Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54090-54091 [2010-22084]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54090-54091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


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

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

SUMMARY: On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') 
from India for the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. 
See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review 75 FR 12199 (March 15, 2010) (``Preliminary 
Results''). The Department conducted a post-preliminary analysis and 
released the results of the analysis on May 19, 2010. We gave the 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results 
and the post-preliminary analysis. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculation. The 
final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms, Ambica 
Steels Limited (``Ambica'') and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,\1\ are 
listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Results, we 
have determined that Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its 
affiliates, Precision Metals and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. 
Ltd., should be treated as a single entity and collapsed for the 
purposes of this review. See Memorandum from Erika McDonald to the 
File, ``Relationship of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves 
Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated September 15, 2009; see 
also Memorandum from Erika McDonald to the File, ``Relationship of 
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,'' dated 
September 14, 2009. The collapsed entity is referred to as 
``Venus.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Tran, Seth Isenberg, or 
Austin Redington, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-1503, (202) 482-0588, or (202) 482-1664, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the Preliminary Results, we relied on ``facts otherwise 
available'' in determining that there was linkage between Venus' costs 
and prices, which resulted in Venus' antidumping margin being 
calculated using quarterly costs. We also noted in the Preliminary 
Results that we would reexamine this issue based on additional 
information submitted by the company. On May 19, 2010, we released our 
post-preliminary analysis in which we determined that the application 
of the quarterly costing methodology to Venus was not warranted because 
we did not find correlation between cost and price trends. See 
Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach through John M. Andersen to Ronald K. 
Lorentzen: ``2008-2009 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Stainless Steel Bar From India--Post-Preliminary Analysis 
Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.'' and 
``Memorandum From LaVonne Clark Through Theresa C. Deeley to Neal 
Halper: Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Post-Preliminary Results--Venus Wire Industries 
Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated May 19, 2010.
    On July 16, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an extension of the time limit for the completion of the final results 
of this review until no later than August 27, 2010, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar From India: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2008-2009 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 41438 (July 16, 2010).
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We 
received case briefs on June 3, 2010, from Venus and June 7, 2010, from 
Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., 
Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., Universal 
Stainless (``Petitioners''). On June 16, 2010, Venus submitted a 
rebuttal brief, and on June 18, 2010, Petitioners submitted a rebuttal 
brief. Ambica did not submit any comments. None of the parties 
requested a hearing.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means 
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either 
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their 
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other 
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or 
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or 
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have 
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the 
rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm 
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures 
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in 
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, 
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and 
angles, shapes, and sections.
    The SSB subject to this review is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.
    On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that 
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel 
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of the order. See 
Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, ``Antidumping Duty Orders 
on Stainless Steel Bar From India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 
India: Final Scope Ruling,'' dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in 
the Central

[[Page 54091]]

Records Unit (``CRU'') in room 1117 in the main Department building. 
See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the ``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum for the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Bar From India'' (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''), 
which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. A 
list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document which 
is on file in the CRU, and is accessible on the web at https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made the 
following changes in calculating dumping margins: (1) We corrected a 
clerical error identified by Venus regarding its reporting of 
international freight expenses; (2) we adjusted the transfer price for 
the affiliated inputs to market price pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of 
the Act; and (3) we corrected a ministerial error of adding rather than 
deducting selling expenses from the home market price. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comments 2, 4, and 7. For further details on how 
these changes were applied in the calculation, see ``Analysis for the 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless 
Steel Bar From India: Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated August 
27, 2010.

Final Results of the Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for Venus and Ambica for the period February 1, 2008 through 
January 31, 2009.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                              percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus...................................................         \1\0.42
Ambica..................................................            0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ de minimis.

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). The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for the 
companies subject to this review to CBP 15 days after the date of 
publication of these final results.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by the 
respondent for which it has reported the importer of record and the 
entered value of all the U.S. sales to that importer, we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to 
the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not 
report the entered value for all U.S. sales to an importer, we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in 
question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
of those sales.
    To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad 
valorem rates based on reported and estimated entered values (when no 
entered value was reported). Where the assessment rate is above de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of 
subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), 
we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties 
any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will 
be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash 
deposit will be zero; (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 final results 
in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results 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 12.45 percent, the ``all others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 
(December 28, 1994). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only 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 written 
notification of return/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 review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 27, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Whether to Include Venus' Home Market Sample Sales
Comment 2: Correction of Clerical Error in Venus' Sales Database
Comment 3: Offsetting Negative Margins
Comment 4 Alleged Reporting Deficiencies for Venus and Sieves
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Repeat its Linkage Test
Comment 6: Whether Linkage Exists Between Venus' and Sieves' Costs 
and Sales Prices
Comment 7: Ministerial Error

[FR Doc. 2010-22084 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P