54090 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

1For the reasons explained in the Preliminary 

Results, we have determined that Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates, Precision 

Metals and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 

should be treated as a single entity and collapsed 

for the purposes of this review. See Memorandum 

from Erika McDonald to the File, ‘‘Relationship of 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves 

Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated September 

15, 2009; see also Memorandum from Erika 

McDonald to the File, ‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,’’ dated 

September 14, 2009. The collapsed entity is referred 

to as ‘‘Venus.’’ 

surrogate value selections. Thus, it is 

not practicable to complete this review 

within the originally anticipated time 

limit (i.e., by September 9, 2010). 

Therefore, the Department is extending 

the time limit for completion of the 

preliminary results by 120 days to not 

later than January 7, 2011, in 

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

the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: August 30, 2010. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22083 Filed 9–2–10; 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. 

SUMMARY: On March 15, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from India 

for the period February 1, 2008, through 

January 31, 2009. See Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 75 FR 12199 (March 15, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The Department 

conducted a post-preliminary analysis 

and released the results of the analysis 

on May 19, 2010. We gave the interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the Preliminary Results and the postpreliminary analysis. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have made changes to the margin 

calculation. The final weighted-average 

dumping margins for the reviewed 

firms, Ambica Steels Limited 

(‘‘Ambica’’) and Venus Wire Industries 

Pvt. Ltd.,1 are listed below in the section 

entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: September 3, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran, Seth Isenberg, or Austin 

Redington, 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) 482–1503, 

(202) 482–0588, or (202) 482–1664, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In the Preliminary Results, we relied 

on ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ in 

determining that there was linkage 

between Venus’ costs and prices, which 

resulted in Venus’ antidumping margin 

being calculated using quarterly costs. 

We also noted in the Preliminary 

Results that we would reexamine this 

issue based on additional information 

submitted by the company. On May 19, 

2010, we released our post-preliminary 

analysis in which we determined that 

the application of the quarterly costing 

methodology to Venus was not 

warranted because we did not find 

correlation between cost and price 

trends. See Memorandum from Susan 

Kuhbach through John M. Andersen to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen: ‘‘2008–2009 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless 

Steel Bar From India—Post-Preliminary 

Analysis Calculation Memorandum for 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.’’ and 

‘‘Memorandum From LaVonne Clark 

Through Theresa C. Deeley to Neal 

Halper: Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Post-Preliminary 

Results—Venus Wire Industries Pvt. 

Ltd.,’’ dated May 19, 2010. 

On July 16, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

extension of the time limit for the 

completion of the final results of this 

review until no later than August 27, 

2010, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 

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

From India: Extension of Time Limit for 

the Final Results of the 2008–2009 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 41438 (July 16, 2010). 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. We received case 

briefs on June 3, 2010, from Venus and 

June 7, 2010, from Carpenter 

Technology Corporation, Valbruna 

Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy 

Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, 

Inc., Universal Stainless (‘‘Petitioners’’). 

On June 16, 2010, Venus submitted a 

rebuttal brief, and on June 18, 2010, 

Petitioners submitted a rebuttal brief. 

Ambica did not submit any comments. 

None of the parties requested a hearing. 

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 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 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54091 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 1117 in 

the main Department building. See also 

Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 

(September 20, 2005). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the 2008–2009 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Bar From India’’ (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

dated concurrently with and hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues which parties raised and to 

which we responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document which is on file in the CRU, 

and is accessible on the web at http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we made the 

following changes in calculating 

dumping margins: (1) We corrected a 

clerical error identified by Venus 

regarding its reporting of international 

freight expenses; (2) we adjusted the 

transfer price for the affiliated inputs to 

market price pursuant to section 

773(f)(2) of the Act; and (3) we corrected 

a ministerial error of adding rather than 

deducting selling expenses from the 

home market price. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comments 2, 

4, and 7. For further details on how 

these changes were applied in the 

calculation, see ‘‘Analysis for the Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Bar From India: Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated August 27, 

2010. 

Final Results of the Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for Venus and Ambica for the 

period February 1, 2008 through January 

31, 2009. 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage margin percent 

Venus .................................... 10.42 

Ambica .................................. 0.00 

1 de minimis. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall 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 to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

these final results. 

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 all the 

U.S. sales to that importer, 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 all U.S. sales to an 

importer, we have calculated importerspecific 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 importerspecific ad valorem rates based on 

reported and estimated entered values 

(when no entered value was reported). 

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. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication 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, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for 

the companies listed above will be the 

rates established in the final results of 

this review, except if the rate is less 

than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de 

minimis, the cash deposit 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, a prior 

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (‘‘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 cash deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

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 double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

These final results of review are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: August 27, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether to Include Venus’ 

Home Market Sample Sales 

Comment 2: Correction of Clerical Error in 

Venus’ Sales Database 

Comment 3: Offsetting Negative Margins 

Comment 4 Alleged Reporting Deficiencies 

for Venus and Sieves 

Comment 5: Whether the Department Should 

Repeat its Linkage Test 

Comment 6: Whether Linkage Exists Between 

Venus’ and Sieves’ Costs and Sales Prices 

Comment 7: Ministerial Error 

[FR Doc. 2010–22084 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES