04-2861. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel sheet and strip from Mexico.

SUMMARY:

On August 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico (68 FR 47043). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (“Mexinox”), of the subject merchandise to the United States during the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculation. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 10, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: [phone] or [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 7, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico for the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 47043 (August 7, 2003). In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the preliminary results of this review, Mexinox (“respondent”) and Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., Butler-Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, “petitioners”) filed their case briefs on September 8, 2003. Mexinox and petitioners submitted their rebuttal briefs on September 15, 2003. On October 14, 2003, we published in the Federal Register our notice of the extension of time limits for this review. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Extension of Time Limit, 68 FR 59162 (October 14, 2003). This extension established the deadline for this final as February 3, 2004.

Period of Review

The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002.

Scope of the Review

For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Excluded from the review of this order are the following: (1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.”¹

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.”²

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” ³

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., carpet knives).^[4] This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.”⁵

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group III, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 3, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the following changes to the margin calculation:

• We have recalculated Mexinox's handling expenses (HANDLEH) using the actual warehousing and freight expenses incurred by Mexinox Trading.
• We revised the denominator of the U.S. indirect selling expense ratio (INDIRSU) by subtracting the value of Mexinox USA's raw material sales to Mexinox, and revised the numerator of the U.S. indirect selling expense ratio by deducting an amount attributable to the expenses incurred in selling these raw materials. We also adjusted the numerator of the U.S. indirect selling expense ratio to account for Mexinox's historical bad debt experience. We then used the revised numerator and denominator to calculate a revised U.S. indirect selling expense ratio.
• We recalculated the first component of Mexinox's direct selling expense ratio (DIRSELU) in order to allocate the expenses incurred during the POR to the relevant POR sales.
• We included in the denominator of the assessment rate the entered value of subject merchandise that entered for consumption in the United States but was first sold to unaffiliated parties outside the United States.
• We removed the programming language which had adjusted the billing adjustment (BILLADJU) reported for a certain U.S. sale (U.S. surprise sale #2).
• We revised our calculation of the constructed export price profit rate to include the indirect selling expenses incurred by Mexinox USA's affiliated reseller, Ken-Mac Metals, Inc. (KINDSU), in total U.S. selling expenses.
• We amended our calculation of cost of production and constructed value to exclude the cost of products (CONNUMs) produced by non-Mexican manufacturers.
• We revised Mexinox's general and administrative (“G&A”) expense ratio by excluding “stock strip devaluation,” “finished product returns to WIP,” and “finished product inventory movements” from the cost of goods sold denominator. We then applied the revised G&A ratio to the cost of manufacture (“COM”) prior to making the adjustments for major inputs.
• We applied the financial expense ratio used in the preliminary results to the COM prior to making the major input adjustments.

These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002:

Manufacturer/Exporter	Weighted Average Margin (percentage)
Mexinox	7.43

Assessment

The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. §351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting assessment rate against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries under the relevant order during the POR. See 19 C.F.R. §351.212(a).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“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 (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 30.85 percent, which is the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico, 64 FR 30790 (June 8, 1999). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. §351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. §351.305, that continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: February 3, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum

Adjustments to Normal Value and U.S. Price

Comment 1: Home Market and U.S. Post-Sale Price Adjustments

Adjustments to Normal Value

Comment 2: Level of Trade

Comment 3: Whether the Home Market Sales Database is Complete

Comment 4: Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in the Home Market

Comment 5: Treating Certain Home Market Adjustments as Commissions

Adjustments to United States Price

Comment 6: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses

Comment 7: U.S. Credit Expenses

Comment 8: U.S. Inventory Carrying Costs

Comment 9: Duty Drawback

Comment 10: U.S. Direct Selling Expenses

Comment 11: Billing Adjustment for U.S. Surprise Sale #2

Comment 12: CEP Profit Rate

Cost of Production

Comment 13: Weight-Averaging Costs of Subject and Non-Subject Merchandise

Comment 14: General and Administrative Expenses

Comment 15: Financial Expenses

Comment 16: Major Inputs

Comment 17: Verification Findings from Companion Reviews

Comment 18: Offset to Production Costs

Assessment Rates

Comment 19: Assessment Rate Methodology

Margin Calculations

Comment 20: Treatment of Non-Dumped Sales

Footnotes

1.  “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company.

2.  “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

3.  “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

4.  This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only.

5.  “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.