[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31208-31210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14649]


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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A1 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 cold-
finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether 
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, 
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 
deformations produced during the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length,

[[Page 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

[[Page 31210]]

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 weighted-average dumping margin exists 
for the period February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (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