98-30280. Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 63288-63291]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-30280]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-533-810]
    
    
    Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of 
    Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 1997-1998 antidumping duty 
    administrative review and new shipper review of stainless steel bar 
    from India.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In response to requests from Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. 
    and Venus Wire Industries Limited, the Department of Commerce is 
    conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
    stainless steel bar from India. In response to requests from Sindia 
    Steels Limited, Chandan Steel Limited, and Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel 
    Company, the Department of Commerce is conducting a new shipper review 
    of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. These 
    reviews cover sales of stainless steel bar to the United States during 
    the period February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998.
    
    [[Page 63289]]
    
        We have preliminarily determined that, during the period of review, 
    Venus Wire Industries Limited, Sindia Steels Limited, and Madhya 
    Pradesh Iron & Steel Company made sales below normal value and that 
    Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. and Chandan Steel Limited did not make 
    sales below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
    our final results of administrative review and new shipper review, we 
    will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to 
    the difference between the export price and the normal value.
        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 12, 1998.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or James Breeden, Office 1, 
    AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade 
    Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
    Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 
    or (202) 482-1174, respectively.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Applicable Statute
    
        Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
    1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
    effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
    the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
    all references to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') 
    regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).
    
    Background
    
        On February 23 and February 25, 1998, the Department received 
    requests from Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (``Bhansali'') and Venus 
    Wire Industries Limited (``Venus'') to conduct an administrative review 
    of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The 
    Department published in the Federal Register, on March 23, 1998, a 
    notice of initiation of an administrative review of Bhansali and Venus 
    covering the period February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998 (63 FR 
    13837).
        On February 19, 1998, Sindia Steels Limited (``Sindia'') requested 
    that we conduct a new shipper review. Sindia's request was followed by 
    similar requests from Chandan Steel Limited (``Chandan'') and Madhya 
    Pradesh Iron and Steel Company (``Madhya'') on February 27, 1998. We 
    published the notice of initiation for this new shipper review on April 
    7, 1997 (63 FR 16972). This new shipper review covers the same period 
    as the administrative review and, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Act 
    and 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), is being conducted concurrently with the 
    administrative review.
        On August 14 and October 30, 1998, the Department initiated sales 
    below cost investigations of Madhya and Bhansali, respectively. A sales 
    below cost analysis of Bhansali is not included in this notice because 
    the sales below cost investigation was initiated shortly before 
    issuance of these preliminary results. A sales below cost analysis of 
    Madhya is not included in this notice because Madhya did not submit the 
    requested cost information in a timely manner (see, Facts Available, 
    below).
    
    Scope of Reviews
    
        Imports covered by these reviews 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 this order 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.
    
    Use of Facts Otherwise Available
    
        Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not 
    decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested 
    party and that is necessary to the determination but which does not 
    meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department if--
        (1) The information is submitted by the deadline established for 
    its submission,
        (2) The information can be verified,
        (3) The information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
    reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination,
        (4) The interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best 
    of its ability in providing the information and meeting the 
    requirements established by the Department with respect to the 
    information, and
        (5) The information can be used without undue difficulties.
        On September 3, 1998, Madhya requested a one week extension in 
    which to submit its responses to Section D (Cost of Production and 
    Constructed Value) of the original questionnaire and to the 
    Department's supplemental questionnaire. In support of its request, 
    Madhya stated that it needed additional time because it was having 
    difficulty responding to both questionnaires at the same time. We 
    granted its request. On the date the responses were due, we received an 
    additional request for an extension from Madhya's counsel. Counsel 
    explained that, as of this date, it had not received the questionnaire 
    responses from Madhya; in fact, counsel had ``not heard from them.'' We 
    granted the request. Finally, on September 14, 1998, the date the 
    questionnaire responses were due, we received a request for a third 
    extension. The only reasoning supplied to the Department was that the 
    responses from India had not yet been provided to counsel. Because we 
    did not receive an adequate explanation or reasoning as to why the 
    extension was needed, we did not grant the request. Nonetheless, Madhya 
    submitted its responses on September 17, 1998. However, because Madhya 
    failed to meet an already extended deadline and provided no explanation 
    as to why it did not meet the extended deadline, we rejected its 
    response as untimely.
        We must therefore consider whether the submitted information 
    already on the record is usable under section 782(e) of the Act. The 
    information that Madhya failed to provide would have been the first 
    comprehensive cost information to be used in the Department's cost
    
    [[Page 63290]]
    
    investigation. Thus, the information currently on the record is so 
    incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
    preliminary results (see, Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Preliminary 
    Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (January 
    7, 1997). Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and 
    19 CFR 351.308(a), we must use facts otherwise available.
        In determining the appropriate facts available to apply to Madhya's 
    sales, we have preliminarily determined that Madhya failed to cooperate 
    by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
    information under section 776(b) of the Act. Specifically, as described 
    above, Madhya failed to submit its questionnaire responses on time and 
    failed to provide adequate reasons for the delays, despite having been 
    advised by its counsel of the importance of meeting the Department's 
    deadlines. Therefore, we have applied adverse facts available to 
    calculate Madhya's margin.
        As adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned a margin 
    of 12.45 percent to Madhya's sales of the subject merchandise. This 
    margin is the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-
    value (``LTFV'') investigation. Information from prior segments of the 
    proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the 
    Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
    corroborate that secondary information from independent sources 
    reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action 
    (``SAA'') provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the 
    Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
    used has probative value (see, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d 
    Sess. 870 (1994)).
        To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
    extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
    information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
    such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
    sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
    review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a 
    calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is 
    not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
    period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
    the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
    to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
    inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is 
    not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
    disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., 
    Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the 
    Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available 
    because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
    business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).
        As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability 
    of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, 
    there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate 
    as facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 12.45 
    percent rate is corroborated.
    
    United States Price
    
        In calculating the 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 use of constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
        We calculated EP based on either the CIF or C&F price to the United 
    States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
    deductions, as appropriate, for foreign inland freight, international 
    freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling, and clearing and 
    forwarding.
        All five respondents claimed an upward adjustment to EP for a 
    ``duty drawback'' program. In the preliminary results of the first 
    administrative review of this order, we analyzed the functioning of 
    this duty drawback program and found that it did not meet the 
    Department's criteria for an upward adjustment to EP (see, 62 FR 10540 
    at 10541, March 7, 1997). We maintained our position in the final 
    results (see, 62 FR 37030, July 10, 1997). We have reexamined the 
    program in regard to the five respondents, and have found no reason to 
    deviate from our previous decision. As stated in Certain Welded Carbon 
    Standard Steel Pipes and Tubes from India (62 FR 47632 at 47635, 
    September 10, 1997), ``we determine whether an adjustment to U.S. price 
    for a respondent's claimed duty drawback is appropriate when the 
    respondent can demonstrate that it meets both parts of our two-part 
    test. There must be: (1) A sufficient link between the import duty and 
    the rebate, and (2) a sufficient amount of raw materials imported and 
    used in the production of the final exported product.'' Because the 
    respondents did not demonstrate a sufficient link between the import 
    duty and the rebate, we have not made an adjustment to EP.
    
    Normal Value
    
        In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
    sales in the home market to serve as a basis for calculating normal 
    value (``NV''), we compared the respondents' 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. When 
    home market sales were determined to be insufficient in quantity to 
    permit a proper comparison with sales to the United States, we compared 
    the respondents' volume of third country sales of the foreign like 
    product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
    accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
        For Bhansali and Chandan, 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 for these companies 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.
        For Venus and Sindia, because the aggregate volume of home market 
    sales of the foreign like product was not greater than five percent of 
    the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we 
    determined that the home market was not appropriate for calculating NV. 
    Therefore, we examined these companies' sales to third country markets. 
    Both Venus and Sindia had more than one third country market that 
    satisfied the criteria of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. To 
    select among these markets, we considered the criteria outlined in 19 
    CFR 351.404(e): The similarity of the foreign like product exported to 
    each third country versus subject merchandise exported to the United 
    States; the volume of sales to the third countries; and other factors 
    that we considered appropriate. For Venus, we chose Belgium as the 
    third country market. Although it was not the largest third country 
    market, the merchandise sold to Belgium was more similar to the 
    merchandise sold by Venus to the United States. In the case
    
    [[Page 63291]]
    
    of Sindia, we selected Canada. Again, Canada was not the largest third 
    country market, but the merchandise sold there was more similar to the 
    merchandise sold to the United States and the Canadian sales were 
    contemporaneous with U.S. sales, while sales to the largest third 
    country were not. Both Venus' aggregate sales of the foreign like 
    product to its second largest third country market and Sindia's 
    aggregate sales of the foreign like product to Canada were greater than 
    five percent of their sales, by volume, of the subject merchandise to 
    the United States (see the Memoranda to Richard Moreland dated October 
    2, 1998, ``Selection of Third Country Comparison Market,'' which are 
    available in the public records of the Department's Central Records 
    Unit, Room B-099.).
    
    Level of Trade
    
        In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
    practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
    the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP transaction. The NV LOT is 
    that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP, the 
    U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually 
    from exporter to importer.
        To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we 
    examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
    chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
    customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and 
    the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
    of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
    and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we 
    make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, 
    Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
    Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
    (November 19, 1997).
        In implementing these principles in these reviews, we reviewed 
    information from each respondent regarding the marketing stage involved 
    in the reported home market or third country and U.S. sales, including 
    a description of the selling activities performed by the respondents 
    for each channel of distribution. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 
    of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action at 827, in 
    identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales, we considered 
    the selling functions reflected in the starting prices before any 
    adjustments. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, 
    the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. 
    Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for 
    different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
    should be dissimilar.
        Based on an analysis of the selling functions, class of customers, 
    and level of selling expenses, we found that the marketing processes in 
    both the home market or third country and the United States were not 
    substantially dissimilar for Bhansali, Chandan, Venus, or Sindia. 
    Therefore, we have preliminarily found that sales in both markets for 
    each respondent are at the same LOT and consequently, no LOT adjustment 
    is warranted.
    
    Preliminary Results of the Reviews
    
        As a result of our comparison of EP and NV, we preliminarily 
    determine the following weighted-average dumping margins:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Margin
              Manufacturer/Exporter                 Period        (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bhansali................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.00
    Venus...................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.23
    Sindia..................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.19
    Chandan.................................     2/1/96-1/31/97         0.00
    Madhya..................................     2/1/96-1/31/97        12.45
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        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 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
    requested, will be held 37 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 35 days after the date of 
    publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results 
    of these administrative and new shipper reviews, 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 these administrative and new shipper reviews, 
    the Department shall determine, and the 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 antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
    sales made during the period of review (``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 these administrative and new 
    shipper reviews 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 companies will be the rates 
    established in the final results of these reviews; (2) if the exporter 
    is not a firm covered in these reviews, but was covered in a previous 
    review or the original 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 these reviews, 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 351.402(f) 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, new shipper review, and notice are in 
    accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 
    19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.
    
        Dated: November 2, 1998.
    Robert S. LaRussa,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 98-30280 Filed 11-10-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
11/12/1998
Published:
11/12/1998
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of preliminary results of 1997-1998 antidumping duty administrative review and new shipper review of stainless steel bar from India.
Document Number:
98-30280
Dates:
November 12, 1998.
Pages:
63288-63291 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-533-810
PDF File:
98-30280.pdf