Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation of the Order, in Part, 56401-56404 [2011-23390]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices Comment 10: Whether the Fangda Group Reported Accurate Sales Prices Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Natural Gas Comment 12: Whether Fushun Jinly Failed to Submit CONNUM-Specific Factor Data Comment 13: Whether Fushun Jinly’s ByProduct Offsets Should Be Rejected Comment 14: Whether Fushun Jinly Reported Accurate Electricity Consumption Factors and Whether the Department Incorrectly Valued Fushun Jinly’s Coal Consumption Comment 15: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Reported Market Economy Purchase Prices for Needle Coke Are Understated Comment 16: Whether Fushun Jinly Reported All Factor Data Comment 17: Whether to Reject Fushun Jinly’s Tollers’ Data Because It Included Non-Subject Merchandise in the FOP Allocations Comment 18: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Graphitization Toller’s FOP Data are Understated, Incomplete and Unreliable Comment 19: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Accounting Records Can Be Reconciled to the Toller’s Records With Respect to Quantities Comment 20: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Toller #1’s Data Are Incomplete Comment 21: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Toller #2’s Data Are Incomplete Comment 22: Fushun Jinly’s Toller #2’s Electricity Consumption Comment 23: Whether Fushun Jinly’s Toller’s Data Are Otherwise Understated Comment 24: Offsetting Negative Margins [FR Doc. 2011–23357 Filed 9–12–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–810] Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation of the Order, in Part Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 4, 2011, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The review covers shipments of subject merchandise to the United States for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010, by Facor Steels Ltd./ Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd. (‘‘Facor’’), Mukand Ltd. (‘‘Mukand’’), and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Venus Wire’’).1 Based on our analysis mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 1 For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Results, we have determined that Venus Wire and its affiliates, Hindustan Inox, Precision Metals (‘‘Hindustan’’) and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Sieves’’), should be treated as a single VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:22 Sep 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 of the comments received, we have made changes to the preliminary results, which are discussed below. For the final dumping margins, see the ‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section below. Finally, we are announcing our revocation of the order on stainless steel bar from India, in part, with respect to subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Venus to the United States. DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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) 482–1664, (202) 482–1279, or (202) 482– 3813, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 4, 2011, the Department published 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, 76 FR 12044 (March 4, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). After publishing the Preliminary Results, the Department conducted verification of the cost of production responses from Venus Wire and its affiliate, Sieves, from March 7, 2011, through March 18, 2011. The results of this verification were disclosed to the interested parties on April 29, 2011. See Memorandum from Angie Sepulveda and Heidi K. Schriefer to Neal M. Halper, ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India,’’ dated April 29, 2011; see also Memorandum from Angie Sepulveda and Heidi K. Schriefer to Neal M. Halper, ‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Sieves Manufacturers (India) Private Limited in the Antidumping Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India,’’ dated April 29, 2011, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 7046 in the main Department building. entity and collapsed for the purposes of this review. See Memorandum from Patricia Tran and Austin Redington to the File, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan Inox in the Preliminary Results’’ dated July 20, 2010; see also Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File, ‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,’’ dated May 20, 2010; see also Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File, ‘‘Relationship of Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves Manufactures (India) Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated May 20, 2010. The collapsed entity is referred to as ‘‘Venus.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 56401 We preliminarily determined to treat Venus Wire and its affiliate Hindustan as a single entity for this review. See Preliminary Results; see also Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan Inox in the Preliminary Results,’’ dated July 20, 2010. We invited comment on this issue from the interested parties: None was received. We are continuing to treat Venus Wire and its affiliate Hindustan as a single entity for the final results of this review. On April 14, 2011, the Department extended the time limit for the completion of the final results of this review by 60 days (to August 31, 2011), in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 20950 (April 14, 2011). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On April 4, 2011, we received a letter from Venus detailing and correcting administrative errors in its questionnaire response and verification. On April 25, 2011, we received a response to Venus’ April 4, 2011 letter from Petitioners.2 On May 3, 2011, we received an additional letter from Venus, which clarified its comments of April 4, 2011. On June 16, 2011, we received case briefs from Venus and Petitioners. On June 16, 2011, pursuant to a request from Mukand, we extended the deadline for submission of case briefs to June 20, 2011. See Memorandum from Seth Isenberg to the File, ‘‘2009/2010 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India: Revised Briefing Schedule,’’ dated June 16, 2011. On June 20, 2011, we again extended the deadline, pursuant to a request from Mukand, Ltd. See Memorandum from Seth Isenberg to the File, ‘‘2009/2010 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India: Revised Briefing Schedule,’’ dated June 20, 2011. On June 22, 2011, we received case briefs from Mukand and Facor. On June 24, 2011, we extended the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs to June 29, 2011, pursuant to a request from Petitioners. See Memorandum from the Team to the File, ‘‘2009/2010 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India: Revised Briefing Schedule,’’ dated June 24, 2011. We 2 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., Universal Stainless (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’). E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM 13SEN1 56402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES received rebuttal briefs on June 27, 2011, and June 29, 2011, from Venus and Petitioners, respectively. On July 13, 2011, we rejected Mukand’s June 21, 2011 case brief because it contained new factual information. See Letter from the Department to Mukand, ‘‘June 22, 2011 Case Brief,’’ dated July 13, 2011. In response to the Department’s July 13, 2011 letter, Mukand re-filed its case brief on July 13, 2011, having removed the new factual information from its June 22, 2011 case brief. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of stainless steel bar. Stainless steel 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. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel 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 semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled 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 stainless steel bar subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11, 7222.19, 7222.20, 7222.30 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. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2009–2010 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India’’ (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’), which is VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:22 Sep 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on file in the CRU, and is accessible on the web at http:// www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made the following changes in calculating dumping margin for Venus: (1) We reversed our determination regarding Venus’ eligibility for revocation from the order; (2) we corrected a clerical error identified by Sieves regarding an incorrect grade reported in its home market for two control numbers (‘‘CONNUMs’’); (3) we corrected a clerical error identified by Venus regarding an incorrect size reported for two U.S. market CONNUMs; (4) we corrected a clerical error identified by Venus regarding an incorrect credit expense that resulted from a misreported date of sale for one home market sale; (5) we made an adjustment to one of Venus’ U.S. sales to reflect a reimbursement it received for international freight expenses; (6) we recalculated Venus’ and Sieves’ annealing related charges based on the quantity processed, by grade series, regardless of size; (7) we revised Venus’ reported conversion costs to correct minor errors found in the calculation of the direct labor, selected variable overhead items, and depreciation amounts; (8) we revised Sieves’ reported conversion costs to allocate direct labor and selected variable overhead items only to stainless steel bright bar and to correct the processing related charges; (9) we increased Sieves’ reported direct material costs to account for inputs obtained from affiliates at less than market prices; (10) we revised Sieves’ general and administrative expense rate to exclude from the numerator the portion of the director remuneration expense reported as a selling expense; (11) we increased Hindustan’s reported cost of manufacture (‘‘COM’’) to include the unreconciled difference between the COM from its normal books and records and the reported COM; and (12) we changed the AFA rate applied to Mukand to the 21.02 percent rate calculated in the petition. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1, 3, and 7. For further details on how the changes relating to Venus were applied in the calculation, PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 see Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File, ‘‘Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated August 31, 2011; see also Memorandum from Angie Sepulveda and Heidi K. Schriefer to Neal M. Halper, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results— Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated August 31, 2011. Use of Adverse Facts Available The Department found in the Preliminary Results that Mukand failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by withholding information requested in the Department’s questionnaire and, thereby, impeding the proceeding. See Preliminary Results. Therefore, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.308, the Department preliminarily selected 22.63 percent as the adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) dumping margin. For these final results, the Department continues to find that an AFA margin should be applied to Mukand; however, as stated above, the Department has changed the AFA margin applied to Mukand and is now applying the rate calculated in the petition. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 for further discussion. Revocation 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), 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 normal value 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 normal value, and (C) the continued application of the antidumping duty order is no longer necessary to offset dumping. 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 E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM 13SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices than normal value during the current review period and that, in the future, it will not sell at less than normal value; (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 that, subsequent to revocation, the company has sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). For these final results, we find that Venus’ revocation request dated February 24, 2010, meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), we have determined that application of the antidumping duty order to Venus is no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) The company had zero or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if we find that it has resumed making sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’); (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, for the final results, we determine that Venus qualifies for revocation from the order on stainless steel bar from India pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). We received comments concerning the revocation of the order on stainless steel bar from India produced and/or exported by Venus to the United States. For further discussion of this issue, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also Memorandum from Scott Holland to the File ‘‘Determination to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar from India for Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd.; Precision Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt., Ltd., and Hindustan Inox, Ltd.,’’ dated August 31, 2011. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(ii), we are revoking the order on stainless steel bar from India produced and/or exported by Venus to the United States, effective February 1, 2010. Cost of Production As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Venus and Facor made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production (‘‘COP’’) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See Preliminary Results. For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same 56403 methodology as discussed in the Preliminary Results. We found 20 percent or more of each respondent’s sales of a given product during the reporting period were made at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(1) and (2) of the Act. For purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Venus and Facor made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales (if any) as the basis for determining normal value, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were no home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, we based normal value on constructed value. Final Results of the Review We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for Venus, Mukand, and Facor for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. Exporter/manufacturer Margin (percent) Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd./Precision Metal/Sieves Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd./Hindustan Inox Ltd .............................. Mukand, Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................................... Facor Steels Ltd./Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd ............................................................................................................................ 0.07 21.02 9.86 De minimis mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for the companies subject to this review to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by the respondent for which it has reported the importer of record and the entered value of all the U.S. sales to that importer, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for all U.S. sales to an importer, we have calculated importer- VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:22 Sep 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on reported and estimated entered values (when no entered value was reported). Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Cash Deposit Requirements Because we are revoking the order with respect to Venus’ exports of subject merchandise, we will order CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2010, and to refund all cash deposits collected. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel bar from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM 13SEN1 56404 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Notices or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. These final results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Whether to Revoke the Order as it Applies to Venus VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:22 Sep 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 Comment 2: Whether to Compare U.S. Sales to Home Market Sales of Similar Merchandise Comment 3: Whether to Accept Venus’ Minor Corrections Comment 4: Whether Venus’ Air Freighted Sales are Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade Comment 5: Whether to Grant a Level of Trade (‘‘LOT’’) Adjustment to Facor Comment 6: Whether Application of Total Adverse Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) is Warranted Comment 7: Whether the AFA Rate is Corroborated Comment 8: Whether to Use Zeroing Methodology in this Administrative Review 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). These Rules were published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter has been conducted in accordance with these Rules. Dated: September 6, 2011. Patricia Vidangos, NAFTA Trade Specialist. [FR Doc. 2011–23157 Filed 9–12–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P [FR Doc. 2011–23390 Filed 9–12–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY International Trade Administration, North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Decision of Panel. AGENCY: On August 29, 2011, the binational panel issued its decision in the review of the United States International Trade Commission’s (the Commission) final injury determination in Large Diameter Line Pipe and Tube from Mexico (NAFTA Secretariat File Number USA–MEX–2007–1904–03) affirming the Commission’s remand determination. Copies of the panel decision are available from the U.S. Section of the NAFTA Secretariat. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen M. Bohon, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Business Enterprise Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. AGENCY: The National Advisory Council for Minority Business Enterprise (NACMBE) will hold its third meeting to discuss the work of the three subcommittees and deliverables to fulfill the NACMBE’s charter mandate. The agenda may change to accommodate Council business. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 29, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, NW., Washington, DC 20008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demetria Gallagher, National Director’s Office, Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482–1624 e-mail: dgallagher@mbda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The Secretary of Commerce established the NACMBE pursuant to his discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2) on April 28, 2010. The NACMBE is to provide the Secretary of Commerce with recommendations from the private sector on a broad range of policy issues that affect minority businesses and their ability to access successfully the domestic and global marketplace. Topics to be considered: During the meeting the three subcommittees will SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM 13SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56401-56404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation of the Order, in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 4, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The review 
covers shipments of subject merchandise to the United States for the 
period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010, by Facor Steels 
Ltd./Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd. (``Facor''), Mukand Ltd. 
(``Mukand''), and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus Wire'').\1\ 
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to 
the preliminary results, which are discussed below. For the final 
dumping margins, see the ``Final Results of the Review'' section below. 
Finally, we are announcing our revocation of the order on stainless 
steel bar from India, in part, with respect to subject merchandise 
produced and/or exported by Venus to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Results, we 
have determined that Venus Wire and its affiliates, Hindustan Inox, 
Precision Metals (``Hindustan'') and Sieves Manufacturers (India) 
Pvt. Ltd. (``Sieves''), should be treated as a single entity and 
collapsed for the purposes of this review. See Memorandum from 
Patricia Tran and Austin Redington to the File, ``Whether to 
Collapse Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan Inox in the 
Preliminary Results'' dated July 20, 2010; see also Memorandum from 
Austin Redington to the File, ``Relationship of Venus Wire 
Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,'' dated May 20, 2010; see 
also Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File, ``Relationship of 
Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves Manufactures (India) Pvt. 
Ltd.,'' dated May 20, 2010. The collapsed entity is referred to as 
``Venus.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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) 482-1664, (202) 482-1279, or (202) 482-3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 4, 2011, the Department published 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, 76 FR 12044 (March 4, 2011) (``Preliminary Results''). 
After publishing the Preliminary Results, the Department conducted 
verification of the cost of production responses from Venus Wire and 
its affiliate, Sieves, from March 7, 2011, through March 18, 2011. The 
results of this verification were disclosed to the interested parties 
on April 29, 2011. See Memorandum from Angie Sepulveda and Heidi K. 
Schriefer to Neal M. Halper, ``Verification of the Cost Response of 
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Stainless 
Steel Bar from India,'' dated April 29, 2011; see also Memorandum from 
Angie Sepulveda and Heidi K. Schriefer to Neal M. Halper, 
``Verification of the Cost Response of Sieves Manufacturers (India) 
Private Limited in the Antidumping Review of Stainless Steel Bar from 
India,'' dated April 29, 2011, which are on file in the Central Records 
Unit (``CRU'') in room 7046 in the main Department building.
    We preliminarily determined to treat Venus Wire and its affiliate 
Hindustan as a single entity for this review. See Preliminary Results; 
see also Memorandum from Austin Redington to the File, ``Whether to 
Collapse Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan Inox in the 
Preliminary Results,'' dated July 20, 2010. We invited comment on this 
issue from the interested parties: None was received. We are continuing 
to treat Venus Wire and its affiliate Hindustan as a single entity for 
the final results of this review.
    On April 14, 2011, the Department extended the time limit for the 
completion of the final results of this review by 60 days (to August 
31, 2011), in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Stainless 
Steel Bar From India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of 
the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 20950 
(April 14, 2011).
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On April 
4, 2011, we received a letter from Venus detailing and correcting 
administrative errors in its questionnaire response and verification. 
On April 25, 2011, we received a response to Venus' April 4, 2011 
letter from Petitioners.\2\ On May 3, 2011, we received an additional 
letter from Venus, which clarified its comments of April 4, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, 
Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., 
Universal Stainless (collectively ``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 16, 2011, we received case briefs from Venus and 
Petitioners. On June 16, 2011, pursuant to a request from Mukand, we 
extended the deadline for submission of case briefs to June 20, 2011. 
See Memorandum from Seth Isenberg to the File, ``2009/2010 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India: Revised 
Briefing Schedule,'' dated June 16, 2011. On June 20, 2011, we again 
extended the deadline, pursuant to a request from Mukand, Ltd. See 
Memorandum from Seth Isenberg to the File, ``2009/2010 Administrative 
Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India: Revised Briefing Schedule,'' 
dated June 20, 2011. On June 22, 2011, we received case briefs from 
Mukand and Facor. On June 24, 2011, we extended the deadline for 
submission of rebuttal briefs to June 29, 2011, pursuant to a request 
from Petitioners. See Memorandum from the Team to the File, ``2009/2010 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India: Revised 
Briefing Schedule,'' dated June 24, 2011. We

[[Page 56402]]

received rebuttal briefs on June 27, 2011, and June 29, 2011, from 
Venus and Petitioners, respectively. On July 13, 2011, we rejected 
Mukand's June 21, 2011 case brief because it contained new factual 
information. See Letter from the Department to Mukand, ``June 22, 2011 
Case Brief,'' dated July 13, 2011. In response to the Department's July 
13, 2011 letter, Mukand re-filed its case brief on July 13, 2011, 
having removed the new factual information from its June 22, 2011 case 
brief.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of stainless steel bar. 
Stainless steel 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. Stainless steel bar 
includes cold-finished stainless steel 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 stainless steel bar subject to this review is currently 
classifiable under subheadings 7222.11, 7222.19, 7222.20, 7222.30 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the ``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum for the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Bar from India'' (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''), 
which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. A 
list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document which 
is on file in the CRU, and is accessible on the web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made the 
following changes in calculating dumping margin for Venus: (1) We 
reversed our determination regarding Venus' eligibility for revocation 
from the order; (2) we corrected a clerical error identified by Sieves 
regarding an incorrect grade reported in its home market for two 
control numbers (``CONNUMs''); (3) we corrected a clerical error 
identified by Venus regarding an incorrect size reported for two U.S. 
market CONNUMs; (4) we corrected a clerical error identified by Venus 
regarding an incorrect credit expense that resulted from a misreported 
date of sale for one home market sale; (5) we made an adjustment to one 
of Venus' U.S. sales to reflect a reimbursement it received for 
international freight expenses; (6) we recalculated Venus' and Sieves' 
annealing related charges based on the quantity processed, by grade 
series, regardless of size; (7) we revised Venus' reported conversion 
costs to correct minor errors found in the calculation of the direct 
labor, selected variable overhead items, and depreciation amounts; (8) 
we revised Sieves' reported conversion costs to allocate direct labor 
and selected variable overhead items only to stainless steel bright bar 
and to correct the processing related charges; (9) we increased Sieves' 
reported direct material costs to account for inputs obtained from 
affiliates at less than market prices; (10) we revised Sieves' general 
and administrative expense rate to exclude from the numerator the 
portion of the director remuneration expense reported as a selling 
expense; (11) we increased Hindustan's reported cost of manufacture 
(``COM'') to include the unreconciled difference between the COM from 
its normal books and records and the reported COM; and (12) we changed 
the AFA rate applied to Mukand to the 21.02 percent rate calculated in 
the petition. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1, 3, and 
7. For further details on how the changes relating to Venus were 
applied in the calculation, see Memorandum from Austin Redington to the 
File, ``Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries 
Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated August 31, 2011; see also Memorandum from Angie 
Sepulveda and Heidi K. Schriefer to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final 
Results--Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated August 31, 2011.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    The Department found in the Preliminary Results that Mukand failed 
to cooperate to the best of its ability by withholding information 
requested in the Department's questionnaire and, thereby, impeding the 
proceeding. See Preliminary Results. Therefore, in accordance with 
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.308, the Department 
preliminarily selected 22.63 percent as the adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') dumping margin. For these final results, the Department 
continues to find that an AFA margin should be applied to Mukand; 
however, as stated above, the Department has changed the AFA margin 
applied to Mukand and is now applying the rate calculated in the 
petition. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 for further 
discussion.

Revocation

    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), 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 normal value 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 
normal value, and (C) the continued application of the antidumping duty 
order is no longer necessary to offset dumping.
    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

[[Page 56403]]

than normal value during the current review period and that, in the 
future, it will not sell at less than normal value; (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 that, subsequent 
to revocation, the company has sold the subject merchandise at less 
than normal value. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). For these final results, 
we find that Venus' revocation request dated February 24, 2010, meets 
all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), we have 
determined that application of the antidumping duty order to Venus is 
no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) The company had zero 
or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; 
(2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if 
we find that it has resumed making sales at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''); (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise 
necessary to offset dumping.
    Therefore, for the final results, we determine that Venus qualifies 
for revocation from the order on stainless steel bar from India 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). We received comments concerning 
the revocation of the order on stainless steel bar from India produced 
and/or exported by Venus to the United States. For further discussion 
of this issue, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See 
also Memorandum from Scott Holland to the File ``Determination to 
Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar from India for 
Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd.; Precision Metals, Sieves 
Manufacturers (India) Pvt., Ltd., and Hindustan Inox, Ltd.,'' dated 
August 31, 2011. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(ii), we are 
revoking the order on stainless steel bar from India produced and/or 
exported by Venus to the United States, effective February 1, 2010.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether Venus and Facor made home market 
sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their 
costs of production (``COP'') within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act. See Preliminary Results. For these final results, we performed 
the cost test following the same methodology as discussed in the 
Preliminary Results.
    We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given 
product during the reporting period were made at prices less than the 
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these 
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. See sections 773(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.
    For purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Venus 
and Facor made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. 
Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used 
the remaining sales (if any) as the basis for determining normal value, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were no home 
market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, we based normal 
value on constructed value.

Final Results of the Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for Venus, Mukand, and Facor for the period February 1, 2009, 
through January 31, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exporter/manufacturer                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd./Precision Metal/                   0.07
 Sieves Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd./Hindustan
 Inox Ltd...........................................
Mukand, Ltd.........................................              21.02
Facor Steels Ltd./Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd.....              9.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
De minimis

Assessment Rates

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

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because we are revoking the order with respect to Venus' exports of 
subject merchandise, we will order CBP to terminate the suspension of 
liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2010, and to refund 
all cash deposits collected.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
stainless steel bar from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the 
companies listed above will be the rates established in the final 
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent 
and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for 
previously reviewed

[[Page 56404]]

or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, 
or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final 
results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These 
cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importers

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

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    These final results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Whether to Revoke the Order as it Applies to Venus
Comment 2: Whether to Compare U.S. Sales to Home Market Sales of 
Similar Merchandise
Comment 3: Whether to Accept Venus' Minor Corrections
Comment 4: Whether Venus' Air Freighted Sales are Outside the 
Ordinary Course of Trade
Comment 5: Whether to Grant a Level of Trade (``LOT'') Adjustment to 
Facor
Comment 6: Whether Application of Total Adverse Facts Available 
(``AFA'') is Warranted
Comment 7: Whether the AFA Rate is Corroborated
Comment 8: Whether to Use Zeroing Methodology in this Administrative 
Review

[FR Doc. 2011-23390 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P