5488 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maisha Cryor and Mark Manning at 

(202) 482–5831, (202) 482–5253, 

respectively; Office 4, Group 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is postponing the 

preliminary determinations in the 

antidumping investigations on lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from 

Mexico and Turkey from February 16, 

2004, until April 6, 2004. This 

postponement is made pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2003, the 

Department initiated the abovereferenced investigations. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from Mexico and Turkey, 

68 FR 57667 (October 6, 2003). 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

Currently, the preliminary 

determinations are due no later than 

February 16, 2004. Under section 

733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

can extend the period for reaching a 

preliminary determination until not 

later than the 190th day after the date 

on which the administering authority 

initiates an investigation if: 

(B) The administering authority 

concludes that the parties concerned 

are cooperating and determines that 

(i) the case is extraordinarily 

complicated by reason of

(I) the number and complexity of 

the transactions to be investigated 

or adjustments to be considered;

(II) the novelty of the issues 

presented; or

(III) the number of firms whose 

activities must be investigated; and 

(ii) additional time is necessary to 

make the preliminary 

determination. 

The parties concerned are cooperating 

in these investigations. Additional time 

is necessary, however, to complete the 

preliminary determinations for Mexico 

and Turkey due to (1) the number and 

complexity of the transactions to be 

investigated and adjustments to be 

considered, (2) certain affiliation issues 

in both cases involving multiple 

respondents, and (3) the novelty of 

issues presented. Moreover, with 

respect to each Mexican respondent, the 

Department received, on January 9, 

2004, allegations that sales were made 

below the cost of production during the 

period of investigation. We are currently 

reviewing these allegations. Therefore, 

for both investigations, additional time 

is required to review the issues and the 

cost information for purposes of the 

preliminary determinations. 

Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we have determined that these 

investigations are ‘‘extraordinarily 

complicated.’’ We are, therefore, 

postponing the preliminary 

determinations by 50 days to April 6, 

2004. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(2).

Dated: January 28, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2521 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–829] 

Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

stainless steel bar from Italy. The period 

of review is August 2, 2001, through 

February 28, 2003. This review covers 

imports of stainless steel bar from two 

producers/exporters. 

We have preliminarily found that 

sales of subject merchandise have been 

made below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to assess 

antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Blanche Ziv, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–4207. 

Background 

On March 7, 2002, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published an antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar from Italy. See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 67 FR 

10384 (March 7, 2002). On October 10, 

2003, the Department published an 

amended antidumping duty order on 

stainless steel bar from Italy. See Notice 

of Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar from France, 

Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United 

Kingdom, 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 

2003). 

On March 3, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, (68 FR 9974). 

On March 26, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(b), the Department 

received timely requests for 

administrative reviews of this order 

from two producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise, Foroni S.p.A 

(‘‘Foroni’’) and Cogne Acciai Speciali 

S.r.l. (‘‘Cogne’’), respectively. On March 

31, 2003, Carpenter Technology Corp., 

Crucible Specialty Metals Division of 

Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy 

Corp., Slater Steels Corp., Empire 

Specialty Steel and the United 

Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC) 

(collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’) requested 

an administrative review for Foroni and 

Ugine Savoie-Imphy S.A (‘‘Ugine’’). On 

April 14, 2003, Cogne withdrew its 

request for an administrative review. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review on April 21, 2003. 

See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 68 FR 19498 (April 21, 2003). 

The period of this review (‘‘POR’’) is 

August 2, 2001, through February 28, 

2003. 

Antidumping duty questionnaires 

were sent to Foroni and Ugine on May 

7, 2003. We received timely responses 

from Foroni on June 12 and July 8, 2003. 

Ugine did not file a response to our 

questionnaire (see ‘‘Facts Available’’

section below for further details). We 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

Foroni on September 11 and October 6, 

2003. We received responses from 

Foroni on September 30 and October 21, 

2003, respectively. 

On October 28, 2003, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

published a notice extending the time 

limit for the completion of the 

preliminary results in this case by 60 

days (i.e., until no later than January 30, 

2004). See Stainless Steel Bar from 

Germany and Italy: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for 2001–2003 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5489

Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 61398 

(October 28, 2003). 

In November 2003, we conducted 

verification of the cost of production/

constructed value questionnaire 

responses submitted by Foroni. We 

issued a verification report on December 

23, 2003. See ‘‘Verification’’ section of 

this notice for further discussion.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of the Order 

For the purposes of this order, the 

term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’ includes 

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. Stainless steel bar includes 

cold-finished stainless steel bars 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 semifinished 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), products that have been cut 

from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, 

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 stainless steel bar subject to this 

order 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, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Facts Otherwise Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, a 

respondent (A) withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form or 

manner requested by the Department, 

subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 

Section 782; (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding; or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified. 

Section 782(e) of the Act further 

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 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 May 7, 2003, the Department 

issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Ugine. The first page of 

the questionnaire established a due date 

of June 13, 2003, for Ugine’s response. 

In addition, the cover letter to the 

questionnaire instructed Ugine to 

formally request an extension of time in 

writing before the due date if it was 

unable to respond to the questionnaire 

within the specified time limit. On June 

25, 2003, the Department contacted 

Ugine to reiterate that the deadline for 

formally filing a response or extension 

request was June 13, 2003. Ugine stated 

that it would not be responding to the 

questionnaire. See the June 25, 2003 

memorandum to the file, ‘‘Respondent 

Participation - Ugine Savoie-Imphy 

S.A’’ which is on file in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), Room B–099. 

The Department has not received any 

other communication from Ugine 

relating to this administrative review. 

Ugine did not request an extension of 

time to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaires prior to the June 13, 2003 

response deadline nor did Ugine, at any 

time, inform the Department that it was 

having difficulties submitting the 

requested information. (See section 

782(c) of the Act.) 

In applying facts otherwise available, 

section 776(b) of the Act provides that 

the Department may use an inference 

adverse to the interests of a party that 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s requests for information. 

See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Final Negative Critical Circumstances: 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–

96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). In this case, 

Ugine has failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability by not responding to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 

Stainless Steel Hollow Products from 

Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 

2000) (the Department applied total 

adverse facts available where the 

respondent failed to respond to the 

antidumping questionnaires). 

As adverse facts available, we have 

assigned Ugine a margin of 33.00 

percent, the highest margin from any 

segment of the proceeding, which is also 

the highest margin alleged in the 

petition, in accordance with section 

776(b)(1). Section 776(b) of the Act 

notes that an adverse facts available rate 

may include reliance on information 

derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final 

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review; or (4) any other 

information placed on the record. Thus, 

the statute does not limit the specific 

sources from which the Department may 

obtain information for use as facts 

available. The SAA recognizes the 

importance of facts available as an 

investigative tool in antidumping 

proceedings. The Department’s potential 

use of facts available provides the only 

incentive to foreign exporters and 

producers to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaires. See SAA

at 868. 

Section 776(c) of the Act mandates 

that the Department, to the extent 

practicable, shall corroborate secondary 

information (such as petition data) using 

independent sources reasonably at its 

disposal. In accordance with the law, 

the Department, to the extent 

practicable, will examine the reliability 

and relevance of the information used. 

To corroborate the selected margin 

from the petition, we compared it to 

individual transaction margins in this 

administrative review. We found that 

the selected margin falls within the 

range of individual transaction margins. 

5490 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

This evidence supports the reliability of 

this margin and an inference that the 

selected rate might reflect Ugine’s actual 

dumping margin. 

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 (February 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)). 

Therefore, we also examined whether 

any information on the record would 

discredit the selected rate as reasonable 

facts available for Ugine. No such 

information exists. In particular, there is 

no information that might lead to a 

conclusion that a different rate would be 

more appropriate. 

Finally, we note that another Italian 

exporter of stainless steel bar to the 

United States, Cogne, is currently 

subject to the 33.00 percent rate because 

it failed to respond to the Department’s 

request for information in the Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar 

from Italy, 67 FR 3155 (January 23, 

2002) (‘‘LTFV Final’’). 

Accordingly, we have assigned Ugine, 

in this administrative review, the rate of 

33.00 percent as total adverse facts 

available. This is consistent with section 

776(b) of the Act which states that 

adverse inferences may include reliance 

on information derived from the 

petition. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, in November 2003, we verified 

information provided by Foroni using 

standard verification procedures, 

including on-site inspection of the 

manufacturer’s facilities, examination of 

relevant sales, cost and financial 

records, and selection of original 

documentation containing relevant 

information. The Department reported 

its findings from the cost verification on 

December 23, 2003. See Memorandum 

to the File, ‘‘Verification Report on the 

Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Data Submitted by Foroni 

S.p.A.,’’ dated December 23, 2003 

(‘‘Foroni Verification Report’’), which is 

on file in the CRU. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

stainless steel bar by Foroni to the 

United States were made at less than 

NV, we compared, as appropriate, 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’), to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘Constructed Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, we compared the CEPs of 

individual U.S. transactions to the 

weighted-average NV of the foreign like 

product where there were sales made in 

the ordinary course of trade, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by the respondent covered by 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section, above, to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to 

determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared the 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. (For further details, see

the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below.) 

We compared U.S. sales to sales made 

in the comparison market within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to the POR until two months after the 

POR. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

sales of the most similar foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. Where there were no sales of 

identical or similar merchandise made 

in the ordinary course of trade in the 

comparison market to compare to U.S. 

sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’). In making 

product comparisons, consistent with 

the LTFV Final, we matched foreign like 

products based on the physical 

characteristics reported by the 

respondent in the following order: 

general type of finish; grade; remelting 

process; type of final finishing 

operation; shape; and size. 

Constructed Export Price 

We calculated CEP, in accordance 

with subsection 772(b) of the Act, for 

those sales from the respondent’s U.S. 

subsidiary to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser, which took place after 

importation into the United States. We 

based CEP on the FOB warehouse price 

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We 

deducted from the starting price foreign 

inland freight, international freight, 

marine insurance, foreign inland 

insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. 

inland freight, U.S. customs duties, and 

other transportation expenses. In 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act, we deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses 

(commissions and credit expenses), U.S. 

inventory carrying costs, and indirect 

selling expenses. In accordance with 

section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we 

deducted from the starting price an 

amount for profit. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., whether the 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

Foroni’s volume of home market sales of 

the foreign like product to the volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.404(b)(2). Because Foroni’s 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product was greater 

than five percent of its aggregate volume 

of U.S. sales for the subject 

merchandise, we determined that the 

home market was viable. 

B. Cost of Production 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of Foroni’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for general and 

administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’), and 

interest expenses, where appropriate. 

We relied on the COP information 

provided by Foroni in its questionnaire 

responses except in the following 

instances. For certain CONNUMs not 

included in Foroni’s revised COP/CV 

data submission, dated October 21, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5491

1The marketing process in the United States and 

home market begins with the producer and extends 

to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain 

of distribution between the two may have many or 

few links, and the respondent’s sales occur 

somewhere along this chain.

2Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) 

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of 

these preliminary results, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing support, 

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 

and quality assurance/warranty services.

3Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, 

where possible.

2003, we assigned the COP of the next 

most similar CONNUM. The assigned 

CONNUMs were identical in all 

physical characteristics other than size. 

For certain CONNUMs also excluded 

from Foroni’s revised COP/CV data 

submission that differed from the 

reported, revised CONNUMs with 

respect to grade, we assigned costs to 

those products using record information 

verified by the Department during 

verification. We adjusted Foroni’s 

reported POR direct material costs to 

reflect the variance between Foroni’s 

total standard and actual direct material 

costs for FY 2002. We increased 

Foroni’s reported variable expenses for 

the variance between standard and 

actual variable costs for the POR. We 

revised the denominator of Foroni’s 

G&A expenses ratio to reflect the cost of 

goods sold rather than the cost of goods 

manufactured. We increased Foroni’s 

interest expenses to include all foreign 

exchange gains and losses. See

Memorandum from LaVonne Clark to 

Neal Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results’’ dated January 30, 2004 

(‘‘Preliminary Results COP Memo’’). 

2. Test of Home Market Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the weighted-average COPs to 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product during the POR, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order 

to determine whether sales had been 

made at prices below the COP. The 

prices were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, billing adjustments, 

commissions, and indirect selling 

expenses. In determining whether to 

disregard home market sales made at 

prices below the COP, we examined, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the Act, whether such sales 

were made (1) within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities, 

and (2) at prices which did not permit 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. 

3. 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 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 for Foroni, for certain 

specific products, more than 20 percent 

of the comparison market sales were at 

prices less than the COP and, thus, the 

below-cost sales were made within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities. In addition, these sales were 

made at prices that did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

these sales and used the remaining 

sales, if any, as the basis for determining 

NV, in accordance with section 

772(b)(1). 

For U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

for which there were no comparable 

home market sales in the ordinary 

course of trade (e.g., sales that passed 

the costs test), we compared those sales 

to constructed value (‘‘CV’’), in 

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 

Act. 

C. Calculation of Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison-market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, when sales 

of comparison products could not be 

found, either because there were no 

sales of a comparable product or all 

sales of the comparable products failed 

the COP test, we based NV on CV. 

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) 

and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated 

CV based on the sum of the cost of 

materials and fabrication for the subject 

merchandise, plus amounts for selling 

expenses, G&A, including interest, and 

profit. We made the same adjustments 

to the CV costs as described in the 

‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of this 

notice. In accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling 

expenses, G&A and profit on the 

amounts incurred and realized by the 

respondent in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the foreign country. 

D. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the CEP. Sales are made at different 

LOTs if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial 

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also, 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997). In order to determine whether 

the comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain 

of distribution’’),1 including selling 

functions,2 class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

CEP and comparison market sales, (i.e., 

NV based on either home market or 

third country prices3) we consider only 

the selling expenses reflected in the 

price after the deduction of expenses 

and profit under section 772(d) of the 

Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 

United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–

1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing CEP 

sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make a LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if a NV 

LOT is more remote from the factory 

than the CEP LOT and we are unable to 

make a level of trade adjustment, the 

Department shall grant a CEP offset, as 

provided in section 773(a))(7)(B) 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). 

Foroni reported that it made direct 

sales to distributors, machine shops and 

forging shops in the home market. We 

found that the sales to each customer 

5492 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

category were similar with respect to 

sales process, freight services, 

warehouse/inventory maintenance, and 

warranty service. We therefore, 

preliminarily determine that these home 

market sales constitute a single level of 

trade. 

In the U.S. market, Foroni only 

reported CEP sales. Foroni’s constructed 

CEP level of trade was its sales to its 

affiliated reseller, and since it 

performed the same selling functions for 

these sales, we found that these CEP 

sales constitute one level of trade. This 

CEP level of trade was similar to that of 

the home market with respect to sales 

process, warehouse/inventory 

maintenance and warranty service, and 

differed only slightly with respect to 

freight and delivery. Since we found the 

CEP LOT to be similar to the home 

market level of trade, we matched CEP 

sales to normal value based on home 

market sales and made no CEP offset 

adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on the FOB 

mill price to unaffiliated customers in 

the home market. We identified the 

starting price and made adjustments for 

early payment discounts. We also made 

adjustments, where appropriate, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

home market or United States where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not in the other (the 

commission offset). 

Furthermore, we made adjustments 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In 

addition, we made adjustments for 

differences in circumstances of sale 

(‘‘COS’’) in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. We made COS adjustments, 

where appropriate, by deducting direct 

selling expenses incurred on 

comparison market sales (credit 

expenses), and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses (credit expenses and 

commissions). 

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that, where NV cannot be based on 

comparison-market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for Foroni, 

when comparison market sales could 

not be found because there were no 

sales in the ordinary course of trade of 

a comparable product, we based NV on 

CV. 

In accordance with sections 773(e)(1), 

(e)(2)(A), and (e)(3) of the Act, we 

calculated CV based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

merchandise, plus amounts for selling 

expenses, G&A (including interest), and 

profit. We calculated the cost of 

materials and fabrication based on the 

methodology described in the 

‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of this 

notice. In accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling 

expenses, G&A, and profit on the 

amounts incurred and realized by 

Foroni in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the foreign country. 

For a discussion of the calculation of 

G&A and interest expense ratios for 

Foroni, see Preliminary Results COP 

Memo. 

For price-to-CV comparisons, we 

made adjustments to CV in accordance 

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Where 

we compared CV to CEP, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting from CV the weightedaverage home market direct selling 

expenses. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily find that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period August 2, 2001, through 

February 28, 2003:

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage 

Foroni S.p.A and Foroni Metals of Texas ............................................................... 3.72 

Ugine Savoie-Imphy S.A ......................................................................................... 33.00

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

will determine, and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), 

the Department calculates an 

assessment rate for each importer of the 

subject merchandise. Upon issuance of 

the final results of this administrative 

review, if any importer (or customer)-

specific assessment rates calculated in 

the final results are above de minimis

(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 

Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates covering the period 

were de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates 

by aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to that 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the entered value of the sales 

to that importer (or customer). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importer’s/

customer’s entries during the review 

period. The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon completion of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of stainless 

steel bar from Italy 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 rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of this administrative 

review (except no cash deposit will be 

required if its weighted-average margin 

is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent); (2) for merchandise exported 

by manufacturers or exporters not 

covered in this review but covered in 

the original less-than-fair-value 

investigation, the cash deposit will 

continue to be the most recent rate 

published in the final determination for 

which the manufacturer or exporter 

received an individual rate; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

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 review, the cash 

deposit rate will be 3.81 percent, the 

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV 

Final. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5493

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 37 days after the 

publication of this notice, or the first 

workday thereafter. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the case and rebuttal briefs. 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. Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument with an 

electronic version included. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of issues raised 

in any such written briefs or hearing, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. 

Notification to Importers 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2527 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–830] 

Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

stainless steel bar from Germany. The 

period of review is August 2, 2001, 

through February 28, 2003. This review 

covers imports of stainless steel bar 

from one producer/exporter. 

We have preliminarily found that 

sales of subject merchandise have not 

been made at less than normal value. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to liquidate entries of stainless steel bar 

from BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH, BGH 

Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH 

Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH 

Edelstahl Siegen GmbH without regard 

to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results not later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Smith, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 7, 2002, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published an antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar from Germany. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless 

Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 10382 

(March 7, 2002). On October 10, 2003, 

the Department published an amended 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar from Germany. See Notice of 

Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar from France, 

Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United 

Kingdom, 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 

2003). 

On March 3, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 9974 

(March 3, 2003). On March 27, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 

Department received a timely request 

for review from BGH Edelstahl Freital 

GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf 

GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, 

and BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH 

(collectively ‘‘BGH’’), four affiliated 

German producers of the subject 

merchandise. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review on April 21, 2003. 

See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 68 FR 19498 (April 21, 2003). 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is August 

2, 2001 through February 28, 2003. 

An antidumping duty questionnaire 

was sent to BGH on May 7, 2003. We 

received a timely response from BGH on 

June 13, 2003. We issued supplemental 

questionnaires to BGH on August 22, 

September 3, September 24, and 

September 29, 2003. We received 

responses from BGH on September 22, 

September 26, October 3, and October 8, 

2003. 

On June 2, 2003, BGH requested that 

it be relieved from the requirement to 

report affiliated party resales because 

sales of the foreign like product to 

affiliated parties during the POR 

constituted less than five percent of 

total sales of the foreign like product. 

On June 11, 2003, we granted BGH’s 

request in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.403(d). See Memorandum to Jeffrey 

May, ‘‘Reporting of BGH’s Home Market 

Sales by an Affiliated Party,’’ dated June 

11, 2003 which is in the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, located in Room 

B–099 of the main Department building 

(‘‘CRU’’). 

On October 28, 2003, in accordance 

with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we 

published a notice extending the time 

limit for the completion of the 

preliminary results in this case by 60 

days (i.e., until no later than January 30, 

2004). See Stainless Steel Bar from 

Germany and Italy: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for 2001–2003 

Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 61398 

(October 28, 2003). 

On October 28 through November 6, 

and December 10–11, 2003, we 

conducted verifications of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

BGH. We issued a verification report on 

January 20, 2004. See ‘‘Verification’’

section of this notice for further 

discussion.

Scope of the Order 

For the purposes of this order, the 

term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’ includes 

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. Stainless steel bar includes 

cold-finished stainless steel bars that are 

turned or ground in straight lengths,