02-17475. Stainless Steel Bar from India; 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.

SUMMARY:

On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results and partial rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final results. We find that the reviewed company did not sell stainless steel bar from India in the United States below normal value during the period of review (“POR”) of February 1, 2000, to January 31, 2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE

: July 11, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ryan Langan or Cole Kyle, 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 [phone] or [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended effective January 1, 1995, (“The Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2000).

Background

On March 7, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register, Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review (67 FR 10377) (“Preliminary Results”). The only manufacturer/exporter subject to this review is Viraj Group, Ltd. (“Viraj” or “respondent”). After inviting parties to comment on the Preliminary Results of this review, we received petitioners' case brief and Viraj's rebuttal brief. At the request of the petitioners, we held a hearing on May 8, 2002. We did not conduct a verification in this proceeding.

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, 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 SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 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 review is dispositive.

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” from Richard Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 5, 2002, (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we 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 on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/​frn/​index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from India to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) to normal value (“NV”). Our calculations followed the methodologies described in the Preliminary Results, except as noted below and in the Viraj Group, Ltd. Final Results Calculation Memorandum (“Calculation Memorandum”), dated July 5, 2002, which is on file in the Import Administration's Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

For certain sales to the United States, we used EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. For the remaining sales to the United States, we used CEP as defined in section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated EP and CEP based on the same methodologies described in the Preliminary Results, except that we corrected certain ministerial errors and did not make a duty drawback adjustment (see Calculation Memorandum and Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2 and 5).

Normal Value

We used the same methodology as that described in the Preliminary Results to determine the cost of production (“COP”), whether home market sales were at prices below the COP, and the NV, except that, in calculating COP, we recalculated Viraj's interest and SG&A expense ratios (see Calculation Memorandum and Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 3 and 4).

1. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of materials, fabrication, selling, general and administrative expenses, and packing costs.

2. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. We found that Viraj did not make more than 20 percent of its sales of any product at prices less than the COP. Therefore, all of Viraj's home market sales have been included in the calculation of NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1).

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the period February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001:

Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter	Weighted-Average Margin
The Viraj Group, Limited	0.47% (de minimis)

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent or greater). Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise in question. The assessment rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR.

Cash Deposit Rates

The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all shipments of stainless steel bar from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for Viraj, no antidumping duty deposit will be required; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original 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) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the “all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation (see Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994)).

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

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

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: July 5, 2002.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1

Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1. Collapsing the Viraj Group

Comment 2. Duty Drawback

Comment 3. Calculation of Interest Expense for VIL

Comment 4. Calculation of Interest Expense

Comment 5. Ministerial Errors