[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10151-10158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-810)


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India

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 India. 
The period of review is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. 
This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from eight producers/
exporters.
    We preliminarily find that sales of the subject merchandise have 
been made below normal value. In addition, based on the preliminary 
results for the respondents selected for individual review, we have 
preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin for those companies 
for which a review was requested, but that were not selected for 
individual review.
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping 
duties

[[Page 10152]]

on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited 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: March 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1279 
or (202) 482-0182, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India. See Antidumping Duty 
Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 
(February 21, 1995). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a 
notice in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for interested 
parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on SSB from India for the period of review (``POR''), February 1, 
2005, through January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006).
    On February 4, 2006, we received a timely request for review from 
Isibars Limited (``Isibars''). On February 28, 2005, Carpenter 
Technology Corporation, Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of 
Crucible Materials Corporation, Electralloy Company, North American 
Stainless, Universal Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless 
(collectively, the ``petitioners'') requested an administrative review 
of 9 companies: the Viraj Group, including but necessarily limited to 
Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (``VAL''), Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (``VFL''), Viraj 
Impoexpo, Ltd. (``VIL''), Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL 
Wires, Ltd.;\1\ Akai Asian (``Akai''); Atlas Stainless (``Atlas''); 
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (``Bhansali''); Grand Foundry, Ltd. 
(``Grand Foundry''); Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (``Meltroll''); 
Sindia Steels Limited (``Sindia''); Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd. 
(``Snowdrop''); and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus''). On 
February 28, 2006, we received timely review requests from Facor 
Steels, Ltd. (``Facor''), and Mukand Ltd. (``Mukand'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For this Federal Register notice, we use the terms 
``Viraj,'' ``the Viraj Group'' and ``the Viraj entities'' 
interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 5, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we initiated an administrative 
review on Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, Isibars, 
Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop, Venus, and conditionally initiated 
an administrative review with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj 
Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, 
and VSL Wires, Ltd., (collectively, the ``Viraj entities''). See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 
2006) (``Initiation Notice''). For further discussion of the 
Department's treatment of the Viraj entities in this administrative 
review, please see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this 
notice.
    In April 2006, we requested information concerning the quantity and 
value of sales to the United States from the 12 producers/exporters 
listed in the Initiation Notice. The Department received responses from 
all of the exporters/producers in April and May of 2006. Akai, Atlas, 
and Meltroll notified the Department that they had no shipments of the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
    On June 7, 2006, the Department determined that it was not 
practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of 
the 12 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we 
selected Venus and Bhansali (collectively, ``the respondents'') for 
individual reviews. See Memorandum from Scott Holland to Susan H. 
Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, ``Stainless Steel Bar from India: 
Respondent Selection,'' dated June 7, 2006, (``Respondent Selection 
Memorandum'') which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in 
room B-099 of the main Department building. For further discussion see 
the ``Respondent Selection'' section below.
    On June 8, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the respondents. At that time, we instructed each of 
the respondents to respond to the cost section of the questionnaire 
because we had disregarded certain below-cost sales in the most 
recently completed review in which the companies participated. See 
Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 13771 (March 22, 
1999) (Bhansali); see also Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 47543 (August 
11, 2003) (Venus).
    The respondents submitted their initial responses to the 
antidumping questionnaire from July 2006 through August 2006. After 
analyzing these responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the 
respondents to clarify or correct information contained in the initial 
questionnaire responses. We received timely responses to these 
questionnaires. The petitioners submitted comments on the questionnaire 
responses in August, September and October 2006.
    On October 20, 2006, the Department found that, due to the 
complexity of the issues in this case, including affiliation and cost 
of production, and outstanding supplemental responses, it was not 
practicable to complete this review within the time period prescribed. 
Accordingly, we extended the time limit for completing the preliminary 
results of this review to no later than February 28, 2007, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless Steel 
Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 61958 (October 20, 2006).
    In January 2007, we requested comments from interested parties 
regarding the proper hierarchical order of one the model matching 
characteristics as described in the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section, 
below. On February 12, 2007, we received comments from petitioners. We 
received no other comments.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of 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-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 
have a width measuring at least 10 times the

[[Page 10153]]

thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having 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 the order is dispositive.
    On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that 
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel 
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. See 
Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, ``Antidumping Duty Orders 
on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 
India: Final Scope Ruling,'' dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in 
the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. See also Notice 
of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department the discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of subject 
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to review either: 
(1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is 
statistically valid based on the information available at the time of 
selection, or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest 
volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
    Responses to the Department's information request were received in 
April through May 2006. After consideration of the data submitted, we 
selected the two largest exporters/producers of the subject 
merchandise, as explained in our Respondent Selection Memorandum.
    Therefore, for those companies for which a review was requested, 
but which were not selected for individual review, the Department has 
determined a review-specific weighted-average margin. The review-
specific average rate for these companies can be found in the 
``Preliminary Results of the Review'' section below. This is 
distinguished from the ``All Others'' rate, which is the weighted-
average margin calculated in the investigation and which continues to 
apply to all exporters and producers which have not participated in a 
review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 73437, 
73440 (December 12, 2005) (``Softwood Lumber Final Results'').

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify sales 
information submitted by Bhansali in these proceedings to be used in 
making our final results. Due to resource and time constraints facing 
the Department, we will not verify Venus in this proceeding.

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006.

Partial Rescission of Review

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that, although the 
Department revoked the order in part with respect to entries of the 
merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by Viraj (Viraj 
Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.), the 
Department was conditionally initiating a review with respect to Viraj 
Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj 
Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., pending further 
information from the requestor as to sales of subject merchandise not 
covered by the revocation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department revoked the order in part, with respect to 
entries of merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by 
``Viraj,'' a collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; 
Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The revocation was 
effective February 1, 2003. See Stainless Steel Bar From India; 
Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
in Part, and Determination to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409, 55410-11 
(September 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 6, 2006, the Department requested that, in light of the 
previous revocation determination, the petitioners clarify the specific 
producers or exporters for which they were seeking review and, for each 
company, whether they were requesting a review as to merchandise 
produced by that company, or only merchandise exported by that company. 
Moreover, the Department indicated that absent adequate clarification, 
it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to the 
Viraj Group. See Letter from Julie H. Santoboni, Program Manager, to 
the petitioners, dated April 6, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in 
room B-099 of the main Department building.
    On April 7, 2006, the petitioners responded to the Department's 
request for further information stating that they were seeking a review 
of any of the listed companies (i.e., the Viraj Group) in their 
capacity as either a producer or exporter (or both, with the exception 
of VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise subject to the order during the 
POR. Furthermore, the petitioners urged the Department to seek 
information as to whether the named companies shipped merchandise 
subject to the order to the United States during the POR. The 
petitioners also referred to the changes in operation among the various 
Viraj entities that the Department recognized in pre-revocation 
reviews.
    Therefore, in light of the revocation and the petitioners' request, 
we determined that it was appropriate to ascertain whether there were 
suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order during the POR 
from the Viraj entities. We examined shipment data obtained from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') and placed these data on the 
record on May 9, 2006. See Memorandum from Team to the File, ``U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Data,'' dated May 9, 2006, which is on 
file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Based on 
this information, we determined that there are no suspended entries of 
merchandise subject to the order involving any of the Viraj entities 
for the POR. See Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, Office Director to 
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, ``2005-2006 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel 
Bar from India - Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group Companies,'' 
dated May 18, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the 
main Department building. Accordingly, on May 24, 2006, the Department 
published in the Federal Register its intent to rescind the 
administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities. See Stainless 
Steel Bar from India: Notice of Intent to Partially Rescind Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 29916 (May 24, 2006).

[[Page 10154]]

    We invited interested parties to comment on this notice. No 
comments were received. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities and will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions to CBP within 15 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Intent to Rescind Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an 
administrative review with respect to a particular exporter or producer 
if it concludes that during the period of review there were ``no 
entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise.'' Accordingly, 
the Department requires that there be entries during the POR upon which 
to assess antidumping duties, to conduct an administrative review.
    As noted in the ``Background'' section above, Akai, Atlas, and 
Meltroll each indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR. The Department examined CBP data 
to confirm whether these companies shipped subject merchandise during 
the POR. After reviewing the data, we confirmed that the CBP data 
showed no entries of subject merchandise to the United States from 
these companies during the POR. See Memorandum from Team to the File, 
``Stainless Steel Bar from India: No Shipments During the Period of 
Review,'' dated May 26, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 
of the main Department building.
    Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are 
preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to 
Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll.

Affiliation

    On February 28, 2007, the Department determined that Venus and 
exporter Precision Metals are affiliated within the meaning of section 
771(33) of the Act, and also that the two companies should be treated 
as a single entity for the purposes of this administrative review. 
Therefore, we preliminarily find that the companies should receive a 
single antidumping duty rate. See Memorandum from Scott Holland to 
Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, ``Relationship of Venus Wire 
Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Precision Metals,'' dated February 28, 2007, 
which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department 
building.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSB from India to the United States 
were made at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold by the respondents in the comparison market 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 respondents' volume of home market sales of the 
foreign-like product to the volumes of their U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. See the ``Normal Value'' section, below, for further 
details.
    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the 
ordinary course of trade, 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, we compared U.S. 
sales to constructed value (``CV''). In making product comparisons, 
consistent with our determination in the original investigation, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by the respondent in the following order: type, grade, 
remelting process, finishing operation, shape, and size. See 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 
FR 39733-35 (August 4, 1994); unchanged in the final.
    In the Department's standard questionnaire for these proceedings, 
all respondents are instructed to assign a unique code for each AISI 
grade of SSB sold in both the home and U.S. markets for matching 
purposes. There are 9 standard AISI grades listed in the questionnaire. 
Furthermore, respondents are instructed to assign a unique code for all 
additional AISI grades of SSB sold. In their initial responses to the 
Department's questionnaire, the respondents in this review reported 
that during the POR, they made sales of several AISI grades of SSB 
beyond the standard 9 AISI grades and correctly assigned a unique code 
for each additional grade.
    On September 28, 2006, we received comments from the petitioners 
arguing that, because the respondents did not properly order the 
additional grades in a hierarchical manner, the Department's model 
match program would select dissimilar grades of SSB instead of the most 
similar grades. Accordingly, the petitioners argued that the Department 
should itself assign the proper weight for these additional grades to 
ensure a proper hierarchical order for matching purposes. Moreover, the 
petitioners proposed their own hierarchical ordering of the grades.
    These comments led the Department to reconsider the weights 
assigned to the reported AISI grades. After consulting with Department 
experts, we instructed the respondents to re-order the grade hierarchy 
in their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires and 
we assigned new weight codes for each reported grade. The Department 
also requested comments regarding the proper hierarchical ordering. See 
Letter from Brandon Farlander, Program Manager to Interested Parties, 
dated January 29, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of 
the main Department building.
    On February 12, 2007, we received comments from the petitioners 
regarding the proper order of one AISI grade. We did not receive 
comments from any other interested party. Therefore, for the 
preliminary results we are re-ordering the grade hierarchy and we are 
assigning new weight codes for each reported grade.

Date of Sale

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale is normally the 
date of invoice unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the 
material terms of sale, price and quantity, are established on some 
other date. In its initial questionnaire responses, Venus reported its 
sales using invoice date as the date of sale. However, on November 30, 
2006, the company requested that it be allowed to use purchase order 
date as the date of sale for both its U.S. and home market sales. Venus 
reported that no changes in the terms of sale occurred between the 
purchase order and the invoice date.
    In the U.S. market, Venus stated that all of its sales are made to 
order under contracts which can include a price adjustment factor 
reflecting market price changes for certain alloys used in the 
production of stainless steel bar. However, because the terms of the 
price

[[Page 10155]]

adjustment are set in advance, there are no changes to the material 
terms of sale negotiated by the parties involved in the transaction 
after the purchase order date. Therefore, we instructed Venus to use 
the purchase order date as the date of sale. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from Mexico, 64 FR 14872, 14880 (March 29, 1999), for 
an explanation of our practice in these circumstances. Furthermore, we 
instructed Venus to report the gross unit price on the invoice 
(inclusive of any surcharges) in the sales listings.
    Bhansali reported that the material terms of sale can change up 
until the date of the invoice. Therefore, we are using invoice date as 
the date of sale for Bhansali for both markets.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance 
with section 772 of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as 
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the 
date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United 
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. We 
calculated EP for both Bhansali and Venus because the merchandise was 
sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the 
United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, 
and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise 
warranted.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
    (A) Bhansali
    We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid (``DDP''), cost, 
insurance, and freight (``CIF''), or cost and freight (``CFR'') 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. 
These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in 
transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and 
handling, terminal handling charges and documentation fees. See 
Memorandum from Team to the File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum for Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated February 28, 
2007, (``Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum'') which is on 
file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building.
    (B) Venus
    We based EP on the packed, DDP, or CIF price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit 
price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions 
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in 
transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and 
handling, freight incurred in the United States, and U.S. customs 
duties. See Memorandum from Team to the File, ``Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated 
February 28, 2007, (``Venus Preliminary Calculation Memorandum'') which 
is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building.

Duty Drawback

    Bhansali and Venus claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on 
their participation in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement 
Passbook Program. Such adjustments are permitted under section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    The Department will grant a respondent's claim for a duty drawback 
adjustment where the respondent has demonstrated that there is (1) a 
sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and (2) a 
sufficient amount of raw materials imported and used in the production 
of the final exported product. See Rajinder Pipe Ltd. v. United States 
(Rajinder Pipes), 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999) (``Rajinder 
Pipes''). In Rajinder Pipes, the Court of International Trade upheld 
the Department's decision to deny a respondent's claim for duty 
drawback adjustments because there was not substantial evidence on the 
record to establish that part one of the Department's test had been 
met. See also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 
(CIT August 15, 2001); and Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Administrative Review, and Notice of Intent to Revoke in 
Part, 69 FR 10666, 10671 (March 8, 2004).
    In this administrative review, Bhansali and Venus have failed to 
demonstrate that there is a link between the import duty paid and the 
rebate received, and that imported raw materials are used in the 
production of the final exported product. Therefore, because they have 
failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are denying the 
respondents' requests for a duty drawback adjustment. See Bhansali 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum; see also Venus Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum for further details.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The Act 
contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered 
insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate 
quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States.
    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 each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    Bhansali and Venus reported that their home market sales of SSB 
during the POR were more than five percent of their sales of SSB to the 
United States. Therefore, Bhansali's and Venus' home markets were 
viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, Bhansali and Venus 
reported their home market sales.
    To derive NV for the respondents, we made the adjustments detailed 
in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market 
Prices'' and ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' 
sections, below.

B. Sales to Affiliated Customers

    Bhansali made one sale in the home market to an affiliated 
customer. To test whether this sale was made at arm's length, we 
compared the starting price of the sale to the affiliated customer to 
those of unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct 
and indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. If the price to 
the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 
percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sale made to the 
affiliated party was at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 
(November 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's

[[Page 10156]]

practice, we excluded the sale from our margin analysis because the 
sale was not made at arm's length.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the 
time of initiation, the Department found that Bhansali and Venus made 
sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing 
the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. 
Therefore, the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that SSB sales were made in the comparison market 
at prices below the cost of production (``COP'') in this administrative 
review for Bhansali and Venus. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for these two 
respondents.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses, financial 
expenses, and comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. We 
relied on the COP data submitted by Bhansali and Venus except where 
noted below:
2. Individual Company Adjustments

(A) Bhansali

    1) We recalculated Bhansali's G&A and financial expense ratios, 
based on the relevant accounts identified in Bhansali's fiscal year 
2005-06 trial balance.
    2) Under section 773(f)(2) of the Act, we calculated the implied 
interest expenses incurred on Bhansali's zero-interest loans which were 
outstanding to shareholders and directors during fiscal year 2005-2006. 
We added the implied interest expenses to Bhansali's financial expenses 
in our calculation of its financial expense ratio. See Memorandum from 
Joe Welton to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results - Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd,'' dated February 28, 2007, 
which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department 
building.

(B) Venus

    1) For Venus and Precision Metals, we increased the direct material 
costs by the unreconciled difference between the raw material purchase 
prices incorporated in the reported costs of production and the related 
raw material purchase prices which reconcile to the companies' 
respective accounting systems.
    2) We recalculated Venus' and Precision Metals' G&A and financial 
expense ratios, based on the relevant accounts identified in their 
respective fiscal year 2005-06 trial balances. See Memorandum from Joe 
Welton to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results - Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd,'' dated February 28, 2007, 
which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department 
building.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
substantial quantities.
    Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such 
sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. 
Because we compared prices to the POR average COP, we also determined 
that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-
cost sales.
    For Bhansali and Venus, we found that more than 20 percent of the 
comparison market sales of SSB within an extended period of time were 
made at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices at which the 
merchandise under review was sold did not provide for the recovery of 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded 
these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For 
those U.S. sales of SSB for which there were no useable comparison 
market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to the CV 
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See ``Calculation of 
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section, below.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made adjustments for 
differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted movement expenses 
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as 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 also made 
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling 
expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions 
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the 
``commission offset''). Specifically, where commissions were granted in 
the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward 
adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the amount of the commission 
paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the 
comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward 
adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-specific 
adjustments are described below.

(A) Bhansali

    We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted the starting price by the 
amount of movement expenses: inland freight expenses from the plant to 
the customer. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit expenses, bank 
charges and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., 
credit expenses, commissions, bank charges and bank interest expenses, 
fumigation charges and fees for duty drawback application). See 
Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    Bhansali reported billing adjustments in its home market sales 
listing. However, the information on the record shows that these 
adjustments are actually bad debt write-offs. Therefore, for the 
preliminary results, we have treated Bhansali's reported billing 
adjustments as indirect selling expenses. See Bhansali Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.

(B) Venus

Venus

    We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted the starting price by the 
amount of billing

[[Page 10157]]

adjustments and movement expenses, including inland freight expenses 
from the plant to the customer.\3\ We made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit 
expenses and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(i.e., credit expenses, commissions, bank charges and bank interest 
expenses, fumigation charges and certificate of origin fees). See Venus 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Venus reported discounts in its home market sales listing. 
However, the information on the record indicates that these 
discounts are actually billing adjustments (i.e., adjustments to 
price). Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have treated 
Venus' reported discounts as billing adjustments and adjusted gross 
unit price accordingly. See Venus Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 EP. 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''),\4\ including selling 
functions,\5\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
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 respondents' sales occur somewhere along 
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each 
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the 
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \5\ 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 EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either comparison market or third country prices),\6\ we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. 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 EP, the Department may compare 
the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In 
comparing EP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bhansali reported that it sells to end-users and trading companies 
in the home market, and to trading companies and distributors in the 
United States. Venus reported that it sells to end-users and 
distributors in the home market, and to end-users and trading companies 
in the United States. Bhansali and Venus reported the same level of 
trade and the same channel of distribution for sales in the United 
States and the home market, and neither company has requested a LOT 
adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by Bhansali and Venus, and 
found that home market sales to all customer categories were identical 
with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory 
maintenance, advertising activities, technical service, and warranty 
service. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that each company had only 
one level of trade for its home market sales. Bhansali's and Venus' EP 
selling activities differ from the home market selling activities only 
with respect to freight and delivery, and advertising. These 
differences are not substantial. Therefore, we find that the EP level 
of trade is similar to the home market LOT and a level-of-trade 
adjustment is not necessary. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    For the firms listed below, we find that the following percentage 
margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 
2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Exporter/Manufacturer                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd...............................        2.10
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd..............................    0.03 (de
                                                                minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable To The Following Companies:

Isibars Limited, Grand Foundry, Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited,        2.10
 Snowdrop Trading Pvt., Ltd.Facor Steels, Ltd., Mukand Ltd..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 42 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. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.309(c), 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. See 19 
CFR 351.309(d). 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.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by respondents 
for which they have reported the importer of record and the entered 
value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales.
    Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S. 
sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the 
merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment 
rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem rates 
based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries 
of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to

[[Page 10158]]

liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping 
duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or 
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(c)(1)(i). For the companies requesting a review, but not 
selected for examination and calculation of individual rates, we will 
calculate a weighted-average assessment rate based on all importer-
specific assessment rates excluding any which are de minimis or margins 
determined entirely on adverse facts available. See Softwood Lumber 
Final Results, at 70 FR 73442. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to CBP.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of 
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate 
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 the non-selected 
companies we will calculate a weighted-average cash deposit rate based 
on all the company-specific cash deposit rates, excluding de minimis 
margins or margins determined entirely on adverse facts available; 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 LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 23, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-4057 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S