Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 13270-13275 [2012-5416]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13270-13275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5416]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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 (SSBar) from India. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2010, 
through January 31, 2011. This review covers three exporters/producers, 
one of which is being individually reviewed as a mandatory respondent. 
We preliminarily determine that the mandatory respondent made sales of 
the subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV). We have 
assigned the second respondent the margin calculated for the mandatory 
respondent. In addition, we have rescinded the review with respect to 
the remaining company. Interested parties are invited to comment on 
these preliminary results. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Shuler 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) 482-1293 
or (202) 482-3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on SSBar 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, 2011, 
the Department published its notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the Order on SSBar from India. See Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 5559, 5560 
(February 1, 2011).
    In February 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the 
Department received self-requests to conduct administrative reviews of 
the Order from two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise: 
Venus Industries, Pvt. Ltd (Venus) and Chandan Steel Limited (Chandan). 
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), domestic interested 
parties Carpenter Technology Corp.; Electralloy Co., (a division of 
G.O. Carlson, Inc.); Outokumpu Stainless Bar, Inc.; Universal Stainless 
& Alloy Products, Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. 
(collectively, Petitioners), requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of the following producers/exporters: Venus, 
Ambica Steels Limited (Ambica), Atlas Stainless Corporation (Atlas), 
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (Bhansali), FACOR Steels Limited 
(Facor), Grand Foundry, Ltd. (Grand Foundry), India Steel Works, Ltd. 
(India Steel), Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Meltroll), Mukand Ltd. 
(Mukand), Sindia Steels Limited (Sindia), Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd. 
(Snowdrop), and their respective affiliates.
    On March 31, 2011, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review for all twelve companies. See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for 
Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 
(March 31, 2011) (Initiation Notice). We indicated that we would select 
mandatory respondents for review based upon CBP data in the event we 
limited the number of respondents selected for individual review in 
accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. See Initiation Notice.
    In our respondent selection memo, we determined that it was not 
practicable to examine all twelve producers/exporters for which a 
review was requested and, therefore, we limited the number of 
respondents selected for individual review. See Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach from Seth Isenberg, ``Respondent Selection Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India'' (April 19, 
2011). As a result, we selected the two largest producers/exporters of 
SSBar from India during the POR for individual review, pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. The mandatory respondents selected 
were Mukand and Venus. Chandan had requested individual review, but was 
not selected.
    On April 26, 2011, Petitioners timely withdrew their request for

[[Page 13271]]

administrative review of the companies that were not selected for 
individual review: Ambica, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, India 
Steel, Meltroll, Sindia, and Snowdrop. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), we rescinded this review with respect to these 
companies. See Stainless Steel Bar From India: Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 34964 (June 15, 2011).
    In April 2011, the Department issued questionnaires to Venus and 
Mukand. Respondent companies submitted timely filed responses to the 
antidumping questionnaires between July and August, 2011. The 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Venus and Mukand to 
clarify, correct, and supplement information contained in the initial 
questionnaire responses. We received timely filed responses to 
supplemental questionnaires from Mukand from October 2011 through 
February 2012, and Venus in August and September 2011. We are relying 
on the most recent supplemental response submitted by Mukand on 
February 14, 2012, for these preliminary results, but anticipate 
requesting further information from the company for the final results.,
    On October 11, 2011, the Department extended the time limit for 
completion of the preliminary results of this review by ninety days to 
January 29, 2012, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).\1\ See Stainless Steel Bar From India: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2010-2011 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 62761 (October 11, 2011). 
On January 30, 2012, the Department extended the time limit for 
completion of the preliminary results of this review by an additional 
thirty days to February 28, 2012, 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 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 5486 
(February 3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because January 29, 2012, was a Sunday, the deadline for 
completion of the preliminary results was no later than the next 
business day, January 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission

    On September 13, 2011, the Department published in the Federal 
Register notice of revocation of the Order with regard to Venus, 
effective February 1, 2010. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation 
of the Order, in Part, 76 FR 56401 (September 13, 2011) (Venus 
Revocation Final). Pursuant to this partial revocation of the Order we 
are rescinding this administrative review with regard to Venus.

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.

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 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 
7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 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.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold by Mukand 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 on 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 in the final results). 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 constructed value (CV).

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).
    Mukand reported that the material terms of its U.S. and comparison 
market sales are established by the sale invoice date. Accordingly, we 
are relying on invoice date as date of sale for Mukand's comparison 
market sales and 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 along the chains of 
distribution between the producer and unaffiliated customers.\2\ 
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

[[Page 13272]]

market or third country prices), we consider the starting prices before 
any adjustments.\3\ If the home-market sales are at a different level 
of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference affects 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 in 
the final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
based on the level of trade of the sales from which we derive 
selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For its home market, Mukand reported that it made sales through 
five channels of distribution (i.e., sales from the plant, with agent; 
sales from the plant, without agent; sales from warehouse, with agent; 
sales from warehouse, without agent; sales delivered to customer, with 
agent). We examined the selling activities performed for these 
channels, and found that Mukand performed sales/marketing support for 
all sales. For all sales made with agent, Mukand paid commissions. For 
delivered sales and sales from warehouse, Mukand contracted an 
unaffiliated provider for freight and freight insurance services. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into two selling function 
categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing and (2) freight/
delivery services. Because Mukand performed the same sales/marketing 
functions for all customers, we find no differences exist between 
channels. Because Mukand contracted with unaffiliated freight 
providers, we find these services were at a low level of intensity for 
the three channels that experienced the freight/delivery service. 
Accordingly, because the distinctions in selling functions are not 
significant for Mukand's five channels of distribution, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one level of trade for Mukand's 
home market.
    Mukand reported that it made sales through two channels of 
distribution in the United States (i.e., EP sales made with and without 
an agent). Mukand reported performing the following selling functions 
for all its U.S. sales: sales/marketing support and freight services. 
For sales to the United States with an agent, Mukand also paid 
commissions. These selling activities can be generally grouped into two 
selling function categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; and 
(2) freight/delivery services. We find that Mukand's selling activities 
related to commission payments are relatively insignificant because 
they represent a low-intensity difference between Mukand's U.S. sales 
channels. Because Mukand performed the same freight/delivery functions 
for all its U.S. customers, we find no differences exist for freight/
delivery between the two U.S. channels. Accordingly, because the 
distinctions in selling functions are not significant for Mukand's two 
U.S. channels of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is 
one level of trade for Mukand's U.S. market.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. level of trade to the home market 
level of trade and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. 
and home market customers are essentially the same. Mukand paid 
commissions on some sales in both its home and U.S. markets, and Mukand 
contracted with unaffiliated providers for freight and delivery 
services in both the home and U.S. markets. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were 
made at the same level of trade and, as a result, no level of trade 
adjustment is warranted.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of SSBar from India to the United States 
were made at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as described 
in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    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 in the appropriate corresponding calendar month where 
there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 
the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

Export Price

    Mukand 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.
    Mukand's EP is based on the packed, delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported 
gross unit prices, where applicable, for early payment discounts in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). Where appropriate, we made 
deductions for movement expenses, including home market freight 
expenses, home market brokerage and handling expenses, international 
freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, and U.S. brokerage and 
handling expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
See Memorandum to the File from Joseph Shuler, International Trade 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, ``Mukand Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum,'' February 28, 2012 (Mukand Preliminary Calculation Memo).
    Further, section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that EP should be 
increased by 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.'' Mukand claimed a duty drawback adjustment under 
this provision for its export credits earned under the Government of 
India's (GOI) Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS). Mukand reported 
the DEPS credits earned on the free-on-board (FOB) value of its total 
exports during the POR.
    India's DEPS enables exporting companies to earn import duty 
exemptions in the form of passbook credits rather than cash. All 
exporters are eligible to earn DEPS credits on a post-export basis, 
provided that the GOI has established a standard input-output norm 
(SION) for the exported product. DEPS credits can be used for any 
subsequent imports, regardless of whether they are consumed in the 
production of an exported product. DEPS credits are valid for twelve 
months and are transferable after the foreign exchange is realized from 
the export sales on which the DEPS credits are earned. See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75672 (December 12, 
2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Duty 
Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS/DEPB).''
    In determining whether an adjustment should be made to EP for this 
duty credit, we look for a reasonable link between the duties imposed 
and those rebated or exempted. See, e.g., Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) 
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 
Mittal Steel USA, Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT 1395, 1412-1413 (2007). 
We do not require that the imported input be traced directly from 
importation through exportation. We do require, however, that the 
company meet our ``two-pronged'' test in order for

[[Page 13273]]

this increase to be made to EP. The first element is that the import 
duty and its rebate or exemption be directly linked to, and dependent 
upon, one another; the second element is that the company must 
demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of the imported material 
to account for the duty drawback or exemption granted for the export of 
the manufactured product. See Saha Thai, 635 F.3d at 1340; Mittal 
Steel, 31 CIT at 1412-13.
    Mukand failed to satisfy both prongs of the two-pronged test. 
First, Mukand did not report that there is a necessary link between the 
import duties paid on any inputs imported and the duty credit given by 
the GOI. Mukand reported that the credit is based on a fixed percentage 
determined by the FOB value of the export, rather than an actual 
quantity or value of imported input specific to the export.\4\ Second, 
Mukand reported that the GOI does not have a system in place to confirm 
which inputs, and in what amounts, are consumed in the production of 
the exported product.\5\ While there is a SION in place for the 
production of subject merchandise, the duty credit given is based on an 
assumed amount of import content, and fails to link the amount of duty 
credits to the amount of import duties actually paid on imported 
inputs. Furthermore, Mukand stated that it is not required to import to 
avail the benefit of the DEPS credits.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mukand's November 25, 2011, Sections A, B, and C 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 10; see also Mukand's January 
3, 2012, Second Section C Supplemental Questionnaire Response, at 
Annexure SQC2-4
    \5\ Mukand's January 3, 2012, Second Section C Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response at 4.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the second prong, Mukand reported that the DEPS is 
available on a post-export basis and there is no obligation to fulfill 
the export obligation against imports.\7\ Thus, because the GOI does 
not monitor imports against exports, Mukand is unable to report whether 
or not it imported in sufficient quantities during the POR to qualify 
for the export credit. Thus, for these preliminary results, we 
determine that Mukand has not demonstrated that it satisfies both 
prongs of the duty drawback test pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act. Accordingly, we have not made an adjustment to EP for duty 
drawback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Because Mukand's aggregate 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater 
than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. See section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales in 
the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because we 
determined to disregard sales by Mukand that were below the cost of 
production (COP) in the most recently completed administrative review 
of SSBar, we requested Mukand to respond to section D of the April 26, 
2011, questionnaire.
1. Cost Averaging Methodology
    The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual 
weighted-average cost for the entire period of investigation or POR. 
See, e.g., 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. However, the 
Department recognizes that possible distortions may result if our 
normal annual-average cost methodology is used during a period of 
significant cost changes. The Department determines whether to deviate 
from its normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average 
cost by evaluating two primary factors: (1) Whether the change in the 
cost of manufacturing recognized by the respondent during the POR is 
deemed significant (i.e., greater than 25 percent); and (2) whether the 
record evidence indicates that sales during the shorter averaging 
periods could be reasonably linked with the COP during the same shorter 
averaging periods. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398, 
75399 (December 11, 2008) and Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From 
the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 31242 (June 30, 2009). Based on the review of record 
evidence, and the lack of significant cost changes, there is no support 
for the Department to deviate from its normal methodology of 
calculating an annual weighted-average cost.\8\ Therefore, we followed 
our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost 
for these preliminary results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Mukand's June 22, 2011, Section D questionnaire response 
at D-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Calculation of Cost of Production
    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 general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses and interest expenses. Generally, we relied on the COP 
information provided by Mukand in its questionnaire responses. However, 
based on our analysis of Mukand's questionnaire responses, we revised 
Mukand's reported G&A expense ratio to include in the numerator of the 
calculation the ``advances written off'' amount, and in the denominator 
of the calculation the ``traded goods'' amount. For additional details, 
see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting from 
Sheikh M. Hannan, Senior Accountant, Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Stainless Steel Bar from India, Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
Mukand Limited, dated February 28, 2012.
3. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home 
market sales prices of the foreign like product, in order to determine 
whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this 
comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The 
prices were net of billing adjustments, movement charges, discounts, 
direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
4. Results of the COP Test
    Section 773(b)(1) of the Act provides that where sales made at less 
than the COP ``have been made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities'' and ``were not at prices which permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time'' the Department may 
disregard such sales when calculating NV. Pursuant to section 
773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, we did not disregard below-cost sales that 
were not made in ``substantial quantities,'' i.e., where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP. 
We disregarded below-cost sales when they were made in

[[Page 13274]]

substantial quantities, i.e., where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP 
and where ``the weighted average per unit price of the sales * * * is 
less than the weighted average per unit cost of production for such 
sales.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act. Lastly, based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, we 
considered whether the prices would permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2)(D) of the 
Act.
    Our cost test for Mukand revealed that, for home market sales of 
certain models, more than 20 percent were sold at prices below the COP 
within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded 
these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-
cost sales to determine NV. See Mukand Preliminary Calculation Memo.
    For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to 
CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See ``Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section, below.

C. 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. We made adjustments, where 
appropriate, to the starting price for discounts, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for home market inland freight 
expenses, home market warehousing expenses, and home market freight 
insurance expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    In addition, we made deductions pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of 
the Act for home market credit expenses (offset by interest revenue). 
We capped Mukand's interest revenue by the amount of credit expenses, 
in accordance with our practice. See, e.g., Certain Orange Juice from 
Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Determination Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, and Final 
No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 50176 (August 12, 2011), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. For home 
market sales with reported commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.410(e), we offset the commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing NV 
by the amount of the home market commission. For sales where Mukand did 
not report home market commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing 
the NV by the amount of home market indirect selling expenses and 
inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the U.S. commission. For 
further discussion of these adjustments, see the Mukand Preliminary 
Calculation Memo.
    We deducted home market packing costs, when applicable, and added 
U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Finally, we made adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
Mukand's products for which we could not determine the NV based on home 
market sales, we based NV on CV.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV for 
Mukand 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 in the ``Cost 
of Production Analysis'' section of this notice, above. 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 Mukand in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 and section 773A of the Act, we made 
currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. See Import 
Administration Web site at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin 
exists for Mukand for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 
2011. The companies subject to the administrative review but not 
selected as mandatory respondents normally receive the weighted-average 
of the margins calculated for mandatory respondents, excluding de 
minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available. 
In this case, we are assigning Chandan Mukand's margin as Mukand is the 
only remaining mandatory respondent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Exporter/manufacturer                       percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukand Ltd..............................................           30.92
Chandan Steel Limited...................................           30.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five 
days of publication of this notice to the parties to this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, should be filed not later than five days after the time limit 
for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting 
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each 
argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the 
argument, and (3) a table of authorities, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(2). Further, case and rebuttal briefs must be served on 
interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to 
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service 
System (``IA ACCESS''). An electronically filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 
days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and 
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues 
to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform 
parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. See 19 
CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by

[[Page 13275]]

telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.
    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments or at a hearing, 
if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP will 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 directly to CBP 
15 days after publication of the final results of review.
    Mukand reported that it was the importer of record for all of its 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise. If Mukand's antidumping rate exceeds 
0.5 percent ad valorem for the final results of this review, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all of Mukand's entries. See 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by Mukand for which this company 
did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States. 
In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed 
entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Assessment Policy Notice.
    Pursuant to the revocation of the Order with regard to Venus 
effective February 1, 2010, and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(3), the Department directed CBP to terminate the suspension 
of liquidation for all entries of SSBar from India produced/exported by 
Venus, effective February 1, 2010, as indicated in Venus Revocation 
Final.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of SSBar from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of 
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the 
rate established in the final results of this administrative review, 
except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and is, therefore, de 
minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter 
participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, 
but was covered in a previous review or the original less than fair 
value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for 
the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter 
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review 
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5416 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P