Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 2014 / Notices 64365 

1See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2012–2013, 79 FR 36001 

(June 25, 2014) (Preliminary Results). 

2Petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, 

North American Stainless, United Auto Workers 

Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent 

Organization, and the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers International Union 

(AFL–CIO/CLC). 

3See ASB’s letter dated July 31, 2014. 

4See the Department’s Letter to ASB dated 

August 5, 2014, Re: Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate from 

Coils from Belgium. 

5See the Department’s Letter dated August 5, 

2014, Re: Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium. 

6See ASB’s letter dated August 5, 2014. 

7See id. at 3. 

8See ASB’s letters dated August 8 and 13, 2014. 

9See Petitioners’ letters dated August 7, 12, and 

14, 2014. 

10See the Department’s Letter dated August 15, 

2014, Subject: Rejection of Request to Strike 

Petitioner’s Case Brief and to Reconsider Extending 

the Due Date for Filing Rebuttal. 

11For a full description of the scope of the order, 

see the Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance, titled ‘‘Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

from Belgium: Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2012–2013,’’ (Final Decision 

Memorandum), dated concurrently with and hereby 

adopted by this notice. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice is the only reminder to 

parties subject to the administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return or 

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. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216. 

Dated: October 22, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25747 Filed 10–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–423–808] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review; 2012– 

2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2014. 

SUMMARY: On June 25, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review on stainless steel 

plate in coils (steel plate) from 

Belgium.1 This review covers one 

manufacturer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise: Aperam Stainless Belgium 

N.V. (ASB). The period of review (POR) 

is May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we determine that 

ASB made sales at less than normal 

value. For the final weighted-average 

dumping margin, see the ‘‘Final Results 

of Review’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska at 202–482–8362; AD/

CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 25, 2014, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

Preliminary Results. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. On 

July 25, 2014, the Department received 

case briefs from ASB and the 

Petitioners.2 On July 31, 2014, ASB 

submitted a request for an extension of 

time to submit its rebuttal brief.3 On 

August 4, 2014, ASB submitted its 

rebuttal brief. However, on August 5, 

2014, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(c) 

(2012), the Department found ASB’s 

July 31, 2014, extension request 

untimely, and thus denied ASB’s 

request for an extension of time to 

submit a rebuttal brief.4 Consequently, 

on the same day, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.104(a)(2)(iii) and 19 CFR 

351.302(d), the Department rejected and 

removed ASB’s untimely filed rebuttal 

brief from the record.5 In response, on 

August 5, 2014, ASB urged the 

Department to reconsider its decision.6

In the event that the Department chose 

not to allow the submission of ASB’s 

rebuttal brief, ASB urged for Petitioners’ 

case brief to be rejected and removed 

from the record since Petitioners failed 

to properly serve ASB with its case brief 

on July 25, 2014.7 On August 8 and 13, 

2014, ASB reiterated its request to strike 

Petitioners’ case brief.8 In their letters, 

dated August 7, 12, and 14, 2014, 

Petitioners stated that they properly 

served ASB with their case brief, and 

therefore, there was no basis to reject it.9

On August 15, 2014, the Department 

rejected ASB’s multiple requests to 

strike Petitioners’ case and refused to 

reconsider its decision to reject ASB’s 

rebuttal brief.10

No party requested a hearing. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the Order is 

certain stainless steel plate in coils. 

Stainless steel is alloy steel containing, 

by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon 

and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, 

with or without other elements. The 

subject plate products are flat-rolled 

products, 254 mm or over in width and 

4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, 

and annealed or otherwise heat treated 

and pickled or otherwise descaled.11

The merchandise subject to this order is 

currently classifiable in the harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 

7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.02, 

7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.06, 

7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.21, 

7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.26, 

7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.51, 

7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.56, 

7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.66, 

7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.71, 

7219.12.00.80, 7219.12.00.81, 

7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 

7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 

7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 

7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 

7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 

7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, and 

7220.90.00.60. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written product description remains 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

the parties to this administrative review 

are addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. For reasons described 

above, we did not accept ASB’s rebuttal 

brief. Petitioners did not submit a 

rebuttal brief. 

The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), room 7046 of the main 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

64366 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 2014 / Notices 

12For a discussion of these changes, see 

Memorandum to the File titled, ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. 

(ASB) for the Final Results of the 12th 

Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils (Steel Plate) from Belgium,’’ (Final 

Calculation Memorandum), dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

13See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 

14See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999), as 

amended by Implementation of the Findings of the 

WTO Panel in U.S.—Zeroing (EC): Notice of 

Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial 

Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 

72 FR 25261 (May 4, 2007). 15See 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3). 

Department of Commerce building, as 

well as electronically via the 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to 

registered users at http://

iaaccess.trade.gov and in the CRU. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Internet at 

http://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 

signed Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

versions of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we made certain 

changes to the margin calculations for 

ASB, which we discuss in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum and Final 

Calculation Memorandum.12

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determined that the following weightedaverage dumping margin exists for the 

period May 1, 2012, through April 30, 

2013: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Aperam Stainless Belgium 

N.V .................................... 1.47 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

the Department shall determine and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this review. Since the weighted-average 

dumping margin is above de minimis, 

we calculated importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of dumping 

calculated for the importer’s examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review since the importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent). Where 

either a respondent’s weighted-average 

dumping margin is zero or de minimis, 

or an importer-specific assessment rate 

is zero or de minimis, we instruct CBP 

to liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003.13 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 

Assessment Policy Notice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following antidumping duty 

deposit rates will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of steel plate from Belgium entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of these final results, as provided 

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

For ASB, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of this review; (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 

established for the most recent period; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the subject merchandise; and (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered by this 

review, a prior review, or the LTFV 

investigation, the cash deposit rate will 

be 8.54 percent ad valorem, the ‘‘allothers’’ rate established in the LTFV 

investigation.14 These deposit rates, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also 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 POR. 

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.15

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 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 pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). 

These final results of review are 

issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: October 22, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Discussion of Interested Party Comments 

Comment 1: ASB’s Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils with an Actual Thickness of 4.75 

mm 

Comment 2: Bundled Pricing 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Miscoded Excess Prime Merchandise 

and Non-prime Merchandise in its 

Preliminary Margin Calculations 

Comment 4: Whether the Department Erred 

in Converting INVCARU from Euros to 

U.S. Dollars in its Preliminary Margin 

Calculations 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2014–25746 Filed 10–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES