Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1997 / Notices 4029

A–533–810

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final

Results of New Shipper Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vincent Kane or Todd Hansen, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2815 or 482–1276,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Summary

On October 22, 1996, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of the

new shipper antidumping duty

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India (61 FR 54774). The

review covers two manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise for

the period February 1, 1995 through

July 31, 1995. These manufacturers/

exporters are Akai Asian Ltd. (‘‘Akai’’)

and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. (‘‘Viraj’’). The

Department gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have found no basis to modify our

preliminary results. therefore, we have

adopted the preliminary results of this

review to be the final results, as well.

Scope of the Review

For purposes of this administrative

review, the term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’

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. Stainless steel bar

includes cold-finished stainless steel

bars that are turned or ground in straight

lengths, whether produced from hotrolled 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 have a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The stainless steel bar subject to this

administrative review is currently

classifiable under subheadings

7222.11.0005, 7222.11.0050,

7222.19.0005, 7222.19.0050,

7222.20.0005, 7222.20,0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

Interested Party Comments

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment. We received written

comments from petitioners and both

responding companies.

Comment 1

Petitioners claim that Viraj had only

one small shipment during the POR

which, in petitioners’ view, was

intended to allow Viraj’s U.S. customer

to test or evaluate the merchandise.

According to petitioners, the balance of

the order was not to be shipped until

the U.S. customer indicated its approval

of the initial shipment. Petitioners claim

that, in view of the circumstances

surrounding this first shipment, it is

clear that it was not a normal

commercial shipment. Therefore,

because Viraj made no other shipments

during the POR, it does not qualify as

a new shipper.

Viraj claims that, because it was a

new producer, U.S. buyers were not

familiar with its product. The first small

shipment was made at the customer’s

request to enable it to market the goods

in the United States. Viraj also states

that during verification, no evidence

was found to indicate that the balance

of the order was in any way contingent

on the U.S. customer’s acceptance of the

initial shipment.

DOC Position

While the purchase order did specify

an initial shipment of limited quantity,

neither the purchase order nor the

confirmation contained any language

indicating that the balance of the order

was contingent on the acceptability of

the first shipment. An examination of

correspondence files during verification

also revealed nothing that would

indicate such a contingency. Therefore,

we view this shipment as a normal

shipment occurring during the POR

pursuant to a sale made during the POR.

Comment 2

Petitioners claim that Viraj did not

have a sale during the POR because a

substantial quantity of the goods

remained unshipped long after the

delivery date specified in the

confirmation order. Petitioners maintain

that Viraj’s failure to ship a substantial

quantity by the date specified in the

confirmation order resulted in a change

in the delviery date and, consequently,

in the date of sale. They claim that the

delivery date was one of the substantive

terms of sale as demonstrated by Viraj

revising the delivery date at the time it

issued the confirmation order to the

customer. Petitioners conclude that,

because a substantive term of sale was

changed, the date of sale must be

changed accordingly. Consequently,

Viraj no longer has a sale within the

POR and the Department has no basis

for conducting a review.

Viraj claims that both the purchase of

the goods and initial shipment of goods

occurred during the POR. It contends

that this purchase and initial shipment

alone are sufficient for the Department

to conduct a new shipper review.

Further, a subsequent shipment

pursuant to the purchase order was

made at the prices specified in the

purchase order and confirmation. Thus,

the date of sale for that later shipment

is also the date of the purchase order

and confirmation.

Viraj also notes that it is the

Department’s long established practice

to consider price and quantity as the

essential terms of sale. Delivery terms,

however, have not been typically

viewed as an essential term of sale.

Thus, changes in the delivery date

should not affect the date of sale.

DOC Position

Viraj accepted and confirmed an order

from its U.S. customer during the POR.
4030 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1997 / Notices

The order and confirmation clearly and

definitively established the price and

quantity of the sale, and we have

determined in this case that the date of

sale was the date of the order and

confirmation. The fact that a change

occurred in the delivery date specified

in the order confirmation does not mean

that the date of sale must also change.

We have typically considered delivery

terms to be nonessential terms of sale

and have not regarded changes in

delivery terms as affecting the date of

sale. See, e.g., Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Argentina

(60 FR 33539, 33542, June 28, 1995). In

the present review, nothing in the

purchase order or confirmation

indicated that special significance

should be attached to the delivery terms

of the sale. In fact, the purchase order

allowed considerable flexibility with

respect to the delivery date. Thus, the

essential terms of this contract are

clearly price and quantity and these

remained unchanged from the original

order and confirmation. Therefore, we

consider the date of sale to be the

original order and confirmation date.

We note that a portion of the goods

subject to Viraj’s sale remained

unshipped as of August 30, 1996, the

last day of verification. Consequently,

this review was based on the goods

actually shipped. For these goods, we

found that shipments were made

pursuant to the essential terms of the

sales contract under review. In addition,

in its responses to the antidumping

questionnaire and three supplemental

questionnaires, Viraj provided the

Department with complete information

on the sale and the shipments made to

date pursuant to the sale. Further, the

Department verified the responses

during on site verification at Viraj’s

premises in Maharashtra, India.

Therefore, although a part of the sales

quantity has yet to be shipped, we

nonetheless view the sale as a bona fide

sale, which properly serves as the basis

for a new shipper review: the shipments

made to date pursuant to the sale

support this finding. If, for some reason,

the terms and conditions for the

unshipped portion of this sale were to

change, we would address these

changes in a future administrative

review, assuming that a review was

requested.

Comment 3

Petitioners claim that the third

country sale reported by Viraj did not

occur during the POR because delivery

of the goods pursuant to this sale did

not take place until long after the date

specified in the order confirmation.

Petitioners claim that delivery date is a

substantive term of sale and a change in

the delivery date changes the date of

sale. In this case, the change in delivery

date results in a date of sale which falls

outside the POR.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. As

explained in the DOC Position in

response to Comment 2, we have

typically considered delivery terms to

be nonessential terms of sale and have

not regarded changes in delivery terms

as affecting the date of sale.

Comment 4

Section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act

provides that particular market

situations in the home market or in

third country markets may prevent the

Department from using these markets as

the basis for normal value. Petitioners

cite page 150 of the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), which

describes a particular market situation

that might prevent the Department from

using a market for comparison purposes.

The particular market situation referred

to in the SAA concerns a home market

where a single sale constitutes five

percent of the sales to the United States.

In the stated example, petitioners claim

the Department is not able to determine

whether the sale is in the ordinary

course of trade or in normal commercial

quantities. Petitioners claim that Viraj’s

sale for export to Canada falls into this

category.

DOC Position

Neither the information supplied in

Viraj’s responses nor the information

obtained during verification gives the

Department reason to suspect that the

Canadian sale was made outside the

ordinary course of trade. Specifically,

with regard to the quantity of the sale,

we concluded that it did not appear to

be either so extraordinarily large or

small as to be outside normal

commercial quantities, based on our

examination of sales quantities sold for

export to third countries. Verification

exhibits revealed that the quantity of

these third country sales was generally

in line with the quantity of the

Canadian sale.

Comment 5

Petitioners claim that although there

is no equity relationship, the

Department should determine that

Akai’s U.S. customer is an affiliated

company based on the fact that Akai did

not receive payment from this customer

for a considerable period of time after

shipment of the goods. Also, petitioners

claim that certain information from

verification leads to the conclusion that

Akai is affiliated with this U.S.

customer.

DOC Position

Late payment is not an uncommon

business practice and, in and of itself,

does not provide a sufficient basis for

concluding that Akai is affiliated with

its U.S. customer. In addition, the

information petitioners refer to from

verification is not grounds for

supporting the conclusion that these

two companies are affiliated. During

verification, we checked the records

establishing Akai’s affiliations with

other companies. We found no

indication that an affiliation exists

between Akai and its U.S. customer.

Also, in reviewing the books and

records of the company generally, we

found no basis to conclude that the

companies were affiliated.

Comment 6

Petitioners claim that the Department

should determine that an affiliation

exists between Akai and both its raw

materials supplier and its processor.

Their argument is based on the fact that

Akai did not pay these companies for a

considerable period of time after the

goods and services were rendered.

DOC Position

We disagree with petitioners. As

explained in the DOC Position to

Comment 5, late payment of debts does

not establish that the debtor and

creditor are affiliated.

Comment 7

Petitioners argue that the cost of

production data submitted by Viraj are

irrelevant to this proceeding. Petitioners

contend that Viraj has admitted that it

did not produce commercial quantities

of the subject merchandise during the

POR. Thus, cost data submitted by Viraj

relates to a period outside the POR.

Petitioners point to instructions in the

Department’s questionnaire, which

clearly require that cost data must be

calculated over the POR.

Viraj counters that the Department’s

standard practice is to use costs outside

the POR when little or no production

has occurred during the POR. Viraj

states that since production did not

begin until the last month of the POR,

it is reasonable, and consistent with past

practice, to use cost data from after the

POR.

DOC Position

We agree with respondent. The

Department normally uses weighted

average production data based on costs

incurred during the POR. However, in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1997 / Notices 4031

this case, most of the relevant

production occurred outside the POR.

Therefore, for purposes of gathering cost

information, we have modified the cost

reporting period to include the period

when the bulk of the goods were

actually produced. In view of the

limited production by Viraj during the

POR, we found it appropriate to include

cost data from the two month period

following the POR, as well. (See, e.g.,

Antifriction Bearings (Other Thank

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from the Federal Republic of

Germany: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review (56 FR

31692, July 11, 1991.)

Comment 8

Petitioners argue that costs of

production are not reliable because the

quantity sold does not correlate with

Viraj’s production during the cost

reporting period.

DOC Position

At verification we saw that Viraj’s

production during the cost reporting

period exceeded shipments of the

subject merchandise. Part of the excess

was accounted for by merchandise that

had been packed and was awaiting

shipment. The remaining part was

accounted for by finished merchandise

waiting to be packed. The amount of

unshipped goods on hand did not

appear to be unusual, especially in view

of the fact that Viraj was a new producer

bringing its productive capacity online

for the first time. Therefore, we find no

reason to question costs reported by

Viraj, merely because a balance of

production remained on hand at the end

of the POR.

Comment 9

Petitioners claim that the Department

has calculated a constructed value based

on 1995 costs for products which had

not yet been shipped as of September

1996 and which, presumably, had not

yet been produced. Petitioners claim

that the 1995 cost data is inappropriate

for goods not yet shipped or produced

as of September 1996.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioners. For the

preliminary results, we included the

unshipped portion of Viraj’s sale in our

margin calculations, using the

constructed value data and movement

charges that applied to goods already

shipped. For the final results, we have

limited margin calculations to those

goods which have already been shipped

and for which relevant cost and sales

data were reported in Viraj’s responses

to our antidumping questionnaires.

Comment 10

Petitioners argue that the Department

erred in its calculation of constructed

value for Akai because the Department

did not account for the value of scrap

retained by a subcontractor hired by

Akai. Petitioners assert that if Akai had

not allowed the subcontractor to retain

the scrap, the subcontractor would have

demanded a higher payment, and Akai’s

costs would have increased. Petitioners

urge the Department to include a cost

for this scrap in Akai’s constructed

value calculations.

Department’s Position

By allowing the subcontractor to

retain any scrap generated in the

subcontractor’s conversion work, Akai

has foregone a reduction in its cost of

materials in manufacturing the subject

merchandise. By including the gross

weight of inputs into the production

process in our calculation of

constructed value, we have accounted

for all material costs incurred by Akai.

In other words, our calculations already

include the value of the scrap retained

by the subcontractor since Akai does not

receive a reduction in its material costs

associated with this scrap.

Comment 11

Petitioners claim that the Department

should include as part of constructed

value excise taxes paid in purchasing

raw material, unless those excise taxes

have actually been rebated upon

exportation of the finished goods.

Petitioners maintain that a portion of

the merchandise sold for export to the

United States remained unshipped as of

verification. Therefore, the excise tax

applicable to this portion of the

merchandise should be included as part

of the constructed value because it has

not yet been rebated.

DOC Position

For these final results, we are doing

antidumping calculations only for

merchandise which has actually been

exported. (See Comment 9.) During

verification it was readily apparent that

the excise tax on raw materials was

routinely rebated upon export of the

finished product. An examination of

excise claim ledgers, excise duty credit

registers, and bank statements made it

abundantly clear that the excise tax was

consistently rebated upon export.

Therefore, in calculating constructed

value for merchandise actually

exported, we did not include the excise

taxes paid in purchasing raw materials.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the

period February 1, 1995 through July 31,

1995:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

Akai Asian ....................................... 4.83

Viraj ................................................. 0.00

The results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the review and for future

deposits of estimated duties for the

manufacturers/exporters subject to this

review. The posting of a bond or

security in lieu of a cash deposit,

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of

the Act and section 353.22(h)(4) of the

Department’s regulations, will no longer

be permitted. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be that established in

the final results of this new shipper

administrative review; (2) for companies

not covered in this review, but covered

in previous review or the original less

than fair value investigation, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be the most recent rate

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacture is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

or the original investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate

of 12.45 percent established in the final

determination of sales at less than fair

value. (59 FR 66915, December 28,

1994).

These deposit requirements will

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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
4032 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1997 / Notices

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR 353.22(h).

Dated: January 16, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–2053 Filed 1–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,

are being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a) (3) and (4) of the regulations

and be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Applications may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 96–129. Applicant:

University of Arizona, Soil, Water and

Environmental Science, Shantz 429,

Building #38, Tucson, AZ 85721.

Instrument: Surface Forces Apparatus,

Model Mark 4. Manufacturer: Australian

National University, Australia. Intended

Use: The instrument will be used to

measure the force and distance between

two surfaces coated with the bacterial

outer membranes and phase separation

of nonmiscible mixtures in mica slit

pores. In addition, the instrument will

be used in the course, SWES 607

Surface Chemistry of Soils, to teach

students about molecular level

phenomena that influence the fate and

transport of contaminants in the soil.

Application accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: December 4, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–131. Applicant:

Oklahoma State University, Purchasing

Department, 208G Whitehurst,

Stillwater, OK 74078. Instrument:

Ti:Sapphire Laser, Model MBR–110.

Manufacturer: Microlase Optical

Systems Ltd., United Kingdom.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used to conduct the following: (1)

investigation of nonlinear optical

properties of semiconductor

microresonators, (2) determination of

the compositions of composite media

that enhance various nonlinear optical

properties and in particular the relative

effects of absorptive and dispersive

contributions, (3) study of optical

multistability in a system consisting of

atoms transmitting through the mode of

an optical resonator, (4) exploration of

the interaction of atoms with very

precisely modulated monochromatic

intracavity radiation and (5)

investigation of the interrelationship of

various measures of cavity loss and their

effects on experiments that depend on

precise knowledge of atom-cavity

coupling. In addition, the instrument

will be used for educational purposes in

graduate and undergraduate level

physics courses. Application accepted

by Commissioner of Customs: December

5, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–132. Applicant:

National Institutes of Health, National

Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and

Kidney Diseases, Building 5, Room 108,

Bethesda, MD 20892. Instrument:

Stopped-Flow Spectrometer, Model

SX.18MV. Manufacturer: Applied

Photophysics Ltd., United Kingdom.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used for studying protein folding and

unfolding kinetics. The instrument has

been redesigned to provide facile and

accurate measurements of stopped-flow

kinetics using both fluorescence and

absorbance detection. Application

accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

December 6, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–133. Applicant:

National Institutes of Health, Building 8,

Room 421, 8 Center Drive, MSC 0850,

Bethesda, MD 20892. Instrument:

Electron Microscope, Model CM120.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used to study animal cells and tissues

and macromolecular aggregates and

organelles isolated from cells and tissue.

These studies are designed to

investigate the structure of cells and to

correlate change in structure with

functional variability leading to clinical

disease. The objective of this research is

to learn about transport of lipids, lipases

and other molecules between and

within normal cells and to identify

translocation defects in mutant cells.

Application accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: December 9, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–134. Applicant:

U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S.

Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley

Drive, MS 431, Reston, VA 20192.

Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model

Deltaplus. Manufacturer: Finnigan

MAT, Germany. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used to analyze the

isotopic composition of natural

materials in geologic and hydrologic

systems. The studies will involve use of

variations in the isotopic abundance of

oxygen, carbon, sulfur and nitrogen to

investigate problems in hydrology,

geochemistry, microbiology and

paleoclimatology. Application accepted

by Commissioner of Customs: December

10, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–135. Applicant:

Medical University of South Carolina,

171 Ashley Avenue, Charleston, SC

29425. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model JEM–1210. Manufacturer: JEOL,

Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used for

ultrastructural studies involving

pediatric and adult cancer, retinal

degenerative diseases, osteoporosis,

endometriosis, teratogenic effect of

prenatal alcohol exposure, cochlear

changes associated with aging,

cardiomyopathy and

adrenoleukeodystrophy. The objective

of these studies is to better understand

the mechanisms involved in various

disease processes. In addition, the

instrument will be used for educational

purposes in a graduate level course

entitled ‘‘Techniques in Biological

Electron Microscopy.’’ Application

accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

December 10, 1996.

Docket Number: 96–137. Applicant:

Cornell University, Purchasing

Department, 55 Judd Falls Road, Ithaca,

NY 14850. Instrument: Mass

Spectrometer, Model GEO 20–20.

Manufacturer: Europa Scientific Ltd.,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used for the high

precision determination of stable

isotopes of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,

nitrogen, and sulfur during studies of (1)

water and CO2 flux in environmental

systems, (2) plant-water-atmosphere

relationships and (3) artificially

enriched carbon, trace gases, and

isotopes in carbonates. In addition, the

instrument will be used in the course

BioES6xx: Methods in Biogeochemistry

to train research students. Application