[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2028]
[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-427-811]
Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Beck, Office of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482-3464.
Scope of Order
For purposes of this investigation, certain stainless steel wire
rods (SSWR) are products which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed,
and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in
coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent
or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without
other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling,
are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The
majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional
shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters
in diameter.
The SSWR subject to this investigation is currently classifiable
under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020,
7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075,
7221.00.0080 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 this
investigation is dispositive.
Amendment of Final Determination
In accordance with section 735 (a) and (d) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), on December 29, 1993, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published its final determination that
certain stainless steel wire rods from France were being sold at less
than fair value (58 FR 68865).
On January 5, 1994, Imphy S.A. and Ugine-Savoie (respondent)
alleged that the Department made clerical errors in its final
calculations. Respondent argued that the Department erroneously applied
best information available (BIA) to the Metalimphy Alloys Corporation
(MAC) and Ugine Stainless and Alloys (US&A) (both divisions of MAC,
which is a subsidiary of Imphy S.A.) further manufactured sales on the
basis that the cost of further manufacturing data did not include costs
associated with certain manufactured sales of MAC. Respondent contends
that the further manufacturing costs were fully provided on the C-1
U.S. sales database under the field ``FURMANU'', which represented
processing charges by outside subcontractors or by Techalloy as the
subcontractor. Respondent further states that the Department accepted
this submission, used it for the preliminary determination, made no
request for further information, and appears to have agreed in the
final determination that the appropriate information regarding these
sales had been submitted.
The Department does not agree that this is a clerical error. The
Department required detailed cost information for further manufacturing
to be reported on the E-2 further manufacturing cost database.
Respondent failed to provide this detailed cost information with
respect to products further manufactured by MAC on the E-2 database,
even though it indicated it had done so on page 2 of the narrative
portion of its May 10, 1993, submission. Respondent reported detailed
costs only for products further manufactured by Techalloy.
Specifically, in its clerical error allegation, respondent
indicated that the cost information for products further manufactured
by MAC was included in the ``FURMANU'' field of the C-1 U.S. sales tape
and that the Department used this for the preliminary determination.
First, we agree that the total further manufacturing costs for MAC were
included on the C-1 U.S. sales tape. However, at the final
determination, we made adjustments to certain elements of the further
manufacturing costs. These elements were only included on the E-2
further manufacturing database. Since respondent failed to provide on
the E-2 database those cost elements for the products further
manufactured by MAC, the Department could not adjust the further
manufacturing costs of the MAC products. Consequently, we also could
not use the costs reported on the C-1 U.S. sales tape since this tape
included only total costs and not the individual costs elements that we
needed to adjust.
Respondent's argument that the Department used the further
manufacturing cost totals on the C-1 U.S. sales tape at the preliminary
determination is unavailing. At the preliminary determination, the
Department used the further manufacturing totals from the C-1 sales
tape only because respondent did not provide a means to link the C-1
and E-2 tapes in time for the preliminary determination. Since there
was no way to link these tapes (until after the preliminary
determination, when we received new tapes in response to the
Department's request), and since the total product further
manufacturing costs were the same on both the E-2 and C-1 databases, we
simply used the total cost figures on the C-1 database. This was not
the case at the final determination, where a way to link these tapes
was available and where we had to adjust certain cost elements on the
E-2 database.
On January 10, 1994, petitioners alleged that the Department made
three clerical errors in the final determination. First, petitioners
alleged that the Department miscalculated the test which ensures that
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses are not less than
ten percent of the cost of manufacture (COM). Specifically, petitioners
stated that the Department's instructions require COM to be multiplied
by one percent and not ten percent.
We agree that this error is a clerical error. In attempting to make
sure that SG&A expenses were not less than ten percent of the COM, we
mistakenly multiplied the COM by one percent instead of ten percent.
Therefore, we corrected this error by multiplying the COM by ten
percent.
Secondly, petitioners alleged that the Department failed to include
United States commissions in the value-added tax (VAT) readjustment
calculation, pursuant to which we made a deduction from foreign market
value for purchase price comparisons.
After a review of petitioners' allegation and the Department's new
VAT calculation methodology, we have determined that this was a
clerical error. Therefore, we have included commissions in the VAT
readjustment calculation.
Finally, petitioners alleged that the Department double counted
home market indirect selling expenses when deducting this expense from
foreign market value during comparisons of constructed value to
exporter's sales price.
The Department agrees that the double deduction of indirect selling
expenses from foreign market value during comparisons of constructed
value to exporter's sales price was a clerical error. To correct this
error, the Department eliminated the separate variable for indirect
selling expenses from the foreign unit price string.
For further discussion of these clerical errors, see Memorandum
from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford dated January 25, 1994.
Antidumping Duty Order
In accordance with section 736 of the Act, the Department will
direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the
administering authority pursuant to section 736(a)(1) of the Act,
antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the foreign market
value of the merchandise exceeds the United States price for all
entries of certain stainless steel wire rods from France. These
antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of
certain stainless steel wire rods from France entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 5, 1993, the date on
which the Department published its preliminary determination notice in
the Federal Register (58 FR 41726). On or after the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register, U.S. Custom officers must
require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated
duties, the following cash deposits for the subject merchandise:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imphy...................................................... 24.51
Ugine-Savoie............................................... 24.51
All Others................................................. 24.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order and amended
final determination with respect to certain stainless steel wire rods
from France, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties
may contact the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Main Commerce
Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders
currently in effect.
This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.21.
Dated: January 25, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-2028 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
