[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60482-60484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29627]



[[Page 60482]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review: Stainless Steel Bar from India.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Mukand Limited (``Mukand'') and 
Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (``Facor''), the Department of 
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. This 
review covers Mukand's sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.
    Although we included Facor in our initiation notice for this 
review, we subsequently initiated a new shipper review, covering the 
same review period, for that company. Consequently, we are terminating 
this review with respect to Facor.
    We have preliminarily determined that Mukand's sales have been made 
below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the 
U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to the 
difference between the export price (EP) and the normal value (NV).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Yeske or Craig Matney, Office 
1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or (202) 482-0588, 
respectively.

Applicable Statute

    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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 24, 1997, the Department received a request from 
respondents to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel bar from India produced by Mukand. The 
Department published in the Federal Register, on March 18, 1997, a 
notice of initiation of an administrative review of Mukand covering the 
period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997 (62 FR 12793).

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel bar 
(``SSB''). SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths 
that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-
rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid 
cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, 
segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, 
hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-
finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether 
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, 
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 
deformations produced during the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness 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 orders is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 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.

Period of Review

    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Mukand, and the 
period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.

Partial Termination of Review

    Facor was included in our notice of initiation of this review 
because we received a request for an administrative review of that 
company. However, Facor also submitted a timely request for a new 
shipper review covering the same period. On March 28, 1997, we 
published a notice of initiation of a new shipper administrative review 
covering Facor for the same review period (see 62 FR 14886). Therefore, 
we are terminating this review with respect to Ferro Alloys Corporation 
Limited.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent by using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the respondent's facilities, the 
examination of appropriate sales and financial records, and selection 
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public version of the 
verification report.

United States Price

    In calculating price to the United States, we used export price 
(``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States and constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP based on the price from Mukand to an unaffiliated 
customer prior to importation into the United States. In accordance 
with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions for foreign 
inland freight and international freight.
    Mukand claimed an upward adjustment to EP for a ``duty drawback'' 
scheme. In the preliminary determination of the first administrative 
review of this order (see 62 FR 10540 at 10541, March 7, 1997), we 
analyzed the functioning of this duty drawback scheme and found that it 
did not meet the Department's standards for an upward adjustment to EP. 
We maintained our position in the final determination (see 62 FR 37030, 
July 10, 1997). We have reexamined the scheme in regard to Mukand, and 
have found no basis on which to deviate from the Department's previous 
decision. Therefore, we have not made an adjustment to EP. However, for 
those sales for which CV is the basis for NV, we have offset the per 
unit direct materials cost to account for the credits (see Normal Value 
section).

[[Page 60483]]

Normal Value

    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 respondent'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 section 773(a) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five 
percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis 
for calculating NV. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the 
foreign like product was first sold to unaffiliated customers for 
consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Respondent claimed that 
there is no difference in the level of trade between the U.S. and the 
home markets. We examined the data submitted regarding the channels of 
distribution and selling expenses in the two markets. While there are 
different channels of distribution, many of the selling expenses are 
consistent across all channels. While there may be some additional 
expenses in the home market for the Del Credre and consignment sales, 
respondent did not claim an adjustment or provide information 
supporting such an adjustment.
    Based on a cost allegation presented by petitioners, the Department 
found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by the 
respondent in the home market were made at the prices below their 
respective costs of production (``COPs''). As a result, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether the respondent made 
home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
    We calculated COP as the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, 
labor and overhead for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A 
and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We 
compared COP to home market sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared COP to the home market prices, less any applicable 
movement charges, discounts, commissions, selling expenses and packing 
expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) 
such sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where 
20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during 
the POR were at prices below COP, we found that below cost sales of 
that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2) (B) and (C). To 
determine whether prices provided for recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time, we tested whether the prices that were below 
the per unit cost of production at the time of the sale were above the 
weighted average per unit cost of production for the POR, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D). Where we found that a substantial quantity 
of sales during the POR were below cost and not at prices that provided 
for recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, we 
disregarded the below cost sales.
    Where NV was calculated using prices to unaffiliated customers, we 
made appropriate adjustments to those prices. First, we deducted home 
market inland freight and home market packing costs. Where there were 
differences in the merchandise to be compared, we made adjustments in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act to account for 
those differences. We also added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments for differences in credit costs and bank charges between 
the two markets in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act. Finally, we adjusted for commissions paid in the home market by 
deducting the commissions from the NV and offsetting the commissions 
with indirect selling expenses incurred on sales to the United States, 
up to the amount of the home market commission.
    Where there was no above cost home market sale for comparison, NV 
was based on CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials (net 
of import duty credits earned on its U.S. sale), labor, overhead, SG&A, 
profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we based SG&A expenses 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.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of EP and NV, we preliminarily 
determine the following weighted-average dumping margin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Period       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukand....................................     2/1/96-1/31/97       8.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. 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 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between EP 
and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. We have calculated 
an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the 
total amount of AD duties calculated for the examined sales made during 
the POR to the total value of subject merchandise entered during the 
POR. In order to estimate the entered value, we subtracted 
international movement expenses (e.g., international freight) from the 
gross sales value. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries 
made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    The following deposit requirement will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this antidumping duty 
administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel bar from 
India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the publication date, as provided for 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 review; (2) if the exporter is 
not a firm covered in this review, but was

[[Page 60484]]

covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-value 
(``LTFV'') 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 previous review, or 
the original LTFV 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) the cash deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall 
be 12.45 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation (59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994).
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22(c).

    Dated: October 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29627 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P