31208 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices

1A1 Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals

division, Crucible Materials Corp., Electroalloy

Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels

Corp., Talley Metals Technology, Inc. and the

United Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/CLC).

and including, the report required on

December 1, 1999.

In the preliminary results of this

administrative review, the Department

stated, ‘‘If the Department makes a final

determination of non-compliance, it

will then be necessary to determine

whether this non-compliance rises to

the level of a violation as defined in

Article XII of the Agreement.’’ The

Department finds non-compliance on

the part of the GOU for its failure to

submit the December 1, 1999 sales

report and its failure to place sales

reports, placed on the administrative

record of the Agreement, onto the

administrative record of this review. In

addition, the Department views the

GOU’s failure to provide sales reports

for any of the reporting periods after

December 1999 as a continuing pattern

of uncooperative behavior. Article XII of

the Agreement requires that prior to

making a determination of an alleged

violation, the Department will engage in

emergency consultations with the GOU.

Therefore, the Department has requested

emergency consultations with the GOU,

consistent with Article XII of the

Agreement. If, pursuant to these

consultations, the Department finds that

the GOU’s non-compliance constitutes a

violation pursuant to section 351.209 of

the Department’s regulations, the

Department will terminate the

Agreement and issue an antidumping

duty order.

This notice is published in

accordance with sections 751(a) and

777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—List of Issues

1. Whether the GOU has failed to comply

with the information reporting requirements

of the Agreement.

2. Whether the GOU has failed to establish

and maintain the required regimes necessary

to implement the price and volume

restrictions of the Agreement.

3. Whether the GOU’s failures to comply

with the Agreement constitute violations of

the Agreement.

4. Whether the GOU has effectively given

notice of termination of the Agreement,

requiring the Department to issue an order

and take the other steps required when an

Agreement has been violated.

[FR Doc. 01–14650 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has conducted an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

stainless steel bar from India. This

review covers sales of stainless steel bar

to the United States by Panchmahal

Steel Limited. We have determined that

sales have been made below normal

value during the review period of

February 1, 1999, through January 31,

2000.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received, we

have not made any changes in the

margin calculation presented in the

preliminary results of review. The final

weighted-average dumping margin for

the company under review is listed

below in the section entitled, ‘‘Final

Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Blanche Ziv or Annika O’Hara, Office 1,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4207 or (202) 482–

3798, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Act by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’’) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On February 5, 2001, the Department

published Stainless Steel Bar From

India; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review

and Partial Rescission of Administrative

Review, 66 FR 8939 (February 5, 2001)

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’), and invited

parties to comment on these results.

Since the Preliminary Results, the

following events have occurred.

On March 7, 2001, the respondent,

Panchmahal Steel Limited

(‘‘Panchmahal’’) submitted a case brief.

The petitioners 1 submitted a rebuttal

brief on March 19, 2001.

On April 26, 2001, the Department

issued a memorandum addressing

certain allegations regarding our

verification in the respondent’s case

brief (see ‘‘Panchmahal Steel Limited’s

Verification Allegations,’’ (April 26,

2001) from Blanche Ziv to Susan

Kuhbach which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of

the Department) (‘‘Verification

Allegations Memo’’). We invited parties

to comment on the information

presented in the memorandum. We

received no comments.

The Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act. The period

of review (‘‘POR’’) is February 1, 1999,

through January 31, 2000.

Scope of the Order

Imports covered by the order 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 coldfinished 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 semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices 31209

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to the order 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.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, a

respondent:

(1) withholds information that has

been requested;

(2) fails to provide information within

the deadlines established, or in the form

or manner requested by the Department,

subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of

Section 782;

(3) significantly impedes a

proceeding; or

(4) provides information that cannot

be verified.

Section 782(e) of the Act provides

further that the Department shall not

decline to consider information that is

submitted by an interested party and

that is necessary to the determination

but does not meet all the applicable

requirements established by the

Department if—

(1) the information is submitted by

the deadline established for its

submission;

(2) the information can be verified;

(3) the information is not so

incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination;

(4) the interested party has

demonstrated that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the information

and meeting the requirements

established by the Department with

respect to the information; and

(5) the information can be used

without undue difficulties.

Thus, if any one of these criteria is not

met, the Department may decline to

consider the information at issue in

making its determination.

We continue to find that the use of

facts available is necessary in this

review for the reasons stated in the

Preliminary Results (66 FR 8940), in the

January 29, 2001 memorandum,

‘‘Application of Adverse Facts Available

for Panchmahal Steel Ltd.’’ from Team

to Susan Kuhbach which is on file in

the CRU (‘‘Application of Adverse Facts

Available Memo’’), and in the

accompanying memorandum, ‘‘Issues

and Decision Memo for the Final Results

of the Administrative Review of

Stainless Steel Bar from India’’ from

Richard W. Moreland to Faryar Shirzad

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’).

As noted in the Preliminary Results,

(1) Panchamahal failed to report certain

home market sales; (2) Panchmahal’s

failure to prepare for verification

impeded the verification process and

resulted in many items not being

verified; and (3) Absence of company

officials impeded the Department’s

ability to conduct a complete sales and

cost of production verification.

For the reasons stated above, we find

that Panchmahal’s sales and cost

information is substantially unverified

and cannot serve as a reliable basis for

calculating export price or normal

value. Therefore, in accordance with

section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we find that

the use of facts otherwise available is

warranted because Panchmahal

withheld information requested by the

Department, Panchmahal significantly

impeded this proceeding, and

Panchmahal’s reported sales and cost

information was unverifiable.

Furthermore, for the reasons stated in

the Preliminary Results (66 FR 8940,

8941), we also find that Panchmahal’s

sales and costs information does not

meet the standards for consideration of

information outlined in section 782(e) of

the Act.

In determining the appropriate facts

available to assign to Panchmahal, in

accordance with section 776(b) of the

Act, we find that Panchmahal failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information throughout this

administrative review (see Application

of Adverse Facts Available Memo).

Therefore, we determine that an adverse

inference is warranted in selecting facts

otherwise available.

As adverse facts available, we have

assigned a margin of 19.54 percent to

Panchmahal. This margin was

calculated for Ferro Alloys Corporation

Limited (‘‘Facor’’) during the 1998–1999

administrative review and represents

the highest calculated weighted-average

margin determined for any firm during

any segment of this proceeding (see

Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial

Rescission of Administrative Review, 65

FR 48965, 48968 (August 10, 2000)

(‘‘Final 1998–1999 Review’’)).

Information from prior segments of

the proceeding constitutes secondary

information and section 776(c) of the

Act provides that the Department shall,

to the extent practicable, corroborate

that secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action provides that

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value (see The Statement of

Administrative Action, H. Doc. No. 103–

316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’)).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as adverse facts available a

calculated dumping margin from a prior

segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin inappropriate. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,

1996) (where the Department

disregarded the highest margin as

adverse facts available because the

margin was based on another company’s

uncharacteristic business expense

resulting in an unusually high margin)).

The highest calculated margin in the

history of this proceeding is 19.54

percent (see Final 1998–1999 Review).

In this review, there are no

circumstances indicating that this

margin is inappropriate as facts

available. There are no calculated

margins for any other respondents in

this administrative review. Therefore,

for the reasons stated above, we find

that the 19.54 percent rate is

corroborated to the greatest extent

practicable in accordance with section

776(c) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

administrative review are addressed in

the Decision Memorandum, which is

hereby adopted by this notice. A list of

the issues which parties have raised and

to which we have responded, all of

31210 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices

which are in the Decision

Memorandum, is attached to this notice

as an appendix. Parties can find a

complete discussion of all issues raised

in this review and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum, which is on file in the

CRU. In addition, a complete version of

the Decision Memorandum can be

accessed directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of the Review

We determine the following weightedaverage dumping margin exists for the

period February 1, 1999, through

January 31, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Panchmahal Steel Limited ........ 19.54

Assessment Rates

The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on appropriate

entries by applying the assessment rate

to the entered value of the merchandise.

Cash Deposit Rates

The following deposit requirements

will be required on all shipments of

stainless steel bar from India entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption, effective on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate indicated

above; (2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in the

original less-than-fair-value

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, the

previous review, or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 12.45

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the less-than-fair-value investigation

(see Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28,

1994)).

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping

duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues

to govern business proprietary

information in this segment of the

proceeding. Timely written notification

of the return/destruction of APO

materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of an APO is a violation

which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections section 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 6, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision

Memorandum

Comment 1: Home Market Sales of Bright Bar

Comment 2: Preparation and Availability of

Information

Comment 3: Availability of Company Staff

During Verification

Comment 4: Timing of Verification

Comment 5: Use of Adverse Facts Available

Comment 6: Other Factual Allegations

[FR Doc. 01–14649 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–829]

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From the

Republic of Korea: Extension of Time

Limit for Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alexander Amdur or Karine Gziryan at

(202) 482–5346 and (202) 482–4081,

respectively, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Ave, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires

the Department to make a preliminary

determination within 245 days after the

last day of the anniversary month of an

order/finding for which a review is

requested and a final determination

within 120 days after the date on which

the preliminary determination is

published. However, if it is not

practicable to complete the review

within these time periods, section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the

Department to extend the time limit for

the preliminary determination to a

maximum of 365 days and for the final

determination to 180 days (or 300 days

if the Department does not extend the

time limit for the preliminary

determination) from the date of

publication of the preliminary

determination.

Background

On November 30, 2000, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel wire rod from the Republic of

Korea, covering the period September 1,

1999, through August 31, 2000 ( 65 FR

71299). The preliminary results are

currently due no later than June 2, 2001.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of Review

We determine that it is not practicable

to complete the preliminary results of

this review within the original time

limit. Therefore the Department is

extending the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results until no later