Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results of, and Partial Rescission of, the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent Not To Revoke the Order, in Part, 12044-12054 [2011-4981]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12044-12054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4981]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results of, and 
Partial Rescission of, the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and 
Intent Not To Revoke the Order, in Part

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
bar (``SS Bar'') from India for the period of review (``POR'') February 
1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. The Department initiated this review 
of Facor Steels Ltd./Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd. (``Facor''); 
Mukand, Ltd. (``Mukand''); India Steel Works, Limited (``India 
Steel''); and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus Wire'') and its 
affiliates Precision Metals and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Private 
Limited (``Sieves''). Based on timely withdrawal of the request for 
review, the Department is rescinding the review with respect to India 
Steel.
    We preliminarily determine Venus Wire, Mukand and Facor made sales 
of the subject merchandise at prices below normal value (``NV''). The 
Department also preliminarily determines that total adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') is warranted for Mukand because it failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this proceeding. Finally, we 
have preliminarily determined not to revoke the antidumping duty order 
on SS Bar from India with respect to SS Bar exported and/or sold by 
Venus Wire.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. We will 
issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth Isenberg, Mahnaz Khan, Austin 
Redington, Scott Holland or Yasmin Nair, 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) 482-0588, (202) 482-0914, (202) 
482-1664, (202) 482-1279 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on SS Bar from India. See 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India and 
Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995) (``the Order''). On February 1, 
2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the Order on SS Bar from India for the period 
February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 5037 (February 1, 
2010).
    On February 24, 2010, Venus Wire submitted a request, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the Order with 
respect to Venus Wire's sales of the subject merchandise

[[Page 12045]]

to the United States. In this submission, Venus Wire also timely 
requested an administrative review of the Order for the POR. See Letter 
from Venus Wire requesting revocation and an administrative review, 
dated February 22, 2010, which is on file in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU'') in room 7046 in the main Department building.
    On February 26, 2010, domestic interested parties Carpenter 
Technology Corp.; Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of Crucible 
Materials Corp.; Electralloy Co., a G.O. Carlson, Inc. company; and 
Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioners''), timely 
filed a request for administrative review of Venus Wire, Facor, Mukand, 
and India Steel, and their respective affiliates. See Petitioners' 
request for administrative review, dated February 26, 2010, on file in 
the CRU.
    On March 30, 2010, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we initiated an administrative 
review covering Venus Wire and its affiliates Precision Metal and 
Sieves; Facor; Mukand; and India Steel. See Initiation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for 
Revocation in Part, 75 FR 15679 (March 30, 2010). On April 7, 2010, 
Petitioners timely withdrew their request for administrative review of 
India Steel.
    On April 13, 2010, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to Venus Wire, Mukand, and Facor. Venus Wire, Mukand, 
and Facor submitted timely filed responses to the antidumping 
questionnaire in May and June 2010. The Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Venus Wire, Mukand, and Facor to clarify or correct 
information contained in the initial questionnaire responses.
    We received timely filed responses to supplemental questionnaires 
from Venus Wire (and its collapsed affiliates, see Affiliation section, 
below) from August 2010 through February 2011. We received timely filed 
responses to supplemental questionnaires from Mukand from July 2010 
through February 2011. We received timely filed responses to 
supplemental questionnaires from Facor from June 2010 through February 
2011.
    On October 25, 2010, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an extension of the time limit for the completion of the 
preliminary results of this review until no later than February 28, 
2011, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 65449 (October 25, 2010).

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the Order are shipments of SS Bar. SS Bar 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. SS Bar includes cold-finished SS Bars 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 SS Bar 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 SS 
Bar 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 CRU. See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 
2005).

Rescission of the Review in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested 
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of 
publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. Further, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is permitted to extend 
this time if it is reasonable to do so.
    Petitioners were the only party to request an administrative review 
of India Steel on February 26, 2010, and on April 7, 2010, Petitioners 
timely withdrew this request. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to India 
Steel.

Affiliation

Precision Metals

    In the 2005-2006 antidumping duty administrative review of SS Bar 
from India, the Department determined that Venus Wire and Precision 
Metals were affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of the 
Act, and that these two companies should be treated as a single entity 
for the purposes of that administrative review. See Notice of Final 
Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 72 FR 51595, 51596 (September 
10, 2007) (``2005-2006 Final Results''). In the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 
antidumping duty administrative reviews of SS Bar from India, the 
Department again determined that these two companies should be treated 
as a single entity. See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15, 
2009) (``2007-2008 Final Results''); see also Stainless Steel Bar From 
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
54090 (September 3, 2010) (``2008-2009 Final Results'').
    The Department re-examined Venus Wire's corporate affiliation 
relationship with Precision Metals for the instant administrative 
review. Because this relationship is unchanged from the 2005-2006 Final 
Results, 2007-2008 Final Results, and 2008-2009 Final Results, the 
Department continues to treat Venus Wire and Precision Metals as a 
single entity for the instant review. See Venus Wire's May 24, 2010 
section A questionnaire response (``AQR'') at A-2, 4-13. See also 
Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File, ``Relationship of Venus 
Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,'' dated

[[Page 12046]]

May 20, 2010, which is on file in the CRU.

Sieves

    In the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 administrative reviews, the 
Department determined that Venus Wire and Sieves are affiliated within 
the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, and that these two companies 
should be treated as a single entity for purposes of those 
administrative reviews. See 2007-2008 Final Results; see also 2008-2009 
Final Results.
    The Department re-examined Venus Wire's corporate affiliation 
relationship with Sieves for the instant administrative review. Because 
this relationship is unchanged from the 2007-2008 Final Results and 
2008-2009 Final Results, the Department continues to treat Venus Wire 
and Precision Metals as a single entity for the instant review. See 
Venus Wire's May 24, 2010 section AQR at A-2, 4-13. See also Memorandum 
from Austin Redington to the File, ``Relationship of Venus Wire 
Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,'' 
dated May 20, 2010, which is on file in the CRU.

Hindustan Inox (Formerly Hindustan Stainless)

    In the 2008-2009 administrative review, Petitioners alleged that 
Hindustan Inox (``Hindustan''), formerly known as Hindustan Stainless, 
should be collapsed with Venus Wire. See Petitioners' June 12, 2009, 
and January 29, 2010, filings. After reviewing record information in 
that proceeding, the Department determined that because Hindustan was 
not a producer/exporter of SS Bar during that POR, it should not be 
collapsed with Venus Wire for the purposes of that administrative 
review. See 2008-2009 Final Results.
    In the current administrative review, the Department re-examined 
Hindustan's operations and sales information. The Department determined 
that Hindustan was a producer/exporter of SS Bar during the instant 
POR. The Department also determined that, according to information 
presented in Venus Wire's and Hindustan's responses to the Department's 
questionnaires, Venus Wire and Hindustan are affiliated within the 
meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. See Venus Wire's section AQR at 
A-5-13; see also Hindustan's August 19, 2010 section AQR. The 
Department issued a memorandum announcing the collapsing of Venus Wire 
and Hindustan for the preliminary results and gave interested parties 
an opportunity to comment. See Memorandum to the File ``Whether to 
Collapse Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan Inox in the 
Preliminary Results,'' dated July 20, 2010, which is on file in the 
CRU. No comments were received. Therefore, for these preliminary 
results, we find that Hindustan and Venus Wire are affiliated and for 
the purposes of this administrative review, should be treated as a 
single entity.
    The collapsed entity of Venus Wire, Precision Metals, Sieves, and 
Hindustan is hereafter referred to as ``Venus.''

Verification

    During December 2010, we verified the sales information provided by 
Venus in India using standard verification procedures, including 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original documentation containing relevant information, as provided in 
section 782(i) of the Act. The Department reported its findings on 
January 20, 2011. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the 
Sales Response of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metal 
in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar 
from India,'' dated January 20, 2011; Memorandum to the File, 
``Verification of the Sales Response of Hindustan Inox Limited in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from 
India,'' dated January 20, 2011; and Memorandum to the File, 
``Verification of the Sales Response of Sieves Manufacturers (India) 
Pvt., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless 
Steel Bar from India'' dated January 20, 2011. These reports are on 
file in the CRU.

Intent Not To Revoke, In Part

    On February 22, 2010, Venus requested revocation of the Order as it 
pertains to its sales. On January 26, 2011, the Department requested 
quantity and value information for the one year period prior to the 
imposition of the Order. On February 3, 2011, Venus responded that it 
did not keep shipment records beyond eight years and, therefore, could 
not meet the Department's request. See February 3, 2011, letter from 
Venus to the Department.
    On February 8, 2011, Petitioners commented that the Department 
should deny Venus's revocation request because it did not ship in 
commercial quantities to the United States following the imposition of 
the Order. Petitioners also argued that the request for revocation of 
the Order should not be granted because Venus is subject to antidumping 
and countervailing duty investigations in the European Union (``EU'') 
and, therefore, would be likely to engage in unfair trading practices 
in other markets including the United States. On February 18, 2011, 
Venus responded that it sold in commercial quantities to the United 
States in all administrative reviews it had participated in since the 
imposition of the Order. Venus further argued that the antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations in the EU should not be considered 
in determining the merit of a revocation request.
    Under section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, in 
whole or in part'' an antidumping duty order upon completion of a 
review. Although Congress has not specified the procedures that the 
Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has 
developed a procedure for revocation that is set forth at 19 CFR 
351.222. Under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i), the Department may revoke an 
antidumping duty order in part if it concludes that (A) an exporter or 
producer has sold the merchandise at not less than NV for a period of 
at least three consecutive years; (B) the exporter or producer has 
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order if the 
Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the 
revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and (C) the 
continued application of the antidumping duty order is no longer 
necessary to offset dumping. Section 351.222(b)(3) of the Department's 
regulations states that, in the case of an exporter that is not the 
producer of subject merchandise, the Department normally will revoke an 
order in part under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) only with respect to subject 
merchandise produced or supplied by those companies that supplied the 
exporter during the time period that formed the basis for revocation.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) a request for revocation of 
an order in part for a company previously found dumping must address 
three elements. The company requesting the revocation must do so in 
writing and submit the following statements with the request: (1) The 
company's certification that it sold the subject merchandise at not 
less than NV during the current review period and that, in the future, 
it will not sell at less than NV; (2) the company's certification that, 
during each of the consecutive years forming the basis of the request, 
it sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial 
quantities; (3) the company's agreement to reinstatement in the order 
if the Department concludes

[[Page 12047]]

that, subsequent to revocation, the company has sold the subject 
merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). We preliminarily 
determine that the request dated February 22, 2010, from Venus meets 
all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    However, with regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i), 
our preliminary margin calculations show that Venus sold SS Bar at less 
than NV during the current review period. See ``Preliminary Results of 
the Review'' section below.
    As such, we preliminarily find that Venus does not qualify for 
revocation.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
will apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party (A) withholds 
information requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) 
provides information which cannot be verified as provided by section 
782(i) of the Act.
    We have determined that the use of facts otherwise available is 
appropriate for the preliminary results with respect to Mukand because 
of Mukand's: 1) Repeated failure throughout this review to provide 
product-specific cost data by size; 2) failure to provide any 
meaningful explanation of why such data could not be provided; and 3) 
failure to provide factual information to support its claim that cost 
differences due to size were insignificant.
    Normally, a respondent's reported product costs should reflect cost 
differences attributable to the different physical characteristics, as 
defined by the Department, to ensure that the product-specific costs 
used for the sales-below-cost test and constructed value (``CV'') 
accurately reflect the corresponding product's physical 
characteristics. See sections 773(b)(1) and 773(e) of the Act. 
Similarly, the product-specific costs should incorporate differences in 
variable costs associated with the physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with 19 CFR 351.411(b) to account for the 
difference-in-merchandise adjustment.
    For this administrative review, product size must be reflected in 
the cost-of-production (``COP'') and the CV because sales prices are 
compared to production costs on a size-specific basis. These 
comparisons cannot accurately be made without knowing how COP varies 
with size. In addition, section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act requires 
that we account for any differences attributable to physical 
differences between the subject merchandise and foreign like product if 
similar products are compared.
    Control numbers (``CONNUMs'') for SS Bar products, under this order 
and other orders on SS Bar, reflect six product characteristics (i.e., 
general type of finish, grade, re-melting, type of final finish, shape, 
and size). Mukand produces SS Bar in a wide range of sizes, but has 
failed to provide COP differences for the physical characteristic of 
size.
    Specifically, Mukand failed in its original and four supplemental 
responses \1\ to provide unique product costs that account for the 
differences in the physical characteristic size, as defined by the 
Department. Mukand assigned the same per kilogram conversion costs to 
all products irrespective of the final size of the product produced. 
See cost database from Mukand's Section D questionnaire response dated 
June 11, 2010. That methodology fails to provide the Department with 
product-specific COP and CV information. In addition, it fails to 
provide the Department with information necessary to calculate a 
difference in merchandise adjustment to account for differences in 
physical characteristics when comparing sales of similar merchandise. 
As explained to Mukand in the first Section D supplemental 
questionnaire, ``without accurate data for size, we cannot perform a 
reliable sales-below-cost test; we cannot calculate accurate CVs for 
use as normal value; nor can we make accurate price-to-price 
comparisons of similar merchandise.'' We issued Mukand four 
supplemental questionnaires requesting that it correct these errors, 
but it failed to do so. See supplemental questionnaires dated August 9, 
2010, October 4, 2010, November 22, 2010, and January 21, 2011 
(``Mukand's SQDs''). While we acknowledge that Mukand does not allocate 
cost to specific sizes in its normal books and records, we informed 
Mukand that it should use information reasonably available to the 
company to account for size-specific cost differences. We further 
instructed Mukand that if it believed that size did not contribute to 
cost differences between products, it should quantify and explain its 
reasons for not reporting a cost difference. In response, Mukand failed 
to provide costs differences for size, but did provide its reasoning as 
to why it considered the cost differences insignificant. However, 
Mukand's explanation does not support the position that cost 
differences for different sizes are insignificant. In addition, we gave 
Mukand the opportunity to provide factual information to show the 
significance or insignificance of cost differences associated with the 
different sizes of SS Bar it produced. Mukand again failed to do so. 
Accordingly, Mukand's failure to provide the requested data renders its 
response unusable for these preliminary results. Therefore, in light of 
Mukand's continued failure to provide requested information necessary 
to calculate accurate dumping margins in this case, in accordance with 
section 776(a) of the Act, we determine that the use of facts otherwise 
available with an adverse inference is appropriate for these 
preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mukand submitted initial and supplemental Section D 
responses on June 11, 2010, August 31, October 26, and December 15, 
2010, and February 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party 
in selecting the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from 
India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005), and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). In addition, the 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (``SAA''), 
explains that the Department may employ an adverse inference ``to 
ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; 
and, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of 
the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663 
(December 10, 2007). Furthermore, affirmative evidence of bad faith on 
the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make 
an adverse inference. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow 
Products From Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000); Antidumping

[[Page 12048]]

Duties, Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); and 
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (CAFC 2003) 
(``Nippon''). It is the Department's practice to consider, in employing 
adverse inferences, the extent to which a party may benefit from its 
own lack of cooperation.
    The Federal Circuit has stated that, ``while the adverse facts 
available standard does not require perfection and recognizes that 
mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone inattentiveness, 
carelessness, or inadequate record keeping.'' See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 
1373, 1382-83. The AFA standard, moreover, assumes that because 
respondents are in control of their own information, they are required 
to take reasonable steps to present information that reflects their 
experience for reporting purposes before the Department. Therefore, we 
find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the 
company's interests in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.
    In this case, we have determined that Mukand has not acted to the 
best of its ability in responding to the Department's request for size-
specific cost information. In our supplemental questionnaires we 
repeatedly instructed Mukand to rely not only on its existing financial 
and cost accounting records, but on other information which would allow 
it to reasonably allocate its costs to the many different sizes of SS 
Bar products it produced. See Mukand's SQDs. It is standard procedure 
for the Department to request product-specific cost data and we 
routinely receive such information from respondents, as we did from the 
other respondents, Venus and Facor, in this case. See section D 
questionnaire responses dated June 4, 2010 for Facor, and dated June 
14, 2010 for Venus. Even if a company does not calculate product-
specific costs to the level of detail required by the Department in its 
normal financial and cost accounting records as is the case here, we 
require that the company account for such cost differences using 
information reasonably available to it. See section D questionnaire 
dated June 11, 2010 at D-25.
    Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility 
not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested 
information, but also to provide a ``full explanation and suggested 
alternative forms.'' In response to our numerous requests for product-
specific cost data, Mukand maintained its position that it would not 
provide the requested data because cost differences related to size are 
insignificant and the company's accounting system does not track them. 
The Department repeatedly asked Mukand to support its claim that size-
specific cost differences for SS Bar products are not significant. 
However, to date, Mukand has failed to provide the Department with any 
actual data to support its claim. As such, this case can be 
distinguished from Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 
From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
76 FR 9745 (February 22, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1, where the respondent provided an adequate 
explanation of why the cost differences for surface treatment was 
insignificant and provided actual data to support its claim.
    Cooperation in an antidumping investigation requires more than a 
simple statement that a respondent cannot provide certain information 
from its previously prepared accounting records. If a party cannot 
provide certain information from its accounting records, then it may 
notify the Department that it is unable to submit this information in 
the form and manner requested but it must also provide explanation and 
suggest alternative forms in which it is able to submit the 
information. See section 782(c) of the Act. See also Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 
FR 1127, 1132 (January 7, 2000). To meet that burden, a respondent must 
explain what steps it has taken to comply with the information request, 
and propose alternative methodologies for getting the necessary 
information. See Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 
1185, 1192 (Federal Circuit 1993). Mukand has failed to do either. 
Logically, at a minimum, in order to produce bars of different sizes, 
Mukand personnel would need to set the machine parameters to produce 
the specific size desired (i.e., set the machine speed and the number 
of passes through the rolling stand). It is reasonable to expect that 
Mukand has manufacturing plans or engineering standards associated with 
the production of specific sizes of bar that could have been used to 
reasonably allocate costs to specific sizes. As Mukand continues to 
produce SS Bar, Mukand personnel could have also timed current 
production runs to provide rolling times for specific sizes, which 
could have been used as a reasonable basis for allocating costs to 
specific sizes. It is also reasonable to expect that Mukand does know 
the grade-specific, length-to-weight conversion factors for different 
sizes of bar with the engineering knowledge the company possesses to 
manufacture SS Bar. While Mukand's financial and cost-accounting 
records may not allocate unique costs to the different sizes of bar 
produced, the company could have developed a reasonable methodology to 
allocate costs to different sized products on a CONNUM-specific per-
unit weight basis, using the company's normal cost-accounting records 
as a starting point to calculate CONNUM-specific costs. The Department 
repeatedly requested that Mukand look beyond its financial and cost-
accounting records and select from a variety of available data using, 
for example, engineering studies, rolling mill processing times, 
production experience, relative length-to-weight conversion factors, or 
other production records for allocating costs to products on a CONNUM-
specific per-unit weight basis. See Mukand's SQDs.
    Although we provided Mukand with notice informing it of the 
consequences of its failure to respond fully to our antidumping 
questionnaire, Mukand's repeated failure throughout the review to 
provide size-specific cost data or to provide any meaningful 
explanation of why such data could not be provided, demonstrates that 
Mukand did not cooperate to the best of its ability. See Mukand's SQDs. 
Mukand has participated in previous segments of this Order and, thus, 
has experience in responding to the Department's requests for 
information and is well aware of the types of information the 
Department requires. See e.g., Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 13622 (March 
20, 1998). Moreover, Mukand is a large, sophisticated company that has 
the resources to gather the information requested by the Department in 
this review. Therefore, we find that an adverse inference is warranted 
in selecting facts otherwise available.
    Where the Department applies an AFA rate because a respondent 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 
the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a 
final determination, a previous administrative review, or other 
information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the 
SAA at 870. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the 
Department relies on secondary information as facts available, it must, 
to the extent practicable,

[[Page 12049]]

corroborate that information from independent sources that are 
reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' 
means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870; see also 19 
CFR 351.308(d). The SAA also states that independent sources used to 
corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official 
import statistics, and customs data as well as information obtained 
from interested parties during the particular proceeding. Id. 
Information from a prior segment of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information. Id.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated dumping margin 
from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question 
the reliability of the margin. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 
Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, and 
Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55581 (September 15, 2004), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18.
    As AFA for Mukand, we have assigned a margin of 22.63 percent. This 
margin was calculated for Ambica Steels Limited (``Ambica'') in the 
2006 antidumping duty new shipper review and represents the highest 
calculated weighted-average margin determined for any respondent in any 
segment of this proceeding. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 72 FR 72671 (December 
21, 2007). This rate was reliable when it was first used because it was 
calculated as the AFA rate for Ambica, based upon its own submitted 
information. Id. No additional information has been presented in the 
current review which calls into question the reliability of the 
information. The Federal Circuit has held that the Department ``is 
permitted to use a `common sense inference that the highest prior 
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins because, if it 
were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less.''' See KYD, Inc. v. 
United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Rhone Poulenc, 
Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis 
deleted)).
    With respect to relevance aspect of corroboration, we have used the 
transaction-specific margins we calculated for Venus and Facor in this 
review to determine, in the absence of any response from Mukand 
regarding its cost by size, whether the rate of 22.63 percent could 
bear a rational relationship to the commercial practices for sales of 
subject merchandise. Specifically, we analyzed transaction-specific 
margins of Venus and Facor to determine whether they made U.S. sales at 
prices that would result in transactional margins at or above 22.63 
percent during the POR.
    We found that the 22.63 percent margin falls within the range of 
individual transaction margins and that there was a significant number 
of sales in commercial quantities, made in the ordinary course of 
trade, by Facor and Venus, with margins near or exceeding 22.63 
percent. See Memorandum from Mahnaz Khan to File regarding Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum for Facor Steels, Ltd., at Attachment 2 
(February 28, 2011) and Memorandum from Austin Redington to File 
regarding Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire 
Industries Pvt. Ltd., at Attachment 2 (February 28, 2011).
    The number of U.S. transactions receiving a margin of 22.63 percent 
or greater is a representative figure whether it is measured by the 
number, value or quantity of the transactions. Because we find that 
both of the other Indian respondents in this administrative review made 
a significant percentage of sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR at prices that resulted in transaction-specific 
margins at or above 22.63 percent, we find that the rate of 22.63 
percent bears a rational relationship to the commercial practices of 
sales of subject merchandise. Selecting a rate representing a 
substantial percentage of total U.S. sales transactions by Venus and 
Facor is in line with PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336, 1340 
(Fed. Cir. 2009), where the court upheld an AFA rate even though only 
0.5% of the respondent's total sales were above the selected rate. 
Moreover, there is no information on the record of this review that 
demonstrates that the rate selected is not an appropriate AFA rate for 
Mukand.
    Finally, we find that the rate of 22.63 percent as AFA is 
sufficiently high to ensure that Mukand does not benefit from failing 
to cooperate in our review by refusing to respond to our questionnaire. 
See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products 
From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, 
73 FR 15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008).

Date of Sale

    The Department normally will use the date of the invoice, as 
recorded in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary 
course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than 
the invoice date if the Department is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are 
established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
    Venus and Mukand reported that the material terms of their U.S. and 
comparison market sales are established by the invoice date; thus, we 
are relying on the invoice date as the sale for these companies. Facor 
reported that the material terms of its comparison market sales are 
established by the invoice date, however, for its U.S. sales, the 
quantity and price are not determined until issuance of the excise 
invoice. Accordingly, we are relying on invoice date as date of sale 
for Facor's comparison market sales and excise date for its U.S. sales.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
determined NV using home market sales at the same level of trade as the 
U.S. sales.
    To determine whether home-market sales are at the same or different 
level of trade than U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions \2\ along the chains of distribution 
between the producer and unaffiliated customers. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for export 
price (``EP'') and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either 
comparison market or third country prices),\3\ we consider the starting 
prices before any adjustments. If the home-market sales are at a 
different level of

[[Page 12050]]

trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference affect price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and home-market 
sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-
of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, e.g., 
Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 5493 (February 5, 2004) (unchanged at 
the final).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level of trade(s) in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: Sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
    \3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV level of trade 
of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and 
administrative expenses (``G&A'') and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Venus

    Our level of trade determination for Venus relies on the sales 
activities of the collapsed entity of Venus Wire, Precision Metal, 
Sieves, and Hindustan.
    Venus reported one channel of distribution and a single level of 
trade in both the home market and the U.S. market. Venus reported that 
it sells to trading companies, distributors, and end users at this 
single level of trade in the home market, and to distributors, trading 
companies, and end users at the same level of trade in the U.S. market. 
Venus reported that its prices did not vary based on channel of 
distribution and/or customer category. See Venus Wire's section AQR at 
A-16.
    We examined the information reported by Venus regarding its sales 
processes for its home market and U.S. market sales, including customer 
categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. See 
Venus Wire's section AQR at A-13-16. Specifically, we considered the 
extent to which sales process/marketing support, freight/delivery, 
inventory maintenance, and quality assurance/warranty service varied 
with respect to the different customer categories and channels of 
distribution across the markets.
    Because there was only one channel of distribution and because we 
determined that the selling functions were similar for all home market 
sales, we found that the home market channel of distribution comprises 
one level of trade. We evaluated the U.S. channel of distribution and 
because the selling functions were identical for all U.S. sales, we 
found that it also comprises one level of trade.
    Next, we compared the U.S. level of trade to the home market level 
of trade. Venus reported similar levels of freight/delivery in both the 
home market and U.S. market. Id. Further, Venus reported no inventory 
maintenance in either the home market or the U.S. market, and reported 
that it provided no warranty services in any of its channels of 
distribution. Id.
    Based on our examination of the selling functions performed in the 
single channel of distribution in the U.S. market, we preliminarily 
find that Venus's sales in the home market and the United States were 
made at the same level of trade. Thus, we were able to match Venus's EP 
sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home market.

(B) Facor

    Facor reported that it had two levels of trade in the home market: 
(1) Sales to end-users from its factory warehouse in Nagpur and from 
its distribution warehouses located in Chennai and Kolkata (``LOTH 
1''), and (2) sales to retailers from its factory warehouse in Nagpur 
(``LOTH 2''). See Facor's section AQR dated May 24, 2010, at 17-19 and 
21. Facor reported one level of trade in the U.S. market comprised of 
sales to retailers from its factory warehouse in Nagpur. See Facor's 
section AQR dated May 24, 2010, at 21. Facor requested a level of trade 
adjustment, claiming that its LOTH 1 ``end-user'' customers pay higher 
prices than its LOTH 2 ``retail'' customers. Id.
    In support of its claim, Facor reported that it performs more 
selling activities for LOTH 1 end-users than it does for LOTH 2 end-
users, including but not limited to, product chemical guarantees, 
product performance guarantees, a higher level of negotiation of sales 
terms, and timely delivery guarantees. Id. Facor states that sales 
negotiations take longer for LOTH 1 end-users, as opposed to LOTH 2 
retailers. See Facor's section AQR dated May 24, 2010, at 24. Regarding 
inventory maintenance, Facor claims that SS Bar is held in inventory 
for longer periods of time for LOTH 1 end-users than for LOTH 2 end-
users. See Facor's QR dated February 7, 2011 at 1. Facor reported that 
it uses third-party freight providers for its LOTH 1 sales for shipment 
from its Chennai and Kolkata warehouses. Further, for LOTH 1 sales, 
Facor generally advertises through its product brochures or displays. 
See Facor's QR dated August 9, 2010, at 17.
    Facor reported that it does not necessarily perform additional 
sales functions for LOTH 2 relating to customers' specifications. See 
Facor's QR dated February 7, 2011, at 3. Facor states in its 
supplemental questionnaire response that sales negotiations for LOTH 2 
retailers are less complicated than negotiations for LOTH 1 end-users 
because negotiations for LOTH 2 retailers are restricted to a single 
level. See Facor's QR dated February 7, 2011, at 3. Further, because 
LOTH 2 sales are not produced for specific customers, these sales have 
a shorter inventory carrying time. See Facor's QR dated February 7, 
2011 at 1. Facor reported that it uses third-party freight providers 
for LOTH 2 sales from its Nagpur warehouse. See Facor's section AQR 
dated May 24, 2010, at 24. Similar to its LOTH 1 end-users, Facor 
generally advertises through its product brochures or displays for its 
LOTH 2 retailers. See Facor's QR dated August 9, 2010, at 17.
    We examined the information regarding the types and levels of 
selling functions performed for LOTH 1 and LOTH 2. Specifically, we 
considered the extent to which sales process/marketing support, 
freight/delivery, inventory maintenance, and quality assurance/warranty 
service varied with respect to LOTH 1 and LOTH 2. Although Facor 
reported that sales negotiations take longer for end-users, Facor did 
not quantify the number of staff, nor did it provide information 
regarding the allocation of marketing resources dedicated to supporting 
its LOTH 1 end-users. Moreover, Facor provides a similar level of 
advertising for both LOTH 1 and LOTH 2 in the home market. The only 
difference in inventory maintenance reported by Facor was that LOTH 1 
sales remained in inventory for longer periods of time than for LOTH 2. 
Days in inventory is not a meaningful measure of inventory selling 
activities, and we found no other record information that indicates 
there were significantly different inventory activities performed 
between the factory and distribution warehouses. Specifically, there 
does not appear to be a significant difference in the intensity of 
resources or staffing.
    There also does not appear to be a significant difference in the 
level of intensity for freight/delivery between LOTH 1 and LOTH 2 
because Facor reported that it contracts with third-party freight 
providers for delivery to its customers at both levels of trade. Our 
examination of the freight expenses reported by Facor indicates that 
the allocation of freight delivery expenses to customers at LOTH 1 and 
LOTH 2 are similar based on information reported in Facor's home market 
sales data. Finally, Facor reported that certain product guarantees, 
such as guarantees relating to chemical and mechanical properties and 
technical performance, are not incurred on every sale because 
established customers generally waive request for such guarantees. See 
Facor QR dated February 7, 2011, at 4. Therefore, we do not find that 
product guarantees are a significant difference between LOTH 1 and LOTH 
2.
    Accordingly, we preliminary determine that Facor did not experience 
significant differences in sales process/marketing support, freight/
delivery, inventory maintenance and quality

[[Page 12051]]

assurance/warranty services between LOTH 1 and LOTH 2. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that a single level of trade exists in Facor's 
home market.
    Facor reported EP sales to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States. See Facor's June 3, 2010, section C response. Facor reported a 
single channel of distribution and customer type to the U.S. market, 
direct sales to retailers. The Department compared the selling 
functions Facor performed in the single, home market level of trade 
with the selling functions performed for its U.S. sales. The Department 
found that Facor advertised its products similarly in both markets. 
Moreover, the Department found that, for both markets, Facor contracted 
with third-party freight providers to handle all freight arrangements. 
There were no differences in quality assurances or warranties between 
the markets. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the 
level of intensity of inventory maintenance between the markets.
    Because the Department did not find any significant differences in 
sales process/customer support, quality assurances/warranty and 
inventory maintenance/warehousing between Facor's home and U.S. market 
sales, we preliminarily find that Facor's sales in the home market and 
the United States were made at the same level of trade. Thus, we 
matched Facor's EP sales to sales at the same, single level of trade in 
the home market.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold by Venus and Facor that are covered by the description in 
the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and were sold in the home 
market during the POR to be foreign-like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
    We relied upon six criteria to compare U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign-like product: (1) 
General type of finish; (2) grade; (3) remelting; (4) type of final 
finishing operation; (5) shape; and (6) size. This is consistent with 
our practice in the original investigation. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Stainless Steel Bar From India, 59 FR 39733, 39735 
(August 4, 1994) (unchanged at the final). Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary 
course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 
next most similar product on the basis of the characteristics listed 
above. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise 
made in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we 
compared U.S. sales to CV.

Export Price

    Venus and Facor reported that the subject merchandise was sold 
prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United 
States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. 
Therefore, we based the U.S. price on EP, as defined in Section 772(a) 
of the Act.

(A) Venus

    Venus's EP is based on the packed, delivered, duty paid price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported 
gross unit prices, where applicable, for discounts including weight 
shortages, short payments, or quality claims. Where appropriate, we 
made deductions for movement expenses, including freight incurred in 
transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and 
handling, freight incurred in the United States, and U.S. customs 
duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See 
Memorandum from Austin Redington to File, re: ``Venus Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum,'' dated February 28, 2011 (``Venus 
Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo'').

(B) Facor

    Facor's EP is based on the prepaid destination delivery, duty paid 
or cost, insurance and freight price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions for movement expenses from the 
reported gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred 
in transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and 
handling, and U.S. customs duties. See Memorandum from Mahnaz Khan to 
File, re: ``Facor Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum,'' dated 
February 28, 2011 (``Facor Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo'').

Duty Drawback

    Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that EP shall be increased 
by, among other things, ``the amount of any import duties imposed by 
the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not 
been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise 
to the United States.'' The Department determines that an adjustment to 
U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when a company can 
demonstrate that: (1) The ``import duty and rebate are directly linked 
to, and dependent upon, one another;'' and (2) ``the company claiming 
the adjustment can show that there were sufficient imports of the 
imported raw materials to account for the drawback received on the 
exported product.'' Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 
2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999). Facor did not claim a duty 
drawback adjustment. Venus requested a duty drawback adjustment, but 
did not submit any information to support its request. Therefore, 
because Venus failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are 
denying Venus's request for a duty drawback adjustment for these 
preliminary results. See Venus Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

Home Market

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales, and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by both 
respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Each company's quantity of sales in its 
home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. 
market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in the ordinary course of trade and, to the 
extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP sales.
    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales were made at 
arm's length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded from our 
analysis sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home 
market that we determined not to be at arm's length prices. To test 
whether these sales were made at arm's length prices, we compared them 
to the prices to unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement 
charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices

[[Page 12052]]

charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 
percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise 
comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the 
sales to the affiliated party were at arm's length prices. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We included in our 
calculation of NV those sales to affiliated parties that were made at 
arm's length prices. See Venus Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo and 
Facor Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV for 
Venus based on the sum of its material and fabrication costs, selling, 
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, profit, and U.S. 
packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described below 
in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section of this notice, below. 
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 
expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Venus in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. 
We did not calculate CV for Facor.

Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market. When applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(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, as well as for differences in 
circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. When applicable, we also made adjustments, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses 
incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were 
granted on sales in one market but not in the other. Specifically, 
where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the 
comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser 
of (1) the amount of the commission paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. 
If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the 
U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same 
methodology.

Cost Averaging Methodology

    The Department's normal practice for respondents not in high 
inflationary economies is to calculate a single weighted-average cost 
for the entire POR unless this methodology results in inappropriate 
comparisons. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 2000), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 
2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 
(explaining the Department's practice of computing a single weighted-
average cost for the entire period and the Department's use of annual 
average costs in order to even out swings in production costs 
experienced by respondents over short periods of time). However, we 
recognize that possible distortions may result if we use our normal 
annual-average cost method during a period of significant cost changes. 
In determining whether to deviate from our normal methodology of 
calculating an annual weighted-average cost, we evaluate the case-
specific record evidence using two primary factors: (1) The change in 
the cost of manufacturing (``COM'') recognized by the respondent during 
the POR must be deemed significant; (2) the record evidence must 
indicate that sales during the shorter averaging periods could be 
reasonably linked with the COP or CV during the same shorter averaging 
periods. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 
(February 10, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 6, and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 
(December 11, 2008) (``SSPC from Belgium''), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
    In prior cases, we established 25 percent as the threshold (between 
the high- and low-quarter COM) for determining that the changes in COM 
are significant enough to warrant a departure from our standard annual-
cost approach. See SSPC from Belgium, and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. In the instant case, we analyzed the 
COM for selected highest sales volume SS Bar products. Based on our 
review of the record evidence, we did not find that Venus and Facor 
experienced significant changes in their respective COMs during the 
POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating an 
annual weighted-average cost.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of SS Bar by Venus and Facor to the 
United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Home Market'' sections of this 
notice, above. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared 
the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of 
the foreign like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary 
course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' 
section, below.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales by Venus and Facor made at prices 
below the COP in the most recently completed review of SS Bar from 
India (see 2008-2009 Final Results (Venus) and Stainless Steel Bar From 
India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 
Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 
48965 (August 10, 2000) (Facor)), we had reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration 
for the determination of NV in this review for Venus and Facor may have 
been made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 
we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Venus and Facor.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the materials and conversion costs for the foreign 
like product, plus amounts for G&A expense and interest expenses. We 
relied on home market sales and COP information provided by Venus and 
Facor in their respective questionnaire responses, except where noted 
below:

(A) Venus Wire, Sieves, Precision Metals, and Hindustan

    1. We increased Venus's reported COM to include the unreconciled 
difference between the COM from its normal books and records and the 
reported COM.
    2. We revised Venus's G&A expense rate to include the director

[[Page 12053]]

remuneration expense in the numerator and we reduced the cost of goods 
sold (``COGS'') used as the denominator by the scrap revenue.
    3. We revised Venus's financial expense rate by reducing the COGS 
denominator by the scrap revenue.
    4. For a specific Sieves CONNUM that was missing variable overhead 
(``VOH'') costs, we used the reported VOH from a surrogate CONNUM.
    5. We increased Sieves's reported COM to account for inputs 
obtained from affiliates at less than market prices, and to include the 
unreconciled difference between the COM from its normal books and 
records and the reported COM.
    6. We revised Sieves's G&A expense rate to include the director 
remuneration expense in the numerator and we reduced the COGS 
denominator by the scrap revenue.
    7. We revised Sieves's financial expense rate by reducing the COGS 
denominator by the scrap revenue.
    8. We revised Precision Metals's G&A expense rate by reducing the 
COGS denominator by the scrap revenue.
    9. We revised Precision Metals's financial expense rate by reducing 
the COGS denominator by the scrap revenue.
    10. We increased Hindustan's reported COM to include the 
unreconciled difference between the COM from its normal books and 
records and the reported COM.
    For additional details, see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director 
of Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary