Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2010-2011, 73013-73015 [2012-29645]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 236 / Friday, December 7, 2012 / Notices
Dated: November 29, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–29642 Filed 12–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–423–808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 2010–2011
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel plate in coils (steel
plate) from Belgium.1 This review
covers one manufacturer/exporter of the
subject merchandise: Aperam Stainless
Belgium N.V. (AS Belgium). The period
of review (POR) is May 1, 2010, through
April 30, 2011.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes to the Preliminary Results. For
the final dumping weighted-average
dumping margin, see the ‘‘Final Results
of Review’’ section below.
DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jolanta Lawska at 202–482–8362; Office
of AD/CVD Operations 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
On June 1, 2012, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
Preliminary Results. We invited
interested parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. On September 17,
2012, the Department received case
briefs from AS Belgium and the
petitioners.2 On September 24, 2012, the
Department received rebuttal briefs from
1 See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 32517 (June 1, 2012)
(Preliminary Results).
2 The petitioners are Alleghany Ludlum
Corporation, North American Stainless, United
Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Arco
Independent Organization, and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
Union (AFL–CIO/CLC).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 Dec 06, 2012
Jkt 229001
AS Belgium and the petitioners. No
party requested a hearing.
On July 29, 2012, the Department
issued a memorandum extending the
time period for issuing the final results
of the administrative review from
September 27, 2012, to November 28,
2012.3 As explained in the
memorandum from the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, the
Department has exercised its discretion
to toll deadlines for the duration of the
closure of the Federal Government from
October 29, through October 30, 2012.
Thus, all deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by
two days. The revised deadline for the
final results of this review is now
November 30, 2012.4
On October 22, 2012, the Department
issued a post-preliminary analysis
memorandum in which addressed the
petitioners’ targeted dumping
allegations.5 On October 29, 2012, AS
Belgium submitted its case brief on the
post-preliminary analysis
memorandum. On November 2, 2012,
the petitioners submitted their rebuttal
brief to AS Belgium’s case brief.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is certain stainless steel plate in coils.
The product is currently classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) item
numbers 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60,
7219.12.00.02, 7219.12.00.05,
7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20,
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25,
7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50,
7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55,
7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65,
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70,
7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80,
7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20,
7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00,
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80,
3 See
Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds,
Program Manager, to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations titled
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium.
Extension of Deadline for Final Results,’’ (June 29,
2012).
4 See Memorandum from Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration regarding
‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadline as Result of the
Government Closure during Hurricane Sandy,’’
dated October 31, 2012.
5 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
2010/2011 Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders
on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (Steel Plate) from
Belgium: Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,
dated October 22, 2012 (Post-Preliminary Analysis).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73013
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60,
7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, and 7220.90.00.60.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written product
description, available in the order,
remains dispositive.6
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs,
rebuttal briefs, and post-preliminary
comments by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
for the Final Results of the
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration
(Decision Memorandum), dated
concurrently with this notice and which
is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties
raised is attached to this notice as
Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum
is a public document and is on file in
the Central Records Unit (CRU), room
7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building, as well as
electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
IA ACCESS is available to registered
users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in
the CRU. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memorandum
can be accessed directly on the Internet
at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed
Decision Memorandum and the
electronic versions of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received for AS Belgium, we have
recalculated AS Belgium’s weightedaverage dumping margin. AS Belgium’s
adjustments are discussed in detail in
the accompanying final calculation
memorandum.7
6 See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy,
the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan,
64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999).
7 See Memorandum to the File from Jolanta
Lawska, Case Analyst entitled ‘‘Calculation
Memorandum for Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V.
(AS Belgium) for the Final Results of the 10th
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils from Belgium,’’ dated November 30, 2012.
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
73014
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 236 / Friday, December 7, 2012 / Notices
Calculation of Constructed Value (CV)
and Selling Expense Ratios
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, we based normal value (NV) for
AS Belgium on CV because there were
no above-cost sales for comparison
purposes. Therefore, in accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), which
provides for the use of ‘‘any reasonable
method’’ to determine an amount for CV
selling expenses and profit in the
absence of actual data, we relied on the
CV selling expense and profit ratio
calculated for ASB in the 2007–2008
review, the most recently completed
review in this case. See Preliminary
Results, 77 FR at 62520.
The respondent and the petitioners
raised several issues in their case and
rebuttal briefs regarding the
Department’s use of the 2007–2008 CV
selling expense and profit ratios. As
discussed in detail in the Decision
Memorandum, after considering the
comments by interested parties, we have
determined for these final results that
the 2010 audited financial statements of
Aperam S.A. (AS Belgium’s parent)
represent the most reasonable data
available on the record for determining
CV profit.
With respect to selling expenses for
the final results the Department has
determined that it would be
inappropriate to rely on AS Belgium’s
2007/2008 financial data for calculating
a selling expense ratio. For the final
results, the Department finds that it is
more appropriate to use AS Belgium’s
information from the current review to
derive the selling expense ratio. For
further information, see the Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
Bundled Sales
For these final results, the Department
has not found that the record supports
the petitioners’ allegations of bundling.
Because our analysis includes businessproprietary information, for a full
discussion, see Memorandum to the File
through Eric B. Greynolds from Jolanta
Lawska, Case Analyst, entitled,
‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Aperam
Stainless Belgium N.V. (AS Belgium) for
the Final Results of the 10th
Administrative Review of Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium,’’
dated November 30, 2012.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Targeted Dumping
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
the petitioners requested that the
Department use an alternative
comparison method, making average-totransaction comparisons of normal
value to constructed export price with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 Dec 06, 2012
Jkt 229001
respect to AS Belgium. The petitioners’
request that the Department apply the
average-to-transaction method for steel
plate from Belgium in this
administrative review was based on an
allegation of targeted dumping. After
publication of the Preliminary Results,
the petitioners urged the Department to
conduct the targeted-dumping analysis,
as currently applied in antidumping
investigations, in this administrative
review to ascertain whether AS Belgium
engaged in targeted dumping.8 The
Department issued a post-preliminary
analysis regarding targeted dumping on
October 22, 2012.9
After consideration of the case and
rebuttal briefs from interested parties,
the Department has continued to
address the petitioner’s targeted
dumping allegation in these final
results. As a result of the application of
its targeted dumping analysis, the
Department continues to find a pattern
of constructed export prices for
comparable merchandise that differs
significantly among certain purchasers,
regions, and time periods. See the
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
We further find that the observed price
differences cannot be taken into account
using the average-to-average method.
Specifically, the average-to-average
methodology yields a weighted-average
dumping margin that is meaningfully
different than the weighted-average
dumping calculated using the averageto-transaction methodology. As a result,
the Department has used the average-totransaction method to calculate AS
Belgium’s weighted-average dumping
margin on steel plate from Belgium for
the period May 1, 2010, through April
30, 2011. Using the average-totransaction method we calculated a
weighted-average dumping margin of
0.82 percent for AS Belgium.
Verification
The petitioners requested that the
Department conduct verification of AS
Belgium’s home market and U.S. market
sales databases in accordance with 19
CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv). See the Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3. The
Department has conducted verification
of AS Belgium in the most recently
completed administrative review.
Further, we find that no good cause for
verification exists within the meaning of
19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv). Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1),
we determined not to verify AS Belgium
in this administrative review. Id.
8 See
9 See
PO 00000
the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Post-Preliminary Analysis.
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
determined that the following weightedaverage dumping margin exists for the
period May 1, 2010, through April 30,
2011.
Manufacturer/exporter
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
Aperam Stainless Belgium
N.V ....................................
0.82%
Antidumping Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
publication date of the final results of
this review. Since the weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis,
we calculated importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of dumping
calculated for the importer’s examined
sales to the total entered value of those
same sales in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).10 We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review since the importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent). Where
either a respondent’s weighted-average
dumping margin is zero or de minimis,
or an importer-specific assessment rate
is zero or de minimis, we instruct CBP
to liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties.
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). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by the respondent for which
it did not know its merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of
this clarification, see id.
10 In these final results, the Department applied
the assessment rate calculation method adopted in
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 236 / Friday, December 7, 2012 / Notices
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following antidumping duty
deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of steel plate from Belgium entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of these final results, as provided
for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)
For AS Belgium, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established in the final
results of this review; (2) 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, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
established for the most recent period;
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the subject merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered by this
review, a prior review, or the LTFV
investigation, the cash deposit rate will
be 8.54 percent ad valorem, the ‘‘allothers’’ rate established in the LTFV
investigation.11 These deposit rates,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also 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 POR.
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. See 19 CFR
351.402(f)(3).
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
11 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:05 Dec 06, 2012
Jkt 229001
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
These final results of review are
issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: November 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments
Comment 1: Bundled Pricing
Comment 2: Targeted Dumping
Comment 3: Constructed Value (CV) Profit
and Selling Expense Ratios
Comment 4: Verification
Comment 5: Customs Instructions
[FR Doc. 2012–29645 Filed 12–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–809]
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
From the Republic of Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2010–
2011
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on circular
welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP) from
the Republic of Korea (Korea). The
period of review (POR) is November 1,
2010, through October 31, 2011, and the
review covers two producers/exporters
of the subject merchandise, Husteel Co.,
Ltd. (Husteel) and Hyundai HYSCO
(HYSCO). We have preliminarily found
that one respondent has made sales of
the subject merchandise at prices below
normal value. We are also rescinding
this review for seven other producers/
exporters.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective Date: December 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Kolberg, or Jennifer Meek, 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) 482–1785 or (202) 482–
2778, respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73015
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
and tube. The product is currently
classifiable under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,
7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,
7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.
Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written product
description, available in Circular
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the
Republic of Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 32833 (June 16, 1998),
remains dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we
are rescinding this administrative
review with respect to the following
parties because the review requests were
timely withdrawn: Dongbu Steel Co.,
Ltd., SeAH Steel Corporation, A-JU
Besteel Co., Ltd., Kumkang Industrial
Co., Ltd., Nexteel Co., Ltd., Korea Iron
& Steel Co., Ltd., and Union Steel Co.,
Ltd.
Methodology
The Department has conducted this
review in accordance with section
751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). Constructed export
price is calculated in accordance with
section 772 of the Act. Normal value is
calculated in accordance with section
773 of the Act. In accordance with
section 773(b) of the Act, we
disregarded certain sales made by
Husteel and HYSCO in the home market
which were made at below-cost prices.
For a full description of the
methodology underlying our
conclusions, see the memorandum from
Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, ‘‘Preliminary Decision
Memorandum for the Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe from the Republic of Korea’’ dated
concurrently with this notice
(‘‘Preliminary Decision Memorandum’’),
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum
is a public document and is on file
electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
Access to IA ACCESS is available to
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73013-73015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29645]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-423-808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 2010-2011
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on
stainless steel plate in coils (steel plate) from Belgium.\1\ This
review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise:
Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. (AS Belgium). The period of review (POR)
is May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR
32517 (June 1, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes to the Preliminary Results. For the final dumping weighted-
average dumping margin, see the ``Final Results of Review'' section
below.
DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska at 202-482-8362; Office
of AD/CVD Operations 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 1, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register
the Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to comment on
the Preliminary Results. On September 17, 2012, the Department received
case briefs from AS Belgium and the petitioners.\2\ On September 24,
2012, the Department received rebuttal briefs from AS Belgium and the
petitioners. No party requested a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The petitioners are Alleghany Ludlum Corporation, North
American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Arco
Independent Organization, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (AFL-CIO/CLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2012, the Department issued a memorandum extending the
time period for issuing the final results of the administrative review
from September 27, 2012, to November 28, 2012.\3\ As explained in the
memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the
Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the
duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 29,
through October 30, 2012. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the
proceeding have been extended by two days. The revised deadline for the
final results of this review is now November 30, 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, to
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations titled ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium.
Extension of Deadline for Final Results,'' (June 29, 2012).
\4\ See Memorandum from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadline
as Result of the Government Closure during Hurricane Sandy,'' dated
October 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 22, 2012, the Department issued a post-preliminary
analysis memorandum in which addressed the petitioners' targeted
dumping allegations.\5\ On October 29, 2012, AS Belgium submitted its
case brief on the post-preliminary analysis memorandum. On November 2,
2012, the petitioners submitted their rebuttal brief to AS Belgium's
case brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 2010/2011
Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils (Steel Plate) from Belgium: Post-Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum, dated October 22, 2012 (Post-Preliminary Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is certain stainless steel
plate in coils. The product is currently classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers
7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.02, 7219.12.00.05,
7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25,
7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55,
7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70,
7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, and 7220.90.00.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product
description, available in the order, remains dispositive.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South
Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and post-
preliminary comments by parties to this administrative review are
addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of the Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Decision
Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby
adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this
notice as Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Import
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the CRU. In
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed
Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received for AS Belgium, we have
recalculated AS Belgium's weighted-average dumping margin. AS Belgium's
adjustments are discussed in detail in the accompanying final
calculation memorandum.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to the File from Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst
entitled ``Calculation Memorandum for Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V.
(AS Belgium) for the Final Results of the 10th Administrative Review
of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium,'' dated November 30,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73014]]
Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) and Selling Expense Ratios
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we based normal value (NV)
for AS Belgium on CV because there were no above-cost sales for
comparison purposes. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
which provides for the use of ``any reasonable method'' to determine an
amount for CV selling expenses and profit in the absence of actual
data, we relied on the CV selling expense and profit ratio calculated
for ASB in the 2007-2008 review, the most recently completed review in
this case. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 62520.
The respondent and the petitioners raised several issues in their
case and rebuttal briefs regarding the Department's use of the 2007-
2008 CV selling expense and profit ratios. As discussed in detail in
the Decision Memorandum, after considering the comments by interested
parties, we have determined for these final results that the 2010
audited financial statements of Aperam S.A. (AS Belgium's parent)
represent the most reasonable data available on the record for
determining CV profit.
With respect to selling expenses for the final results the
Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to rely on AS
Belgium's 2007/2008 financial data for calculating a selling expense
ratio. For the final results, the Department finds that it is more
appropriate to use AS Belgium's information from the current review to
derive the selling expense ratio. For further information, see the
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
Bundled Sales
For these final results, the Department has not found that the
record supports the petitioners' allegations of bundling. Because our
analysis includes business-proprietary information, for a full
discussion, see Memorandum to the File through Eric B. Greynolds from
Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst, entitled, ``Calculation Memorandum for
Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. (AS Belgium) for the Final Results of the
10th Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium,'' dated November 30, 2012.
Targeted Dumping
As noted in the Preliminary Results, the petitioners requested that
the Department use an alternative comparison method, making average-to-
transaction comparisons of normal value to constructed export price
with respect to AS Belgium. The petitioners' request that the
Department apply the average-to-transaction method for steel plate from
Belgium in this administrative review was based on an allegation of
targeted dumping. After publication of the Preliminary Results, the
petitioners urged the Department to conduct the targeted-dumping
analysis, as currently applied in antidumping investigations, in this
administrative review to ascertain whether AS Belgium engaged in
targeted dumping.\8\ The Department issued a post-preliminary analysis
regarding targeted dumping on October 22, 2012.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
\9\ See Post-Preliminary Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the case and rebuttal briefs from interested
parties, the Department has continued to address the petitioner's
targeted dumping allegation in these final results. As a result of the
application of its targeted dumping analysis, the Department continues
to find a pattern of constructed export prices for comparable
merchandise that differs significantly among certain purchasers,
regions, and time periods. See the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. We
further find that the observed price differences cannot be taken into
account using the average-to-average method. Specifically, the average-
to-average methodology yields a weighted-average dumping margin that is
meaningfully different than the weighted-average dumping calculated
using the average-to-transaction methodology. As a result, the
Department has used the average-to-transaction method to calculate AS
Belgium's weighted-average dumping margin on steel plate from Belgium
for the period May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. Using the average-
to-transaction method we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin
of 0.82 percent for AS Belgium.
Verification
The petitioners requested that the Department conduct verification
of AS Belgium's home market and U.S. market sales databases in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv). See the Decision Memorandum
at Comment 3. The Department has conducted verification of AS Belgium
in the most recently completed administrative review. Further, we find
that no good cause for verification exists within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.307(b)(1)(iv). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1),
we determined not to verify AS Belgium in this administrative review.
Id.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determined that the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2010,
through April 30, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter dumping
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V............................ 0.82%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antidumping Duty Assessment
The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP
15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.
Since the weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we
calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\10\ We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this
review since the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the
final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent).
Where either a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or
de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de
minimis, we instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In these final results, the Department applied the
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see id.
[[Page 73015]]
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of steel plate from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For
AS Belgium, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the
final results of this review; (2) 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, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate established for the most
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this
review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit
rate will be 8.54 percent ad valorem, the ``all-others'' rate
established in the LTFV investigation.\11\ These deposit rates, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15476
(March 31, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also 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 POR. 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. See 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3).
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These final results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments
Comment 1: Bundled Pricing
Comment 2: Targeted Dumping
Comment 3: Constructed Value (CV) Profit and Selling Expense Ratios
Comment 4: Verification
Comment 5: Customs Instructions
[FR Doc. 2012-29645 Filed 12-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
