```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 43 (Friday, March 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9787-9792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]

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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review

[[Page 9788]]

of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The 
period of review is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. This 
review covers imports of stainless steel bar from one producer/
exporter: Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. We preliminarily find that 
sales of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping 
duties 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.

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Scott Holland, 
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) 482-0182 
or (202) 482-1279, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 
Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 
21, 1995). On February 4, 2008, 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, 2007, through 
January 31, 2008. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008).
    On February 11, 2008, the Department received a timely request for 
review from Ambica Steels Limited (``Ambica''). On February 29, 2008, 
we received a timely request from domestic interested parties Carpenter 
Technology Corp.; Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of Crucible 
Materials Corp.; Electralloy Co., a G.O. Carlson, Inc. company; and 
Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioners''), for a 
review of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (``Venus''). On March 31, 
2008, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), we initiated an administrative review on Ambica 
and Venus. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 16837 (March 31, 2008) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
    On March 31, 2008, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to Ambica and Venus. Venus submitted its responses to 
the antidumping questionnaire in May and July 2008. After analyzing 
these responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Venus to 
clarify or correct information contained in the initial questionnaire 
responses. We received timely responses to these questionnaires. 
Petitioners submitted comments on the questionnaire responses in June, 
July, November, and December 2008, January and February 2009.
    On May 16, 2008, Ambica withdrew its request for an administrative 
review. On June 24, 2008, the Department partially rescinded this 
administrative review with respect to Ambica. See Stainless Steel Bar 
from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 35657 (June 24, 2008).
    On October 24, 2008, we extended the time limit for completing the 
preliminary results of this review to no later than March 2, 2009, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless Steel 
Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 63435 (October 24, 
2008).
    On January 8, 2009, the Department met with counsel for Petitioners 
to discuss certain sales and cost of production (``COP'') issues.
    On January 21, 2009, Petitioners alleged that Venus withheld 
information regarding certain U.S. sales, the role played by Venus' 
staff on U.S. sales, and Venus' costs. According to Petitioners, these 
flaws should lead the Department to reject Venus' data and, because of 
Venus' lack of cooperation, Petitioners ask the Department to apply 
total adverse facts available in accordance with section 776(b) of the 
Act. See Petitioners' January 21, 2009, submission at 10-15.
    Specifically, Venus reported that AMS Specialty Steel (``AMS'') is 
an unaffiliated U.S. customer and that Venus did not pay commissions to 
AMS, nor was AMS a sales agent for Venus' sales of subject merchandise 
during the POR. Petitioners claim that these statements by Venus are 
false and that Venus does have a relationship with AMS, including that 
of commissioned agent. In addition, Petitioners contend that Venus 
incorrectly reported sales to AMS, as the U.S. customer, when it should 
have reported the first U.S. sale to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. 
Because of this error, according to Petitioners, Venus has reported 
wrong sales data to the Department for Venus' sales through AMS. See 
Petitioners' January 21, 2009, submission at 2-4.
    Petitioners additionally contend that all of Venus' U.S. sales 
should be classified as constructed export price (``CEP'') sales and 
not export price (``EP'') sales because Venus' U.S. employee served as 
more than a communications link between Venus and its U.S. customers. 
See Petitioners' January 21, 2009, submission at 5.
    Finally, Petitioners contend that Venus misrepresented its 
production process by withholding certain critical information 
concerning its COP. See Petitioners' January 21, 2009, submission at 7.
    Petitioners presented support for their allegations which cannot be 
further described here because of its proprietary nature. See 
Petitioners' January 21, 2009, submission at Attachment 1 and Enclosure 
3.
    Information in Venus' responses contradicts these claims. 
Specifically, Venus has stated that AMS was its U.S. customer and that 
it sold to AMS, not through AMS; that AMS is not affiliated with Venus; 
that Venus negotiated the material terms of sale with AMS and not with 
AMS' U.S. customers; that, in most cases, Venus knew the name of AMS' 
customers only because AMS had to provide the names for technical 
compliance, such as material specification, marking, and labeling, but 
that Venus did not negotiate the selling price from AMS to its U.S. 
customer; that AMS was not an agent for Venus and that Venus did not 
pay commissions to AMS for subject merchandise during the POR; and that 
Venus did not have an agreement with AMS for AMS to be Venus' agent, 
representative, or broker for subject merchandise during the POR. See 
Venus' December 31, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response 
(``December 31, 2008, supplemental'') at 18, which was refiled on 
January 14, 2009, with corrected bracketing and Venus' February 4, 
2009, supplemental questionnaire response at 1.
    Regarding whether all U.S. sales should have been reported on a CEP 
basis, Venus reported that the employee was paid a fixed remuneration 
per month and certain actual expenses, such as telephone and travel, 
and that the employee visited Venus' customers, received inquiries and 
orders for

[[Page 9789]]

stainless steel bright bar and stainless steel wire rod and sent this 
material to Venus in India for negotiation and execution. See Venus' 
October 24, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response (``October 24, 
2008, supplemental'') at 20 and 22. Venus affirmed that all material 
terms of sale are concluded by Venus, that Venus issues sales invoices 
and collects payment, and that the employee did not have the authority 
to decide the material terms of sale, such as price, payment terms, and 
quantities. See id. at 21, and Venus' December 31, 2008, supplemental 
at 15.
    Regarding cost, Venus has described its production process and 
denies Petitioners' claims. See Venus' January 12, 2009, supplemental 
questionnaire response at 10.
    We have carefully reviewed Petitioners' claims, Venus' responses, 
as well as all other evidence on the record. Based on the current 
record, we preliminarily find that Venus properly reported its U.S. 
sales and cost information to the Department. Thus, we preliminarily 
determine that the application of facts available is not warranted. 
Because of the proprietary nature of the information submitted by 
Petitioners in their allegation, a full discussion of these issues are 
presented in the preliminary results calculation memorandum. See 
Memorandum from the Team to the File ``Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,'' dated March 2, 2009 
(``Venus Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum'').

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 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 this review 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 the 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 Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Department building 
(``CRU''). See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 
2005).

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references 
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In 
addition, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 351 (2008).

Affiliation

Precision Metals

    In the 2005-2006 antidumping duty administrative review of SSB from 
India, the Department determined that Venus and Precision Metals were 
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 that administrative review. See Notice of Final Results and 
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Bar from India, 72 FR 51595, 51596 (September 10, 
2007).
    During the current 2007-2008 administrative review, the Department 
again examined Venus' relationship with Precision Metals. Based on 
Venus' representations that its corporate affiliation relationship with 
Precision Metals remained the same during the POR as during the 2005-
2006 administrative review, the Department hereby continues to treat 
Venus and Precision Metals as a single entity in the current 
proceeding. See Memorandum from Brandon Farlander to the File, 
``Relationship of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision 
Metals,'' dated January 9, 2009, which is on file in the CRU.

Sieves Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

    On November 14, 2008, Petitioners alleged that, because Venus 
reported that its affiliate, Sieves Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. 
(``Sieves''), is a manufacturer of SSB and made sales of the subject 
merchandise in the home market, Venus and Sieves should be treated as a 
single entity under 19 CFR 351.401(f). As discussed in the Memorandum 
from Scott Holland to Susan Kuhbach, Office Director, ``Whether to 
Treat Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves Manufacturing Pvt. 
Ltd. as a Single Entity,'' dated March 2, 2009, which is on file in the 
CRU, the Department finds that Venus and Sieves have met the criteria 
set forth under 19 CFR 351.401(f). Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that Venus and Sieves should be treated as a single entity in 
this review. We intend to seek further information regarding the 
relationship of these companies and the types of merchandise sold by 
Sieves to use in the final results.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSB by Venus to the United States 
were made at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared export price 
(``EP'') to NV. See ``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 weighted-average NV of the 
foreign-like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary 
course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' 
section, below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold by the respondent 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

[[Page 9790]]

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 volumes of its 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 home market based on the following 
criteria: (1) General type of finish; (2) grade; (3) remelting; (4) 
type of final finishing operation; (5) shape; and (6) size. This was 
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, see Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). Where there were no 
home market sales of the foreign-like product that were identical in 
these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we 
compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the 
home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of 
priority, 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'').

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. Venus reported that the material terms of sale can change 
up until the date of the invoice for both the home market and the U.S. 
market. See May 16, 2008, Section A Questionnaire Response (``AQR'') at 
A-14. Further, Venus provided sales documents that demonstrated that 
Venus experienced material changes in quantity sold that were outside 
of Venus' delivery tolerances for sales to the United States. For the 
home market, Venus provided sales documents that demonstrated that 
Venus experienced price changes and material changes in quantity sold 
that were outside of Venus' delivery tolerances. See AQR at Annexure A-
4. Therefore, based on record evidence, we have used the date of 
invoice as the date of sale for Venus' sales to the United States and 
in the home market.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we calculated EP in accordance 
with section 772 of the 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 producer or exporter outside of the United 
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as 
adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act.
    We calculated EP for 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 CEP 
methodology was not otherwise warranted. For Venus, we based EP on the 
packed, delivered duty paid, or cost insurance freight price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported 
gross unit price, where applicable, for early payment discounts and 
other discounts for weight shortages, short payments or quality claims. 
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, U.S. customs duties, and other transportation fees. See Venus 
Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum.

Duty Drawback

    Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that EP or CEP shall be 
increased by among other things, ``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.'' The Department determines that an 
adjustment to U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when 
a company can demonstrate that: (1) the ``import duty and rebate are 
directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another;'' and (2) ``the 
company claiming the adjustment can show that there were sufficient 
imports of the imported raw materials to account for the drawback 
received on the exported product.'' Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United 
States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999).
    Venus claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on its participation 
in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement Passbook Program. The 
Department finds that Venus has not provided substantial evidence on 
the record to establish the necessary link between the import duty and 
the reported duty drawback. Therefore, because Venus has failed to meet 
the Department's requirements, we are denying Venus' request for a duty 
drawback adjustment for the preliminary results. See Venus Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum.

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. Section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act contemplates that quantities (or 
values) 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 Venus' 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. Venus reported that 
its home market sales of SSB during the POR were more than five percent 
of its sales of SSB to the United States. See July 7, 2008, section B 
questionnaire response (``BQR'') at B-4. Therefore, Venus'' home market 
was viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, Venus reported 
its home market sales. To derive NV for Venus, we made the adjustments 
detailed in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market 
Prices'' section below.

B. 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

[[Page 9791]]

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. 
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 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 an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 each respondent's sales occur somewhere along 
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered the 
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 LOT(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.
    \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, general 
and administrative expenses (``G&A'') and profit for CV, where 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We obtained information from Venus regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed for each channel of 
distribution. Our LOT findings are summarized below.
    Venus reported one channel of distribution and a single LOT in both 
the home market and the U.S. market. Further, Venus claimed that its 
sales in both markets were at the same LOT and Venus did not request a 
LOT adjustment. See BQR at B-29, and section C questionnaire response 
at C-30.
    Venus reported that it sells to end users, distributors, and 
trading companies at the same LOT in the home market. Also, Venus 
reported that it sells to distributors and trading companies at the 
same LOT in the U.S. market. Venus reported that its prices did not 
vary based on channel of distribution and/or customer category. See AQR 
at A-13.
    We examined the information reported by Venus regarding its sales 
processes for its home market and U.S. market sales, including customer 
categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. See 
AQR at A-13. Specifically, we considered the extent to which, for 
instance, sales process/marketing support, freight/delivery, inventory 
maintenance, and quality assurance/warranty service varied with respect 
to the different customer categories and channels of distribution 
across the markets. We concluded that the home market channel of 
distribution comprises one LOT. See id. We evaluated the U.S. channel 
of distribution and concluded that it also comprises one LOT. Next, we 
compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT. See id. Venus reported 
that it sold to similar categories of customer in both the home market 
and the U.S. market. See id. Venus reported similar levels of freight/
delivery in both the home market and U.S. market. See id. Further, 
Venus reported no inventory maintenance in either the home market or 
the U.S. market, and reported that it provided no warranty services in 
any of its channels of distribution. See id. The only minor difference 
that Venus reported was in sales process/marketing support, where Venus 
indicated that it advertises and promotes its U.S. market sales, but 
not the home market sales. See id.
    Based on the foregoing, we preliminarily find that Venus' sales in 
the home market and the United States were made at the same LOT.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the 
time of initiation, the Department found that 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 COP in this administrative review for Venus. See section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a 
COP inquiry for Venus.
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 Venus except where noted below.
2. 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 of that model were made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) 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. In such 
cases, for Venus, we disregarded these below-cost sales of a given 
product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. 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 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. 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

[[Page 9792]]

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. We did not make further adjustments to Venus' home market 
data.
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 weighted-
average percentage margin exists for the period February 1, 2007, 
through January 31, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Exporter/manufacturer                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd./Precision Metals...........         0.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment
    The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five 
days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). 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. The 
Department will publish the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the 
briefs, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary 
results.
Assessment Rates
    If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after 
publication of the final results of review in the Federal Register.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by the 
respondent for which it has 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 respondent 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 
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent) 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 liquidate without 
regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate 
is de minimis.
    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 id.
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 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 companies 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); (2) 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, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; and (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 
covered in this or any previous reviews, or the original LTFV 
investigation, 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. 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 preliminary results of review 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E9-4798 Filed 3-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```