[Federal Register: January 12, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 7)]
[Notices]               
[Page 1824-1827]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja98-24]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-401-040]

 
Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: 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 July 8, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the review of the antidumping duty 
finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden. The review covers two 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Linda Ludwig, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

[[Page 1825]]

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475/3833.

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, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
Department's regulations are to Part 353 of 19 CFR (1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department of the Treasury published an antidumping finding on 
stainless steel plate from Sweden on June 8, 1973 (38 FR 15079). On 
July 8, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register the 
preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review of this 
antidumping finding (62 FR 36495). Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an 
administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to 
complete the review within the statutory 365 days. On August 27, 1997, 
the Department extended the time limits for these final results in this 
case: See Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden: Extension of Time Limit 
for Antidumping Administrative Review (62 FR 45397). The Department has 
now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751 
of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel 
plate which is commonly used in scientific and industrial equipment 
because of its resistance to staining, rusting and pitting. Stainless 
steel plate is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7219.11.00.00, 7219.12.00.05, 
7209.12.00.15, 7219.12.00.45, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 
7219.12.00.80, 7219.21.00.05, 7219.21.00.50, 7219.22.00.05, 
7219.23.00.10, 7219.22.00.30, 7219.22.00.60, 7219.31.00.10, 
7219.31.00.50, 7220.11.00.00, 7222.30.00.00, and 7228.40.00.00. 
Although the subheading is provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.
    On July 11, 1995, the Department determined that Stavax ESR 
(Stavax), UHB Ramax (Ramax), and UHB 904L (904L) when flat-rolled are 
within the scope of antidumping finding.
    On November 3, 1995, the Department determined that stainless steel 
plate products Stavax, Ramax, and 904L when forged, are within the 
scope of the antidumping finding.
    On December 30, 1997 the Department determined that merchandise 
rolled into hot bands in Sweden from British slabs is subject to the 
finding.
    The review covers the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996. The 
Department has now completed this review in accordance with section 751 
of the Act, as amended.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, from August 10 
through August 15, 1997, we verified information submitted by Avesta. 
We used standard verification procedures including on-site inspection 
of respondent's production facilities and examination of relevant sales 
and financial records. The results of this verification are outlined in 
the public version of the verification report dated September 8, 1997.
    On August 11, 1997, Avesta submitted corrections regarding its 
claims for the following home market charges: inland freight, warranty 
expenses, indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs. We 
verified Avesta's revised claim for these charges, and have included 
the verified amount for these charges in these final results.
    During the verification, we determined that more similar matches 
existed in the home market for three U.S. models. We revised Avesta's 
April 24, 1997 concordance to reflect those more similar matches, and 
have adjusted our calculations accordingly.
    Additionally, based upon verified data provided by Avesta, we 
converted three sales denominated in Finnish Marks into Swedish Kronor 
before including those sales in our calculation of normal value.
    We determined during the verification that Avesta could not 
substantiate, and we could not verify the inland freight charges 
reported by its hot rolled products (HRP) division. Section 776(a)(2) 
of the Act provides that ``if an interested party or any other person * 
* * provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d) use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.''
    Because Avesta could not substantiate the home market inland 
freight incurred on its HRP sales, we calculated this adjustment based 
upon facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776. (See memo 
concerning revision to verification report dated December 9, 1996 and 
verification report at 12). As facts available, we used in these final 
results the average inland freight charges incurred by the HRP division 
on the pre-selected and surprise sales examined during the 
verification. (See Avesta Final Results Analysis Memorandum of January 
5, 1998.)

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results 
of this administrative review. We received timely comments from 
Uddeholm and Avesta. We received timely rebuttal comments from the 
petitioners.

Comment 1

    Uddeholm and Avesta note that in its preliminary calculations, the 
Department incorrectly matched U.S. sales to non-contemporaneous home 
market sales. Uddeholm and Avesta contend that in the final results, 
the Department should match U.S. sales with contemporaneous home market 
sales occurring within the 90/60 day window.

Department's Position

    We agree with Avesta and Uddeholm. We have corrected this 
programming error in our final results, and matched U.S. sales with 
contemporaneous home market sales occurring within the 90/60 day 
window.

Comment 2

    Uddeholm contends that the Department incorrectly calculated the 
CEP offset in its preliminary results. Uddeholm contends that the 
Department should base its calculation of the CEP offset on indirect 
selling expenses incurred during the month of the contemporaneous home 
market sale.

Department's Response

    We agree with Uddeholm. In these final results we have corrected 
this error, and based our calculation of the CEP offset on indirect 
selling expenses incurred during the month of the contemporaneous home 
market sale.

Comment 3

    Uddeholm argues that the Department should make no distinction in 
its model-match program for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax 
and Ramax. Uddeholm contends that both versions of these products are 
identical.
    Uddeholm asserts that the Department concluded in its October 10, 
1997 scope determination that the method of manufacture (forging or 
flat-rolling) did

[[Page 1826]]

not result in physical differences in the product. Uddeholm, therefore, 
contends that the Department should not differentiate between forged 
and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax in its margin 
calculations.
    Petitioners note that the Department based its preliminary 
calculations on the classifications and product codes provided by 
Uddeholm. Petitioners additionally assert that the Department did not 
find in its October 10, 1997 scope redetermination on remand that 
forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax are 
``indistinguishable on any other basis'' such as price or cost of 
manufacture.

Department's Response

    We disagree with Uddeholm, and agree with petitioners. In its 
October 26, 1996 questionnaire response. Uddeholm provided separate 
product codes for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax. 
We based our model match selections upon the product codes provided by 
Uddeholm.
    The proper method for making sales comparisons is not addressed in 
our October 10, 1997 scope determination. In that scope 
redetermination, we applied the ``totality of circumstances'' test 
outlined in United States v. Carborundum Co (Carborundum) 536 F. 2d 
373.337 (C.C.P.A.) 1976). In making this scope redetermination, we 
adhered to the instructions of the Court of International Trade which 
was to limit the analysis to record evidence before the Treasury 
Department in 1976. In considering that 1976 record evidence, we noted 
that Uddeholm made ``no distinction between Stavax and Ramax when flat-
rolled, and Stavax and Ramax when forced * * *.''
    While we determined in our October 10, 1997 scope redetermination 
that both forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax are 
subject to the scope of the finding, it does not follow from that 
analysis that these two versions of the product are identical to each 
other, or that no price differences exist between forged and flat-
rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax. Because Uddeholm listed separate 
product codes for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax, 
and because there is no evidence in the record indicating that forged 
and flat-rolled versions of the product are identical within the 
meaning of section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we have continued in 
these final results to make separate comparisons for forged and flat-
rolled versions of these products.

Comment 4

    Avesta contends that the Department should make a deduction from 
the home market selling price for pre-sale warehousing expenses.

Department's Position

    We agree. In these final results we have made an adjustment for 
pre-sale warehousing expenses incurred after the merchandise left the 
original place of shipment.

Comment 5

    Avesta contends that the Department should recalculate the CEP 
profit ratio by applying the CEP ratio only to U.S. selling expenses 
related to individual U.S. sales transactions. Avesta contends that 
discounts, rebates and movement charges should be excluded from this 
calculation because they are not ``selling expenses'' as the Department 
defines and interprets the term for purposes of determining the CEP 
profit ratio.

Department's Position

    We agree with Avesta. Consistent with our normal practice, we have 
not applied the CEP ratio to discounts, rebates, and movement charges.

Comment 6

    Avesta contends that in the final results, the Department 
occasionally used an incorrect amount for difmer. Avesta contends that 
this error arose because the Department sometimes matched the U.S. 
model to a different home market model and month than that listed in 
the Department's product concordance. Avesta argues that in its final 
results, the Department should either (1) utilize a revised concordance 
submitted by Avesta in its affirmative comments (this concordance 
incorporates the matching scheme used by the Department in its 
preliminary results) or (2) recalculate difmer by utilizing the 
variable cost of manufacture information provided on Avesta's home 
market and U.S. sales listing.
    Petitioners contend that Avesta has already submitted several 
product concordances some of which petitioners have found to be 
defective. Petitioners also observe that Avesta submitted this revised 
concordance after the deadline for submitting new information. 
Accordingly, petitioners argue that the Department should either 
disregard Avesta's recalculation of difmer, or ``make its own 
calculations rather than relying on the data submitted out of time by 
Avesta.''

Department's Position

    In these final results, we have recalculated difmer to correspond 
with the model match selections made in our margin calculations. We 
based our calculation of difmer upon the verified variable cost of 
manufacture data provided by Avesta in its home market and U.S. sales 
listings. Finally, because the concordance provided by Avesta in its 
affirmative comments summarizes cost information previously analyzed 
and verified by the Department, we do not consider that concordance to 
be new information. The Department's practice is to reject untimely 
filings to the extent they contain new information. See Sebacic Acid 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674, December 15, 1997 (where the 
Department rejected by striking from the record certain untimely new 
information contained in a party's case brief). We, thus, have 
maintained that concordance on the record of this proceeding.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following margins 
exist for the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                           Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avesta......................................................       29.36
Uddeholm....................................................        2.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and 
normal value may vary from the percentages stated above. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs 
Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of stainless steel plate from Sweden entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 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) The cash deposit rate for reviewed 
firms will be the rate established in the final results of 
administrative review, (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or 
exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) 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 a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

[[Page 1827]]

is not a firm covered in this review, or the original investigation, 
but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these 
reviews, or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or 
the original fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 
4.46%.
    We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit 
value per pound basis. To calculate the per pound unit value for 
assessment, we summed the margins on U.S. sales with positive margins, 
and then divided this sum by the entered pounds of all U.S. sales.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during these review periods. 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 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 CFR 353.34(d). 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.
    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.

    Dated: January 5, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-611 Filed 1-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M