[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5488-5493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2527]


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

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

[[Page 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 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 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.

[[Page 5490]]

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,

[[Page 5491]]

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-to-Length 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
    \2\ Selling 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 prices\3\) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Where 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5492]]

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 
weighted-average 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.

[[Page 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