat-rolled products (i.e., cut-length 
rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width 
measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in 
thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least 
twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any 
uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not 
conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes 
and sections. The SSB subject to the order is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 
7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Alternative Cost Methodology

    In our Preliminary Results we relied on our standard methodology of 
comparing U.S. prices to monthly home-market prices (see Preliminary 
Results, 75 FR at 12516), and we compared the home-market prices to POR 
costs for the cost-of-production test under section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act. We indicated in the Preliminary Results that we would consider 
applying an alternative cost methodology after analyzing product-
specific quarterly cost information. We announced in the Preliminary 
Results that we would release revised analysis if we found it 
appropriate to use quarterly costs, based on VMSA's supplemental cost 
data, and that we would give the parties an opportunity to comment on 
any revised analysis prior to the final results. See Preliminary 
Results, 75 FR at 12516.
    Subsequent to our Preliminary Results, we analyzed VMSA's quarterly 
cost data and determined that the use of the alternative cost 
methodology is appropriate in this case because the changes in the 
quarterly cost of manufacture were significant and we can reasonably 
link the prices of sales made during the quarters with the production 
costs during the same quarters. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399 (December 11, 2008), and Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009). Accordingly, we 
applied the cost test using quarterly average costs and home-market 
transaction prices. Further, consistent with our practice in reviews, 
we continued to compare monthly average home-market prices to 
individual U.S. prices in the calculation of the margin but confined 
those comparisons to the same quarter. 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, 39629 (August 7, 2009) (unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 (February 10, 2010)). A detailed 
explanation of our analysis can be found in the May 5, 2010, memorandum 
entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Post-Preliminary Analysis'' and the May 5, 2010, 
memorandum entitled ``Post Preliminary Calculations Analysis 
Memorandum''

[[Page 39664]]

which were released to interested parties for comment.
    Based on our cost-of-production analysis, we disregarded below-cost 
sales by VMSA in the home market.

Analysis of Comments Received

    In their case brief, the petitioners claim that the Department made 
a ministerial error by neglecting to reduce the U.S. gross unit price 
for movement expenses VMSA reported under the computer variable for 
U.S. duties in calculating the net U.S. price for constructed export-
price transactions, thereby resulting in an understatement of VMSA's 
dumping margin. The petitioners request that the Department correct 
this ministerial error for the final results of the review.
    We reviewed the petitioners' allegation and agree that correction 
of the error is appropriate. Accordingly, for the final results we have 
recalculated the net U.S. price for constructed export-price 
transactions by reducing the U.S. gross unit price for these movement 
expenses. See Final Analysis Memorandum, dated concurrently with this 
notice, for detailed information on this change.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the weighted-average 
dumping margin for VMSA is 3.70 percent for the period February 1, 
2008, through January 31, 2009.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated 
importer/customer-specific assessment rates for these final results of 
review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by 
the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each reported 
importer or customer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importer/
customer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of 
subject merchandise made by the relevant importer or customer during 
the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by VMSA for which VMSA did not know 
its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, 
we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of VMSA-produced 
merchandise at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the 
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full 
discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003).
    The Department intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after 
the publication of these final results of review.

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 SSB from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit rate 
for VMSA will be 3.70 percent; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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; (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the all-others rate for this proceeding, 19.43 
percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, 59 FR 66914 (December 28, 
1994). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Parties

    This notice serves as a 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the 
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.
    These final results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: July 1, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-16912 Filed 7-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S