Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67689-67692 [2010-27800]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices Special Accommodations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Economic Development Administration Dated: October 29, 2010. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2010–27735 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment. AGENCY: Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 67689 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm’s workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE [10/12/2010 through 10/28/2010] Date accepted for investigation Address A.J. Rose Manufacturing Company ........ 38000 Chester Road, Avon, OH 44011 .. 10/14/2010 Berkline/BenchCraft, LLC ........................ 1 Berkline Dr., Morristown, TN 37813 .... 10/14/2010 Lake Country Woodworkers Ltd .............. P.O. Box 400, 12 Clark St., Naples, NY 14512. 10/28/2010 Lloyd & McKenzie Ltd. Co ....................... 619 Pine Ridge Road, P.O. Box 1338, Chester, SC 29706. 10/21/2010 Stainless Fabrication, Inc ........................ 4455 W. Kearney Street, Springfield, MO 65801. 10/13/2010 The Rose Corporation ............................. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Firm name 401 North 8th Street, Reading, PA 19601. 10/12/2010 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 7106, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:21 Nov 02, 2010 Jkt 223001 Dated: October 28, 2010. Miriam J. Kearse, Program Team Lead. BILLING CODE 3510–24–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–351–825] Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The firm is a manufacturer of precision metal stamped, welded, spun, over molded and machined components. The firm produces upholstered household furniture. The primary manufacturing material is wood, fabric, metal & leather. The firm produces hardwood furniture for office and bathrooms including conference tables, occasional tables, reception stations, vanities and credenzas. The firm produces laminated fabric; primary materials include fabric and water-based polymeric compounds. The firm performs in-house and field fabrications of stainless steel single and double wall tanks and processing equipment including: Mixers, reactors, pressure and storage vessels, with up to 600K gallon capacity. The firm is a custom manufacturer of warm air heating and air conditions equipment and supplies and industrial equipment. The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 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, 2009, through January 31, 2010. The Department has preliminarily determined that VMSA made U.S. sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of SUMMARY: [FR Doc. 2010–27798 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Products E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM 03NON1 67690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices review. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the publication date of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Stewart 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) 482–0768 or (202) 482– 1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Background On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 5037 (February 1, 2010). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on February 26, 2010, the petitioners 1 requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of VMSA’s sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on March 1, 2010, VMSA also requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. On March 30, 2010, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Brazil for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 15679 (March 30, 2010). 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 1 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Outokumpu Stainless Bar, Inc. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:21 Nov 02, 2010 Jkt 223001 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., cutlength 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. comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weightedaverage comparison-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order of importance: general type of finish, grade, remelting process, type of final finishing operation, shape, and size. Fair-Value Comparison To determine whether VMSA’s sales of the subject merchandise from Brazil to the United States were at prices below normal value, we compared the export price (EP) to the normal value as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. Normal Value Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, produced and sold by VMSA in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purposes of determining appropriate products to use in comparison to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, in making our PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Export Price The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject merchandise by VMSA on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold before importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated EP based on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as appropriate. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made adjustments to price for billing adjustments, where applicable. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A. Home-Market Viability In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of SSB in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent’s home-market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. VMSA’s quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in Brazil and to the United States and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we preliminarily determine that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM 03NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determine that VMSA’s home market was viable during the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES B. Cost-of-Production Analysis In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in the 2007–2008 antidumping duty administrative review, the most recently completed review as of the date of the initiation of this review, we found that VMSA made sales below the COP and we disregarded VMSA’s below-cost sales for the calculation of normal value. See Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 10022 (March 9, 2009).2 Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by VMSA of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the COP. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales by VMSA in the home market. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-market sales and COP information provided by VMSA in its questionnaire responses. Based on the review of record evidence, VMSA did not appear to experience significant changes in cost of manufacturing during the period of review. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost. After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices 2 These results were unchanged in the final results of review (Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 33995 (July 14, 2009)). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:21 Nov 02, 2010 Jkt 223001 permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared the COPs of the models represented by control numbers to the reported home-market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of VMSA’s sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of VMSA’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weightedaverage COPs for the POR, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we only disregarded below-cost sales that amounted to 20 percent or more of VMSA’s sales of a given product. All other sales that were below cost but did not meet the 20-percent threshold were included in our calculation of normal value. D. Price-to-Price Comparisons We based normal value for VMSA on home-market sales to unaffiliated purchasers. VMSA’s home-market prices were based on the packed, exfactory, or delivered prices. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP sales, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. We also made adjustments, if applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP calculations. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value, to the extent practicable, PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 67691 on sales at the same level of trade as the EP. Consistent with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, for these preliminary results, we did not make a level-of-trade adjustment in instances when normal value was calculated at a different level of trade. See ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below. Level of Trade To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at the same level of trade as EP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at the same level of trade, we compare EP sales to comparison-market sales at a different level of trade. The normalvalue level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. To determine whether home-market sales were at a different level of trade than VMSA’s U.S. sales during the POR, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Based on our analysis, we have preliminarily determined that there is one level of trade in the United States and two levels of trades in the home market; we also find that the single U.S. level of trade is at the same level as one of the levels of trade in the home market and at a less advanced stage than the second home-market level of trade. Therefore, we have compared U.S. sales to home-market sales at the same level of trade and, where there was no homemarket sale at the same level of trade, at a different level of trade. Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward adjustment to normal value for level of trade if the difference in level of trade involves the performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different levels of trade in the country in which normal value is determined. Here, because we have preliminarily determined that a pattern of consistent price differences is not supported by record evidence showing higher prices at one level of trade for a preponderance of models and for a preponderance of quantities sold, we did not calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on VMSA’s homemarket sales of the foreign like product. For a detailed description of our levelof-trade analysis for VMSA for these preliminary results, see VMSA Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum, dated October 27, 2010, on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit. E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM 03NON1 67692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices Currency Conversion Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for merchandise produced and exported by Villares Metals S.A. is 4.07 percent for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Disclosure and Public Comment We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and 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 preliminary results of review. For sales where VMSA reported entered value, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:21 Nov 02, 2010 Jkt 223001 the difference between normal value and EP) for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each reported importer or customer. For sales where entered value was not reported, we divided the total dumping margins for each exporter’s importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will instruct CBP to assess the resulting importer/ customer-specific ad-valorem rate or per-unit dollar amount, 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 liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the 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 the rate established in the final results of this review; (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 lessthan-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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Brazil, 59 FR 66914 (December 28, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 27, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–27800 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Notice of Teleconference of the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Phthalates and Phthalate Substitutes Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) is announcing a teleconference of the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) on phthalates and phthalate substitutes. The Commission appointed this CHAP to study the effects on children’s health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children’s toys and child care articles, pursuant to section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) (Pub. L. 110–314). The CHAP will discuss possible risk assessment approaches for phthalates and phthalate substitutes. DATES: The teleconference will take place at 5 p.m. GMT (12 p.m. EST) on Wednesday, November 15, 2010. Interested members of the public may listen to the CHAP’s discussion. Members of the public will not have the opportunity to ask questions, comment, or otherwise participate in the teleconference. Interested parties should contact the CPSC project manager, SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM 03NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67689-67692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-825]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
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, 2009, through January 31, 2010.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that VMSA made U.S. 
sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results of

[[Page 67690]]

review. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than 
120 days from the publication date of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Stewart 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-
0768 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel bar from 
Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, 
India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 1, 2010, 
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the order. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 5037 
(February 1, 2010).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on February 26, 2010, the 
petitioners \1\ requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of VMSA's sales and entries of subject merchandise into the 
United States during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), 
on March 1, 2010, VMSA also requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of its sales. On March 30, 2010, the Department 
published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Brazil for the 
period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 15679 (March 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, 
Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., 
Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Outokumpu Stainless 
Bar, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Fair-Value Comparison

    To determine whether VMSA's sales of the subject merchandise from 
Brazil to the United States were at prices below normal value, we 
compared the export price (EP) to the normal value as described in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
EP of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average 
normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in 
the ordinary course of trade.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, produced 
and sold by VMSA in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign 
like product for the purposes of determining appropriate products to 
use in comparison to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, 
in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an 
identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to 
weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales 
which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product 
during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-
average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If 
there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we 
identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the 
most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the 
physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following 
order of importance: general type of finish, grade, remelting process, 
type of final finishing operation, shape, and size.

Export Price

    The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise by VMSA on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold before importation by the producer or 
exporter of the subject merchandise outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated EP based on 
the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as 
appropriate. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made adjustments to 
price for billing adjustments, where applicable. We also made 
deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home-Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of SSB in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal 
value, we compared the volume of the respondent's home-market sales of 
the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. VMSA's quantity of sales in the home market was greater 
than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on this 
comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in Brazil and to the United 
States and absent any information that a particular market situation in 
the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we 
preliminarily determine that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to 
permit a proper comparison with the sales of the

[[Page 67691]]

subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) 
of the Act. Thus, we determine that VMSA's home market was viable 
during the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on 
the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for 
consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities 
and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

B. Cost-of-Production Analysis

    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in the 2007-2008 
antidumping duty administrative review, the most recently completed 
review as of the date of the initiation of this review, we found that 
VMSA made sales below the COP and we disregarded VMSA's below-cost 
sales for the calculation of normal value. See Stainless Steel Bar From 
Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
74 FR 10022 (March 9, 2009).\2\ Thus, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales by VMSA of the foreign like product under 
consideration for the determination of normal value in this review may 
have been made at prices below the COP. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales by VMSA in the 
home market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These results were unchanged in the final results of review 
(Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 33995 (July 14, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in 
producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and 
administrative expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to 
packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-market 
sales and COP information provided by VMSA in its questionnaire 
responses. Based on the review of record evidence, VMSA did not appear 
to experience significant changes in cost of manufacturing during the 
period of review. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of 
calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
    After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 
773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared the COPs of the models represented by 
control numbers to the reported home-market prices less any applicable 
movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of VMSA's sales of a given product were at prices less than the 
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because 
the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of VMSA's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of 
prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that these 
sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we only disregarded below-
cost sales that amounted to 20 percent or more of VMSA's sales of a 
given product. All other sales that were below cost but did not meet 
the 20-percent threshold were included in our calculation of normal 
value.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based normal value for VMSA on home-market sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers. VMSA's home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-
factory, or delivered prices. When applicable, we made adjustments for 
differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of 
sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. For comparisons to EP sales, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. We also made 
adjustments, if applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses 
to offset U.S. commissions in EP calculations.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of 
trade as the EP. Consistent with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, for 
these preliminary results, we did not make a level-of-trade adjustment 
in instances when normal value was calculated at a different level of 
trade. See ``Level of Trade'' section below.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as EP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at the same level of 
trade, we compare EP sales to comparison-market sales at a different 
level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market.
    To determine whether home-market sales were at a different level of 
trade than VMSA's U.S. sales during the POR, we examined stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Based on our 
analysis, we have preliminarily determined that there is one level of 
trade in the United States and two levels of trades in the home market; 
we also find that the single U.S. level of trade is at the same level 
as one of the levels of trade in the home market and at a less advanced 
stage than the second home-market level of trade. Therefore, we have 
compared U.S. sales to home-market sales at the same level of trade 
and, where there was no home-market sale at the same level of trade, at 
a different level of trade.
    Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or 
downward adjustment to normal value for level of trade if the 
difference in level of trade involves the performance of different 
selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, 
based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at 
different levels of trade in the country in which normal value is 
determined. Here, because we have preliminarily determined that a 
pattern of consistent price differences is not supported by record 
evidence showing higher prices at one level of trade for a 
preponderance of models and for a preponderance of quantities sold, we 
did not calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on VMSA's home-
market sales of the foreign like product. For a detailed description of 
our level-of-trade analysis for VMSA for these preliminary results, see 
VMSA Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum, dated October 27, 2010, 
on file in the Department's Central Records Unit.

[[Page 67692]]

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we 
converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar 
amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
relevant U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for merchandise produced and exported 
by Villares Metals S.A. is 4.07 percent for the period February 1, 
2009, through January 31, 2010.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a hearing is requested, 
the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed 
by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested 
parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department will consider rebuttal 
briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing 
case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with 
each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the 
argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that 
parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a 
diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such 
comments.
    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results 
in the Federal Register.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and 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 preliminary results of review. For sales where VMSA 
reported entered value, we divided the total dumping margins 
(calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for 
each reported importer or customer. For sales where entered value was 
not reported, we divided the total dumping margins for each exporter's 
importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to 
that importer or customer. We will instruct CBP to assess the resulting 
importer/customer-specific ad-valorem rate or per-unit dollar amount, 
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 liquidation instructions to CBP 15 
days after the publication of the final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the 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 the rate established in the final results of this review; (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, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: October 27, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27800 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P