[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60482-60484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29627]
[[Page 60482]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review: Stainless Steel Bar from India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from Mukand Limited (``Mukand'') and
Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (``Facor''), the Department of
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. This
review covers Mukand's sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States during the period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.
Although we included Facor in our initiation notice for this
review, we subsequently initiated a new shipper review, covering the
same review period, for that company. Consequently, we are terminating
this review with respect to Facor.
We have preliminarily determined that Mukand's sales have been made
below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted
in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the
U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the export price (EP) and the normal value (NV).
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with the
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Yeske or Craig Matney, Office
1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or (202) 482-0588,
respectively.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 24, 1997, the Department received a request from
respondents to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on stainless steel bar from India produced by Mukand. The
Department published in the Federal Register, on March 18, 1997, a
notice of initiation of an administrative review of Mukand covering the
period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997 (62 FR 12793).
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel bar
(``SSB''). SSB 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. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs 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 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 SSB subject to these orders is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 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 this order is dispositive.
Period of Review
This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Mukand, and the
period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.
Partial Termination of Review
Facor was included in our notice of initiation of this review
because we received a request for an administrative review of that
company. However, Facor also submitted a timely request for a new
shipper review covering the same period. On March 28, 1997, we
published a notice of initiation of a new shipper administrative review
covering Facor for the same review period (see 62 FR 14886). Therefore,
we are terminating this review with respect to Ferro Alloys Corporation
Limited.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by the respondent by using standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the respondent's facilities, the
examination of appropriate sales and financial records, and selection
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our
verification results are outlined in the public version of the
verification report.
United States Price
In calculating price to the United States, we used export price
(``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United
States and constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
We calculated EP based on the price from Mukand to an unaffiliated
customer prior to importation into the United States. In accordance
with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions for foreign
inland freight and international freight.
Mukand claimed an upward adjustment to EP for a ``duty drawback''
scheme. In the preliminary determination of the first administrative
review of this order (see 62 FR 10540 at 10541, March 7, 1997), we
analyzed the functioning of this duty drawback scheme and found that it
did not meet the Department's standards for an upward adjustment to EP.
We maintained our position in the final determination (see 62 FR 37030,
July 10, 1997). We have reexamined the scheme in regard to Mukand, and
have found no basis on which to deviate from the Department's previous
decision. Therefore, we have not made an adjustment to EP. However, for
those sales for which CV is the basis for NV, we have offset the per
unit direct materials cost to account for the credits (see Normal Value
section).
[[Page 60483]]
Normal Value
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 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 the aggregate volume
of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five
percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis
for calculating NV. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the
foreign like product was first sold to unaffiliated customers for
consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Respondent claimed that
there is no difference in the level of trade between the U.S. and the
home markets. We examined the data submitted regarding the channels of
distribution and selling expenses in the two markets. While there are
different channels of distribution, many of the selling expenses are
consistent across all channels. While there may be some additional
expenses in the home market for the Del Credre and consignment sales,
respondent did not claim an adjustment or provide information
supporting such an adjustment.
Based on a cost allegation presented by petitioners, the Department
found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by the
respondent in the home market were made at the prices below their
respective costs of production (``COPs''). As a result, the Department
initiated an investigation to determine whether the respondent made
home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP, within the
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
We calculated COP as the sum of the respondent's cost of materials,
labor and overhead for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A
and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We
compared COP to home market sales of the foreign like product, as
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether
these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific
basis, we compared COP to the home market prices, less any applicable
movement charges, discounts, commissions, selling expenses and packing
expenses.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2)
such sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where
20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during
the POR were at prices below COP, we found that below cost sales of
that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2) (B) and (C). To
determine whether prices provided for recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time, we tested whether the prices that were below
the per unit cost of production at the time of the sale were above the
weighted average per unit cost of production for the POR, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D). Where we found that a substantial quantity
of sales during the POR were below cost and not at prices that provided
for recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, we
disregarded the below cost sales.
Where NV was calculated using prices to unaffiliated customers, we
made appropriate adjustments to those prices. First, we deducted home
market inland freight and home market packing costs. Where there were
differences in the merchandise to be compared, we made adjustments in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act to account for
those differences. We also added U.S. packing costs in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments for differences in credit costs and bank charges between
the two markets in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the
Act. Finally, we adjusted for commissions paid in the home market by
deducting the commissions from the NV and offsetting the commissions
with indirect selling expenses incurred on sales to the United States,
up to the amount of the home market commission.
Where there was no above cost home market sale for comparison, NV
was based on CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we
calculated CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials (net
of import duty credits earned on its U.S. sale), labor, overhead, SG&A,
profit, and U.S. packing costs. 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 the respondent in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the foreign country.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of EP and NV, we preliminarily
determine the following weighted-average dumping margin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukand.................................... 2/1/96-1/31/97 8.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice,
or the first workday thereafter. 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, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. 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, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between EP
and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. We have calculated
an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the
total amount of AD duties calculated for the examined sales made during
the POR to the total value of subject merchandise entered during the
POR. In order to estimate the entered value, we subtracted
international movement expenses (e.g., international freight) from the
gross sales value. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries
made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
The following deposit requirement will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this 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 for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company 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
[[Page 60484]]
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 published for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or
the original 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 merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate
for all other manufacturers and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall
be 12.45 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in 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 also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22(c).
Dated: October 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29627 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
