13270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

adverse facts available, in accordance 

with Department practice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash-deposit 

rate will be that established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

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

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise that have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5413 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar (SSBar) from India. The period 

of review (POR) is February 1, 2010, 

through January 31, 2011. This review 

covers three exporters/producers, one of 

which is being individually reviewed as 

a mandatory respondent. We 

preliminarily determine that the 

mandatory respondent made sales of the 

subject merchandise at prices below 

normal value (NV). We have assigned 

the second respondent the margin 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondent. In addition, we have 

rescinded the review with respect to the 

remaining company. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Shuler or Yasmin Nair, 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) 482–1293 or (202) 482– 

3813, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSBar from 

India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India 

and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 

1995) (the Order). On February 1, 2011, 

the Department published its notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the Order on SSBar from 

India. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 

FR 5559, 5560 (February 1, 2011). 

In February 2011, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the Department 

received self-requests to conduct 

administrative reviews of the Order 

from two producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise: Venus Industries, 

Pvt. Ltd (Venus) and Chandan Steel 

Limited (Chandan). Additionally, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), 

domestic interested parties Carpenter 

Technology Corp.; Electralloy Co., (a 

division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.); 

Outokumpu Stainless Bar, Inc.; 

Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, 

Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. 

(collectively, Petitioners), requested that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of the following 

producers/exporters: Venus, Ambica 

Steels Limited (Ambica), Atlas Stainless 

Corporation (Atlas), Bhansali Bright 

Bars Pvt. Ltd. (Bhansali), FACOR Steels 

Limited (Facor), Grand Foundry, Ltd. 

(Grand Foundry), India Steel Works, 

Ltd. (India Steel), Meltroll Engineering 

Pvt. Ltd. (Meltroll), Mukand Ltd. 

(Mukand), Sindia Steels Limited 

(Sindia), Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd. 

(Snowdrop), and their respective 

affiliates. 

On March 31, 2011, in accordance 

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review 

for all twelve companies. See Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 

Part, and Deferral of Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011) 

(Initiation Notice). We indicated that we 

would select mandatory respondents for 

review based upon CBP data in the 

event we limited the number of 

respondents selected for individual 

review in accordance with section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act. See Initiation 

Notice. 

In our respondent selection memo, we 

determined that it was not practicable to 

examine all twelve producers/exporters 

for which a review was requested and, 

therefore, we limited the number of 

respondents selected for individual 

review. See Memorandum to Susan 

Kuhbach from Seth Isenberg, 

‘‘Respondent Selection Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India’’ (April 19, 2011). 

As a result, we selected the two largest 

producers/exporters of SSBar from India 

during the POR for individual review, 

pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the 

Act. The mandatory respondents 

selected were Mukand and Venus. 

Chandan had requested individual 

review, but was not selected. 

On April 26, 2011, Petitioners timely 

withdrew their request for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13271 

1Because January 29, 2012, was a Sunday, the 

deadline for completion of the preliminary results 

was no later than the next business day, January 30, 

2012. 

2Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level 

of trade(s) 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. 

administrative review of the companies 

that were not selected for individual 

review: Ambica, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, 

Grand Foundry, India Steel, Meltroll, 

Sindia, and Snowdrop. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we 

rescinded this review with respect to 

these companies. See Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 34964 (June 15, 2011). 

In April 2011, the Department issued 

questionnaires to Venus and Mukand. 

Respondent companies submitted 

timely filed responses to the 

antidumping questionnaires between 

July and August, 2011. The Department 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

Venus and Mukand to clarify, correct, 

and supplement information contained 

in the initial questionnaire responses. 

We received timely filed responses to 

supplemental questionnaires from 

Mukand from October 2011 through 

February 2012, and Venus in August 

and September 2011. We are relying on 

the most recent supplemental response 

submitted by Mukand on February 14, 

2012, for these preliminary results, but 

anticipate requesting further 

information from the company for the 

final results., 

On October 11, 2011, the Department 

extended the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results of this review 

by ninety days to January 29, 2012, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).1See 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2010–2011 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 62761 (October 11, 2011). 

On January 30, 2012, the Department 

extended the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results of this review 

by an additional thirty days to February 

28, 2012, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Extension of Time Limit for 

the Preliminary Results of the 2010– 

2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 77 FR 5486 (February 3, 2012). 

Partial Rescission 

On September 13, 2011, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register notice of revocation of the 

Order with regard to Venus, effective 

February 1, 2010. See Stainless Steel 

Bar from India: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, and Revocation of the Order, in 

Part, 76 FR 56401 (September 13, 2011) 

(Venus Revocation Final). Pursuant to 

this partial revocation of the Order we 

are rescinding this administrative 

review with regard to Venus. 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2010, through 

January 31, 2011. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of stainless steel bar. 

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 hot-rolled bar or 

from straightened and cut rod or wire, 

and reinforcing bars that have 

indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 

deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled 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 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 stainless steel bar subject to this 

review is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 

7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 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. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products sold 

by Mukand that are covered by the 

description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section, above, and were sold in the 

home market during the POR to be 

foreign-like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. 

We relied on six criteria to compare 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 

comparison market sales of the foreignlike product: (1) General type of finish; 

(2) grade; (3) remelting; (4) type of final 

finishing operation; (5) shape; and (6) 

size. This is consistent with our practice 

in the original investigation. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Stainless Steel 

Bar From India, 59 FR 39733, 39735 

(August 4, 1994) (unchanged in the final 

results). Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

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

the next most similar product on the 

basis of the characteristics listed above. 

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). 

Date of Sale 

The Department normally will use the 

date of the invoice, as recorded in the 

producer’s or exporter’s records kept in 

the ordinary course of business, as the 

date of sale, but may use a date other 

than the invoice date if the Department 

is satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the material 

terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). 

Mukand reported that the material 

terms of its U.S. and comparison market 

sales are established by the sale invoice 

date. Accordingly, we are relying on 

invoice date as date of sale for Mukand’s 

comparison market sales and its U.S. 

sales. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we determined 

NV using home market sales at the same 

level of trade as the U.S. sales. To 

determine whether home market sales 

are at the same or different level of trade 

than U.S. sales, we examine stages in 

the marketing process and selling 

functions along the chains of 

distribution between the producer and 

unaffiliated customers.2 Pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in 

identifying levels of trade for export 

price (EP) and comparison market sales 

(i.e., NV based on either comparison 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

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

level of trade based on the level of trade of the sales 

from which we derive selling expenses, general and 

administrative (G&A) expenses and profit for CV, 

where possible. 

market or third country prices), we 

consider the starting prices before any 

adjustments.3 If the home-market sales 

are at a different level of trade from that 

of a U.S. sale and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and home-market sales at the level of 

trade of the export transaction, we make 

a level-of-trade adjustment under 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, e.g., 

Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 5493 

(February 5, 2004) (unchanged in the 

final results). 

For its home market, Mukand 

reported that it made sales through five 

channels of distribution (i.e., sales from 

the plant, with agent; sales from the 

plant, without agent; sales from 

warehouse, with agent; sales from 

warehouse, without agent; sales 

delivered to customer, with agent). We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for these channels, and found 

that Mukand performed sales/marketing 

support for all sales. For all sales made 

with agent, Mukand paid commissions. 

For delivered sales and sales from 

warehouse, Mukand contracted an 

unaffiliated provider for freight and 

freight insurance services. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

two selling function categories for 

analysis: (1) Sales and marketing and (2) 

freight/delivery services. Because 

Mukand performed the same sales/ 

marketing functions for all customers, 

we find no differences exist between 

channels. Because Mukand contracted 

with unaffiliated freight providers, we 

find these services were at a low level 

of intensity for the three channels that 

experienced the freight/delivery service. 

Accordingly, because the distinctions in 

selling functions are not significant for 

Mukand’s five channels of distribution, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one level of trade for Mukand’s home 

market. 

Mukand reported that it made sales 

through two channels of distribution in 

the United States (i.e., EP sales made 

with and without an agent). Mukand 

reported performing the following 

selling functions for all its U.S. sales: 

sales/marketing support and freight 

services. For sales to the United States 

with an agent, Mukand also paid 

commissions. These selling activities 

can be generally grouped into two 

selling function categories for analysis: 

(1) Sales and marketing; and (2) freight/ 

delivery services. We find that 

Mukand’s selling activities related to 

commission payments are relatively 

insignificant because they represent a 

low-intensity difference between 

Mukand’s U.S. sales channels. Because 

Mukand performed the same freight/ 

delivery functions for all its U.S. 

customers, we find no differences exist 

for freight/delivery between the two 

U.S. channels. Accordingly, because the 

distinctions in selling functions are not 

significant for Mukand’s two U.S. 

channels of distribution, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one level of trade for Mukand’s U.S. 

market. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. level of 

trade to the home market level of trade 

and found that the selling functions 

performed for U.S. and home market 

customers are essentially the same. 

Mukand paid commissions on some 

sales in both its home and U.S. markets, 

and Mukand contracted with 

unaffiliated providers for freight and 

delivery services in both the home and 

U.S. markets. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that sales to the 

U.S. and home markets during the POR 

were made at the same level of trade 

and, as a result, no level of trade 

adjustment is warranted. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of SSBar 

from India to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared the 

EP to the NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. 

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

Act, we compared the EPs of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weightedaverage NV of the foreign like product 

in the appropriate corresponding 

calendar month where there were sales 

made in the ordinary course of trade, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section below. 

Export Price 

Mukand reported that the subject 

merchandise was sold prior to 

importation by the exporter or producer 

outside the United States to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Therefore, we based the U.S. 

price on EP, as defined in section 772(a) 

of the Act. 

Mukand’s EP is based on the packed, 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. We 

adjusted the reported gross unit prices, 

where applicable, for early payment 

discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). Where appropriate, we made 

deductions for movement expenses, 

including home market freight 

expenses, home market brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

and U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See 

Memorandum to the File from Joseph 

Shuler, International Trade Analyst, 

AD/CVD Operations, ‘‘Mukand 

Preliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum,’’ February 28, 2012 

(Mukand Preliminary Calculation 

Memo). 

Further, section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act states that EP should be increased 

by the amount of any import duties 

‘‘imposed by the country of exportation 

which have been rebated, or which have 

not been collected, by reason of the 

exportation of the subject merchandise 

to the United States.’’ Mukand claimed 

a duty drawback adjustment under this 

provision for its export credits earned 

under the Government of India’s (GOI) 

Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 

(DEPS). Mukand reported the DEPS 

credits earned on the free-on-board 

(FOB) value of its total exports during 

the POR. 

India’s DEPS enables exporting 

companies to earn import duty 

exemptions in the form of passbook 

credits rather than cash. All exporters 

are eligible to earn DEPS credits on a 

post-export basis, provided that the GOI 

has established a standard input-output 

norm (SION) for the exported product. 

DEPS credits can be used for any 

subsequent imports, regardless of 

whether they are consumed in the 

production of an exported product. 

DEPS credits are valid for twelve 

months and are transferable after the 

foreign exchange is realized from the 

export sales on which the DEPS credits 

are earned. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

From India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 75672 (December 12, 

2008), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Duty 

Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS/ 

DEPB).’’ 

In determining whether an adjustment 

should be made to EP for this duty 

credit, we look for a reasonable link 

between the duties imposed and those 

rebated or exempted. See, e.g., Saha 

Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 635 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011); Mittal Steel USA, Inc. v. 

United States, 31 CIT 1395, 1412–1413 

(2007). We do not require that the 

imported input be traced directly from 

importation through exportation. We do 

require, however, that the company 

meet our ‘‘two-pronged’’ test in order for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13273 

4Mukand’s November 25, 2011, Sections A, B, 

and C Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 10; 

see also Mukand’s January 3, 2012, Second Section 

C Supplemental Questionnaire Response, at 

Annexure SQC2–4 

5Mukand’s January 3, 2012, Second Section C 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 4. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8See Mukand’s June 22, 2011, Section D 

questionnaire response at D–6. 

this increase to be made to EP. The first 

element is that the import duty and its 

rebate or exemption be directly linked 

to, and dependent upon, one another; 

the second element is that the company 

must demonstrate that there were 

sufficient imports of the imported 

material to account for the duty 

drawback or exemption granted for the 

export of the manufactured product. See 

Saha Thai, 635 F.3d at 1340; Mittal 

Steel, 31 CIT at 1412–13. 

Mukand failed to satisfy both prongs 

of the two-pronged test. First, Mukand 

did not report that there is a necessary 

link between the import duties paid on 

any inputs imported and the duty credit 

given by the GOI. Mukand reported that 

the credit is based on a fixed percentage 

determined by the FOB value of the 

export, rather than an actual quantity or 

value of imported input specific to the 

export.4 Second, Mukand reported that 

the GOI does not have a system in place 

to confirm which inputs, and in what 

amounts, are consumed in the 

production of the exported product.5

While there is a SION in place for the 

production of subject merchandise, the 

duty credit given is based on an 

assumed amount of import content, and 

fails to link the amount of duty credits 

to the amount of import duties actually 

paid on imported inputs. Furthermore, 

Mukand stated that it is not required to 

import to avail the benefit of the DEPS 

credits.6

With regard to the second prong, 

Mukand reported that the DEPS is 

available on a post-export basis and 

there is no obligation to fulfill the 

export obligation against imports.7

Thus, because the GOI does not monitor 

imports against exports, Mukand is 

unable to report whether or not it 

imported in sufficient quantities during 

the POR to qualify for the export credit. 

Thus, for these preliminary results, we 

determine that Mukand has not 

demonstrated that it satisfies both 

prongs of the duty drawback test 

pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act. Accordingly, we have not made an 

adjustment to EP for duty drawback. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a) of the Act. Because 

Mukand’s aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

was greater than five percent of its 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise, we determined the 

home market was viable. See section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we 

based NV on home market sales in the 

usual commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

In accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, because we 

determined to disregard sales by 

Mukand that were below the cost of 

production (COP) in the most recently 

completed administrative review of 

SSBar, we requested Mukand to respond 

to section D of the April 26, 2011, 

questionnaire. 

1. Cost Averaging Methodology 

The Department’s normal practice is 

to calculate an annual weighted-average 

cost for the entire period of 

investigation or POR. See, e.g., Certain 

Pasta From Italy: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 

2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. 

However, the Department recognizes 

that possible distortions may result if 

our normal annual-average cost 

methodology is used during a period of 

significant cost changes. The 

Department determines whether to 

deviate from its normal methodology of 

calculating an annual weighted-average 

cost by evaluating two primary factors: 

(1) Whether the change in the cost of 

manufacturing recognized by the 

respondent during the POR is deemed 

significant (i.e., greater than 25 percent); 

and (2) whether the record evidence 

indicates that sales during the shorter 

averaging periods could be reasonably 

linked with the COP during the same 

shorter averaging periods. See Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398, 

75399 (December 11, 2008) and Certain 

Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the 

Republic of Korea: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 31242 (June 30, 2009). 

Based on the review of record evidence, 

and the lack of significant cost changes, 

there is no support for the Department 

to deviate from its normal methodology 

of calculating an annual weightedaverage cost.8 Therefore, we followed 

our normal methodology of calculating 

an annual weighted-average cost for 

these preliminary results of review. 

2. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the materials and conversion 

costs for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for general and administrative 

(G&A) expenses and interest expenses. 

Generally, we relied on the COP 

information provided by Mukand in its 

questionnaire responses. However, 

based on our analysis of Mukand’s 

questionnaire responses, we revised 

Mukand’s reported G&A expense ratio 

to include in the numerator of the 

calculation the ‘‘advances written off’’ 

amount, and in the denominator of the 

calculation the ‘‘traded goods’’ amount. 

For additional details, see Memorandum 

to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting from Sheikh M. Hannan, 

Senior Accountant, Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Bar from India, Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Mukand Limited, dated 

February 28, 2012. 

3. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, pursuant 

to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, in 

order to determine whether the sale 

prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices were net of billing 

adjustments, movement charges, 

discounts, direct and indirect selling 

expenses, and packing expenses. 

4. Results of the COP Test 

Section 773(b)(1) of the Act provides 

that where sales made at less than the 

COP ‘‘have been made within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities’’ and ‘‘were not at prices 

which permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time’’ the 

Department may disregard such sales 

when calculating NV. Pursuant to 

section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, we did 

not disregard below-cost sales that were 

not made in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’ 

i.e., where less than 20 percent of sales 

of a given product were at prices less 

than the COP. We disregarded belowcost sales when they were made in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

substantial quantities, i.e., where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product were at prices less 

than the COP and where ‘‘the weighted 

average per unit price of the sales * * * 

is less than the weighted average per 

unit cost of production for such sales.’’ 

See section 773(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act. 

Lastly, based on our comparison of 

prices to the weighted-average COPs for 

the POR, we considered whether the 

prices would permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

See section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Our cost test for Mukand revealed 

that, for home market sales of certain 

models, more than 20 percent were sold 

at prices below the COP within an 

extended period of time and were at 

prices which would not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Thus, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 

excluded these below-cost sales from 

our analysis and used the remaining 

above-cost sales to determine NV. See 

Mukand Preliminary Calculation Memo. 

For those U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise for which there were no 

home market sales in the ordinary 

course of trade, we compared EPs to 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 packed, 

ex-factory or delivered prices to 

unaffiliated customers in the home 

market. We made adjustments, where 

appropriate, to the starting price for 

discounts, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We also made deductions for 

home market inland freight expenses, 

home market warehousing expenses, 

and home market freight insurance 

expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. 

In addition, we made deductions 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the 

Act for home market credit expenses 

(offset by interest revenue). We capped 

Mukand’s interest revenue by the 

amount of credit expenses, in 

accordance with our practice. See, e.g., 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Determination 

Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order 

in Part, and Final No Shipment 

Determination, 76 FR 50176 (August 12, 

2011), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

For home market sales with reported 

commissions, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.410(e), we offset the 

commission paid on a U.S. sale by 

reducing NV by the amount of the home 

market commission. For sales where 

Mukand did not report home market 

commissions, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.410(e), we offset any 

commission paid on a U.S. sale by 

reducing the NV by the amount of home 

market indirect selling expenses and 

inventory carrying costs, up to the 

amount of the U.S. commission. For 

further discussion of these adjustments, 

see the Mukand Preliminary Calculation 

Memo. 

We deducted home market packing 

costs, when applicable, and added U.S. 

packing costs, where appropriate, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. Finally, we made 

adjustments for differences in costs 

attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.411. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

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

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for Mukand’s 

products for which we could not 

determine the NV based on home 

market sales, we based NV on CV. 

In accordance with section 773(e) of 

the Act, we calculated CV for Mukand 

based on the sum of its material and 

fabrication costs, selling, general and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, 

and U.S. packing costs. We calculated 

the COP component of CV as described 

in the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section of this notice, above. 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 Mukand in connection with 

the production and sale of the foreign 

like product in the ordinary course of 

trade, for consumption in the foreign 

country. 

Currency Conversion 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 and 

section 773A of the Act, we made 

currency conversions based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the date of 

the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See Import 

Administration Web site at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that a 

weighted-average dumping margin 

exists for Mukand for the period 

February 1, 2010, through January 31, 

2011. The companies subject to the 

administrative review but not selected 

as mandatory respondents normally 

receive the weighted-average of the 

margins calculated for mandatory 

respondents, excluding de minimis 

margins or margins based entirely on 

adverse facts available. In this case, we 

are assigning Chandan Mukand’s margin 

as Mukand is the only remaining 

mandatory respondent. 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

percent 

Mukand Ltd ........................... 30.92 

Chandan Steel Limited ......... 30.92 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations performed within five days 

of publication of this notice to the 

parties to this proceeding in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

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, should be filed not later than 

five days after the time limit for filing 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Parties submitting arguments in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue, (2) a brief summary of the 

argument, and (3) a table of authorities, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2). Further, case and rebuttal 

briefs must be served on interested 

parties in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.303(f). 

Interested parties, who wish to 

request a hearing, or to participate if one 

is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, filed electronically using 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, IA ACCESS, 

by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Requests should contain the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number, 

the number of participants, and a list of 

the issues to be discussed. If a request 

for a hearing is made, we will inform 

parties of the scheduled date for the 

hearing which will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Parties should confirm by 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13275 

1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

Continued 

telephone the date, time, and location of 

the hearing. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

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

the Act, 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 or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP will assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions for the 

companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of review. 

Mukand reported that it was the 

importer of record for all of its U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise. If Mukand’s 

antidumping rate exceeds 0.5 percent ad 

valorem for the final results of this 

review, we will instruct CBP to assess 

duties on all of Mukand’s entries. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

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) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by Mukand 

for which this company did not know 

that 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 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see 

Assessment Policy Notice. 

Pursuant to the revocation of the 

Order with regard to Venus effective 

February 1, 2010, and in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), the 

Department directed CBP to terminate 

the suspension of liquidation for all 

entries of SSBar from India produced/ 

exported by Venus, effective February 1, 

2010, as indicated in Venus Revocation 

Final. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of SSBar 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 companies 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this administrative review, 

except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent 

and is, therefore, de minimis, the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent final results in which that 

manufacturer or exporter participated; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, but was covered in a 

previous review or the original less than 

fair value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

review conducted by the Department, 

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). These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 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 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5416 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, and Preliminary No Shipment 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting the sixth 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 

India. The respondents which the 

Department selected for individual 

examination are Apex Exports (Apex) 

and Falcon Marine Exports Limited 

(Falcon). The respondents which were 

not selected for individual examination 

are listed in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

the Review’’ section of this notice. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2010, through January 31, 2011. 

We preliminarily determine that 

Falcon has not made sales at below 

normal value (NV), while Apex has 

made sales at below NV, and, therefore, 

these sales are subject to antidumping 

duties. In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual examination, we 

have preliminarily determined a margin 

for those companies that were not 

individually examined. 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Almond or Elizabeth Eastwood, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0049, or (202) 

482–3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India.1


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES