[Federal Register: July 11, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 133)]
[Notices]               
[Page 45956-45958]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jy02-28]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]

 
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 (202) 482-2613 
or (202) 482-1503, 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

[[Page 45957]]

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 areaddressed 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

[[Page 45958]]

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
[FR Doc. 02-17475 Filed 7-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S