[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54774-54776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27055]
[[Page 54774]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results of New
Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Kane or Todd Hansen, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone (202) 482-2815 or 482-1276, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On August 31, 1995, the Department received requests from Akai
Asian Ltd. (``Akai'') and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. (``Viraj'') for new
shipper reviews pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section
353.22(h) of the Department's interim regulations. On November 28,
1995, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of Akai and Viraj
(60 FR 58598). On June 20, 1996, we published an extension of the time
limit for the preliminary results of this review until October 15,
1996. (61 FR 31508) The Department is now conducting this review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act and section 353.22 of its
regulations.
Scope of the Review
For purposes of this administrative review, the term ``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 length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut 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 have 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 administrative review is
currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.0005, 7222.11.0050,
7222.19.0005, 7222.19.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075,
and 7222.30.0000 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 these orders is dispositive.
The review covers two producers/exporters. The period of review
(POR) is February 1, 1995 through July 31, 1995.
Verification
We verified information provided by the respondents using standard
verification procedures, including on site inspection of the
manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the
public versions of the verification report.
Export Price
For both Viraj and Akai, sales of the subject merchandise for
export to the United States were made to unaffiliated customers prior
to importation. Therefore, we used export price (``EP'') as defined in
section 772(a) of the Act, for determining whether, and to what extent,
antidumping duties might apply.
For Viraj, we based EP on the packed, c.& f. or c.i.f., as
appropriate, price to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. We
made deductions for foreign brokerage, containerization, foreign inland
freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance, where applicable, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. No other adjustments were
claimed or allowed.
For Akai, we based the EP on the packed, c.i.f. price to an
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions for
foreign brokerage, inland freight, and ocean freight and insurance in
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. No other adjustments were
claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
Viraj
We found that section 773(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act applied to this
review because no home market sales were made during the POR. In
addition, Viraj's only third country sale of the subject merchandise
was for export to Canada. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)
of the Act, we based normal value (``NV'') on that sale of the foreign
like product for export to Canada because the price was representative,
the aggregate quantity of that sale in Canada exceeded five percent of
the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold for export to
the United States, and we did not find that the particular market
situation prevented a proper comparison with export price or
constructed export price. We based NV on the Canadian price for the
comparison product when the difference in merchandise adjustment for
that product did not exceed 20 percent, and on constructed value when
the difference in the merchandise adjustment for the comparison product
exceeded 20 percent, in accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(C)(i) and
773(a)(4) of the Act.
When NV for Viraj was based on price, we calculated NV based on the
packed, c.&f. price to an unaffiliated customer in Canada. We made
deductions for foreign brokerage, containerization, foreign inland
freight, and ocean freight. We adjusted for differences in packing cost
between the two markets.
We made a circumstance of sale adjustment for differences in credit
costs between the two markets. Viraj incurred no actual credit cost on
the U.S. sale because it elected to sell the 90-day, dollar denominated
letter of credit received in payment for this sale on the forward
currency market in exchange for rupees. It then discounted the 90-day-
Rupees receivable to receive immediate payment from its bank. We found
that the premium received by selling its U.S. dollar receivable on the
forward currency market more than offset the interest expense for
discounting the 90-day-Rupee receivable and bank fees. For a more
[[Page 54775]]
detailed discussion of this offset, see the October 7, 1996 concurrence
memorandum from team to Barbara R. Stafford, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for AD/CVD/Enforcement/Group I, Import Administration (concurrence
memorandum). No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
When NV for Viraj was based on constructed value, we calculated the
constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, based
on the company's cost of (1) materials and fabrication, (2) selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, (3) packing labor and
materials and other expenses incidental to placing the subject
merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United
States, and (4) Viraj's profit.
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we used Viraj's
SG&A expenses and profit in producing and selling a foreign like
product in the foreign country.
Viraj reported selling expenses consisting of testing expenses and
the expenses of providing samples to prospective customers. For testing
expenses, Viraj did not provide a breakdown by market. At verification,
we found that Viraj's financial accounting system included an account
for testing expenses but not a breakdown by market. We did obtain,
however, the testing certificates for testing done during production of
the U.S. and the Canadian sales. Therefore, for constructed value, we
allocated testing expenses to the Canadian market in proportion to the
number of testing certificates issued to the Canadian buyer over the
total number of certificates issued.
For the expenses incurred providing samples, we divided total
expenses by combined sales in the two markets and used this percentage
to allocate selling expenses to the Canadian market.
We found that certain expenses, such as travel and promotion
expenses, were classified by Viraj as administrative expenses but are
more appropriately classified as selling expenses. Therefore, in
calculating constructed value, we treated these expenses as selling
expenses.
For certain employees engaged in both selling and administrative
activities, Viraj allocated all of the salaries and expenses of these
employees to general and administrative expenses. At verification, we
confirmed that Viraj's accounting system did not provide a basis for
allocating these salaries and expenses between the selling and general
and administrative activities. Therefore, we have treated these
salaries and expenses as general and administrative expenses.
Akai
Because Akai had no sales of the subject merchandise in the home
market or for export to third countries during the POR, we based normal
value on constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the
Act. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated
constructed value based on Akai's cost of (1) materials and fabrication
in producing the merchandise, (2) selling, general and administrative
expenses (3) packing and other expenses incidental to placing the
merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United
States, and (4) Akai's profit.
Akai subcontracted labor and fabrication to an unrelated processor.
We based labor and processing costs on the amount paid by Akai to the
processor. We did not take into account scrap, which was kept by the
processor as part of its processing charges. Instead, we included in
the cost of materials the gross value of the input. See the concurrence
memorandum for a more detailed discussion of our treatment of scrap.
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we used
Akai's SG&A expenses and profit in producing and selling in the foreign
country merchandise that is in the same general category of products as
the subject merchandise.
Akai claimed that it had no selling expenses on its U.S. sale. At
verification, we found that Akai's accounting system did not segregate
selling expenses by market. Therefore, for constructed value, we
calculated selling expenses based on overall company selling expenses
as a percent of the company's total cost of goods sold less total cost
of the subject merchandise sold for export to the U.S.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period
February 1, 1995 through July 31, 1995:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akai Asian..................................................... 4.83
Viraj.......................................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held as early as
convenient for the parties but not later than November 22, 1996. If a
hearing is requested, case briefs and/or written comments from
interested parties should be submitted no later than 14 days prior to
the hearing and rebuttal briefs should be submitted not later than 7
days prior to the hearing. If no hearing is requested, case briefs
should be submitted by November 8, 1996, and rebuttal briefs by
November 15, 1996. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments should be
limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will issue
the final results of this new shipper administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written
comments or at a hearing, within 90 days of issuance of these
preliminary results.
Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. The
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and
for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, upon completion of this review, the posting of a bond
or security in lieu of a cash deposit, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and section 353.22(h)(4) of the
Department's interim regulations, will no longer be permitted and,
should the final results yield a margin of dumping, a cash deposit will
be required for each entry of the merchandise.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this new shipper antidumping duty
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)(1) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be those
established in the final results of this new shipper administrative
review; (2) for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in
previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, previous reviews, or the original
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will
be that established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.45 percent, the all
others rate established in
[[Page 54776]]
the LTFV investigation (59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994).
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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.
This new shipper administrative review and notice are in accordance
with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19
CFR 353.22(h).
Dated: October 15, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-27055 Filed 10-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
