Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27097 

1On May 11, 2007, the Department received a 

scope inquiry request from U&A Belgium regarding 

whether the scope of the orders on SSPC from 

Belgium excludes stainless steel products with an 

actual thickness less than 4.75mm, regardless of its 

nominal thickness. The Department conducted a 

scope inquiry applicable to all countries subject to 

the SSPC antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders. In the Department’s scope ruling, dated 

December 3, 2008, the Department determined that 

SSPC with a nominal thickness of 4.75mm, but with 

an actual thickness less than 4.75mm, and within 

the dimensional tolerances for this thickness of 

plate, is included in the scope of the antidumping 

duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Italy, South 

Africa, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan and 

countervailing duty orders on SSPC from Belgium 

and South Africa. See Memorandum from Melissa 

G. Skinner to Stephen J. Claeys titled ‘‘Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Scope 

Ruling,’’ dated December 3, 2008. 

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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13344 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–423–808] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium. 

For the period of review (POR) May 1, 

2007, through April 30, 2008, we have 

preliminarily determined that U.S. sales 

have been made below normal value 

(NV). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties based on the difference between 

the constructed export price (CEP) and 

NV. See ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or George McMahon, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1168 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

Background 

On May 5, 2008, the Department 

issued a notice of opportunity to request 

an administrative review of this order 

for the POR. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On May 30, 

2008, the Department received a timely 

request for an administrative review of 

this antidumping duty order from 

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North 

American Stainless, Butler–Armco 

Independent Union, Zanesville Armco 

Independent Union, and the United 

Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC 

(collectively, Petitioners). On June 2, 

2008, the Department received a timely 

request for an administrative review 

from the respondent, Ugine & ALZ 

Belgium (U&A Belgium), respectively. 

On June 29, 2007, we published a notice 

initiating an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on SSPC 

from Belgium covering one respondent, 

U&A Belgium. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Request for 

Revocation in Part and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 

(June 29, 2007). 

In the prior administrative review of 

this antidumping duty order, U&A 

Belgium reported that it is wholly 

owned by Arcelor S.A. and stated that 

Arcelor S.A. was in the process of 

merging with Mittal Steel, N.V. (Mittal) 

to form Arcelor Mittal S.A. See Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

32298 (June 6, 2008). In the instant 

review, U&A Belgium stated ‘‘{t}he 

merger between AMS Belgium’s former 

parent Arcelor S.A. and Mittal Steel 

N.V. was completed on November 13, 

2007. Although this is midway through 

the review period, AMS Belgium has 

prepared its responses to the 

Department’s questionnaires as if 

ArcelorMittal were fully consolidated 

for the entire reporting period.’’ See 

U&A Belgium’s Section A questionnaire 

response, dated September 18, 2008, at 

page 6, footnote 1. Due to the 

completion of the aforementioned 

merger and based on U&A Belgium’s 

reporting of a consolidated 

questionnaire response, we have 

conducted a successor–in-interest 

analysis. Based upon our findings, we 

have changed our reference to this 

company from U&A Belgium to 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium (AMS 

Belgium) hereafter. See the 

Department’s memo to the File titled, 

‘‘Successor–in-Interest analysis for AMS 

Belgium,’’ dated June 1, 2009 on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

On July 15, 2008, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to AMS Belgium. We 

received AMS Belgium’s response to 

Section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire on September 18, 2008, 

and Sections B–D on October 3, 2008. 

On December 8, 2008, the Department 

received comments from the Petitioners 

on the Sections A through C responses 

for AMS Belgium. After reviewing the 

Sections A through D responses from 

AMS Belgium, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to AMS 

Belgium. The Department issued 

additional supplemental questions, after 

reviewing AMS Belgium’s supplemental 

questionnaire responses. On January 21, 

2009, the Department issued an 

extension of the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this antidumping 

duty administrative review from January 

31, 2009, until June 1, 2009. See 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3563 

(January 21, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

certain stainless steel plate in coils. 

Stainless steel is an 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 mm1 or more in 

thickness, in coils, and annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject plate 

may also be further processed (e.g., 

cold–rolled, polished, etc.) provided 

that it maintains the specified 

dimensions of plate following such 

processing. Excluded from the scope of 

this order are the following: (1) Plate not 

in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27098 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

2 Due to the proprietary nature of this particular 

expense, see the Department’s discussion of this 

expense in the proprietary version of the 

Department’s Sales Calculation Memorandum, 

dated June 1, 2009. 

otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, 

and (4) flat bars. 

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, 

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 

7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 

7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 

7219.12.00.71, 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, 

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise subject to this order is 

dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The period of review is May 1, 2007, 

through April 30, 2008. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

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

we have verified information provided 

by AMS Belgium and ArcelorMittal 

Stainless International USA (AMSI 

USA), AMS Belgium’s U.S. affiliated 

distributor, in the administrative review 

of the order on subject merchandise 

from Belgium using standard 

verification procedures, including the 

examination of relevant sales and cost 

information, financial records, and the 

selection and review of original 

documentation containing relevant 

information. Our verification results are 

outlined in the public version of our 

verification report, which is on file in 

the CRU. 

Facts Available 

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (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; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. Section 776(a) of the 

Act provides that the Department will 

apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, 

inter alia, necessary information is not 

available on the record or an interested 

party: 1) withholds information that has 

been requested by the Department; 2) 

fails to provide such 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 of the Act; 3) significantly 

impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified. 

In selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, section 776(b) of 

the Act authorizes the Department to 

use an adverse inference if the 

Department finds that an interested 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

the request for information. See, e.g., 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20 

(October 16, 1997); Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from Sweden, 67 FR 

47522, 47523 (July 19, 2002). 

A. Certain Selling Expense2

During the sales verification, the 

Department found that AMS Belgium 

did not include a certain selling expense 

in its calculation of indirect selling 

expenses. The Department inquired 

about this omission and the company 

officials explained that this certain 

selling expense was reported in its 

general and administrative expenses 

(G&A). See the Department’s Sales 

Verification Report, dated June 1, 2009, 

at constructed export price (CEP) 

Verification Exhibit (CEP VE) 16. 

However, further examination 

demonstrated that this certain selling 

expense was not included in the 

reported G&A. See AMS Belgium’s 

Section D Questionnaire Response, 

dated October 3, 2008, at Exhibit 19. 

Based upon further inquiry during the 

sales verification, company officials 

indicated that AMS Belgium’s accounts 

identify provisions only for a certain 

selling expense and not an actual 

(realized) amount of this certain selling 

expense. See CEP VE 16. However, this 

response contradicted information 

obtained during the cost verification of 

AMS Belgium. Specifically, the 

Department’s cost verification team 

examined G&A (which they calculated 

based on 2007 COPA financial 

statements) and noted an amount which 

was excluded from G&A and listed as a 

selling expense. See the Department’s 

Cost Verification Report, dated June 1, 

2009, at Exhibit 16. This amount 

includes a net actual (realized) amount 

of this certain selling expense. Due the 

proprietary nature of this discussion 

and data, see the Sales and Cost 

Verification Reports, dated June 1, 2009 

(Sales Verification Report, Cost 

Verification Report), for additional 

details. Id. 

Due to the fact that AMS Belgium 

could not accurately identify where in 

its response it reported the certain 

selling expense in question, the 

Department was unable to verify the 

certain selling expense. Furthermore, 

AMS Belgium did not establish whether 

the specific amount of the certain 

selling expense in question was 

attributable to either the home market or 

the U.S. market. AMS Belgium’s 

contradictory statements regarding the 

certain selling expense undermined 

AMS Belgium’s reporting of indirect 

selling expenses. As a result, we find 

that it is appropriate to resort to facts 

otherwise available to account for the 

unreported information. See Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Rescission of 

Administrative Review in Part, and 

Final Determination to Not Revoke 

Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit 

from Thailand, 68 FR 65247 (November 

19, 2003), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

20b. As facts available, we are applying 

the certain selling expense obtained 

from the cost verification and attributing 

these expenses to home market indirect 

selling expenses. See Cost Verification 

Exhibit (CVE) 16. 

B. Other Transportation Expenses 

During the sales verification, AMS 

Belgium reported a minor correction 

regarding the U.S. sales other 

transportation expenses data field 

(USOTHTR1U). AMS Belgium reported 

a minor correction that affects only 

those U.S. sales transactions where 

USOTHTR1U was based on an average 

calculation of other transportation 

expenses. See Sales Verification Report 

at Exhibit VE–1. However, during the 

CEP sales verification, the Department 

found that AMS Belgium maintained 

the actual broker invoices available to 

calculate the actual transportation 

expense for the aforementioned U.S. 

sales observations, rather than apply an 

average. AMS Belgium provided a 

recalculation of the other transportation 

expenses for the U.S. sales in question 

based on the actual broker invoices. 

However, the Department found that the 

recalculated amounts provided by AMS 

Belgium were in error. Specifically, we 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27099 

calculated USOTHTR1U using the two 

broker’s invoices provided at 

verification and found that the actual 

per–unit prices for this field differed 

from the revised amount reported by 

AMS Belgium. See CEP Verification 

Exhibit 19. Therefore, the Department is 

rejecting AMS Belgium’s minor 

correction number 6, as reported at the 

sales verification, and its calculation 

value of other transportation expenses 

provided in CEP VE 19. 

Due to the fact that AMS Belgium was 

unable to support the amounts 

calculated and reported for the other 

transportation expense data field, the 

Department was unable to verify the 

other transportation expense for the 

certain transactions that were reported 

based on an average. The Department 

obtained broker invoices during the CEP 

sales verification that we used to 

recalculate other transportation 

expenses for two U.S. sales transactions. 

As facts available, the Department is 

using one of the other transportation 

expenses obtained at the CEP sales 

verification to replace the other 

transportation expense reported by AMS 

Belgium for the transactions that were 

originally reported by AMS Belgium 

based on an average amount. 

C. Adverse Inferences 

In selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, section 776(b) of 

the Act authorizes the Department to 

use an adverse inference if the 

Department finds that an interested 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

the request for information. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 

54025–26 (September 13, 2005); see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 

30, 2002). The Statement of 

Administrative Action provides 

guidance by explaining that adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, 

‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 

part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 

United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003) (Nippon). 

1. Certain Selling Expense 

AMS Belgium had several 

opportunities to correct the data on the 

record regarding its exclusion of the 

certain selling expense from its indirect 

selling expenses. These include the 

original questionnaire, subsequent 

supplemental sales and cost 

questionnaires, and ultimately during 

the sales and cost verifications. 

However, AMS Belgium did not request 

clarification regarding how it should 

report its certain selling expense during 

this administrative review. Instead, 

AMS Belgium provided contradictory 

statements to the Department that first 

indicated that the certain selling 

expense was included in its reported 

selling expenses, then subsequently 

indicated that it was reported in G&A. 

AMS Belgium maintained complete 

information regarding its certain selling 

expense in its financial information 

system. See CEP VE 16. However, it 

failed to properly report the certain 

selling amount in question, despite 

statements made to the contrary. 

AMS Belgium’s exclusion of its 

certain selling expense from its reported 

indirect selling expenses is deficient 

because: 1) AMS Belgium had the 

necessary information within its control 

and it did not properly report this 

information; and 2) it failed to put forth 

its maximum effort as required by the 

Department’s questionnaire. As a result, 

we preliminarily find that AMS Belgium 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, for the preliminary 

results we are using facts available with 

an adverse inference to determine 

indirect selling expenses. Specifically, 

with respect to indirect selling 

expenses, we are attributing the entire 

certain selling expense amount in 

question to the calculation of home 

market indirect selling expenses. As a 

practice, the Department will normally 

include these certain selling expenses as 

part of the respondent’s indirect selling 

expenses. This adjustment is considered 

adverse to AMS Belgium’s interests for 

reasons that are proprietary in nature. 

See the Sales Calculation Memorandum 

for additional details. For more detail 

concerning the AFA rates, see 

Memorandum from Joy Zhang, to The 

File, through James Terpstra titled 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium (AMS 

Belgium) for the Preliminary Results of 

the Seventh Administrative Review of 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (SSPC) 

from Belgium,’’ dated June 1, 2009 

(Sales Calculation Memorandum) on file 

in the CRU. 

2. Other Transportation Expenses 

AMS Belgium had several 

opportunities to correct the data on 

record regarding its USOTHTR1U 

expenses reported in both its 

questionnaire responses and minor 

corrections obtained at the sales 

verification. AMS Belgium’s 

USOTHTR1U, for the transactions that 

were based on an average calculation, 

were not supported by the 

corresponding broker’s invoices. 

Furthermore, neither AMS Belgium nor 

AMSI USA were able to explain to the 

Department or provide documentation 

that would clarify why this expense for 

these transactions was found to be in 

error. 

AMS Belgium’s inaccurate reporting 

for USOTHTR1U is deficient because: 1) 

AMS Belgium had the necessary 

information within its control and it did 

not properly report this information; 

and 2) it failed to put forth its maximum 

effort as required by the Department’s 

questionnaire. As a result, we 

preliminarily find that AMS Belgium 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, for the preliminary 

results we are using facts available with 

an adverse inference to determine other 

transportation expenses for certain 

transactions. Specifically, the 

Department is applying adverse facts 

available (AFA) and will use the highest 

reported expense for this field obtained 

during the constructed export price 

(CEP) verification for the U.S. sales 

transactions where the other 

transportation expense data field was 

based on an average calculation. See 

Sales Calculation Memorandum. 

Analysis 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by the respondent that are 

covered by the description contained in 

the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section above 

and were sold in the home market 

during the POR, to be the foreign like 

product for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the home 

market to compare to U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to the most similar 

foreign like product on the basis of the 

characteristics listed in Appendix V of 

the initial antidumping questionnaire 

we provided to AMS Belgium. See the 

Department’s Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire issued to AMS Belgium, 

dated July 15, 2008, on the record in the 

CRU, Room 1117 of the Main Commerce 

Building. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27100 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

3See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 

2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5; Stainless Steel Plate 

in Coils from Belgium; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

75398, 75399 (December 11, 2008), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4; and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 

Bars from Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Determination To 

Revoke in Part, 73 FR 66218 (November 7, 2008), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

made at less than normal value, we 

compared CEP to NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) 

of the Act, we calculated monthly 

weighted–average prices for NV and 

compared these to individual U.S. 

transaction prices. 

Home Market Viability 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, 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 AMS Belgium’s volume of 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product to the volume of U.S. sales of 

the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(B) and 19 CFR 

351.404(b), because AMS Belgium’s 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product was greater 

than five percent of its aggregate volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

we determined that the home market 

was viable. Moreover, there is no 

evidence on the record supporting a 

particular market situation in the 

exporting company’s country that 

would not permit a proper comparison 

of home market and U.S. prices. 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise, or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter. 

As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the 

Department will use the respondent’s 

invoice date as the date of sale unless 

another date better reflects the date 

upon which the exporter or producer 

establishes the essential terms of sale. 

AMS Belgium reported the invoice date 

as the date of sale for both the U.S. 

market and the home market because 

the date of invoice reflects the date on 

which the material terms of sale were 

finalized. 

For purposes of this review, AMS 

Belgium classified all of its export sales 

of SSPC to the United States as CEP 

sales. During the POR, AMS Belgium 

made sales in the United States through 

its U.S. affiliate, AMSI USA, which then 

resold the merchandise to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. The 

Department calculated CEP based on 

packed prices to customers in the 

United States. We made deductions 

from the starting price, net of discounts, 

for movement expenses (foreign and 

U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty and 

brokerage, and post–sale warehousing) 

in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(e). In 

addition, because AMS Belgium 

reported CEP sales, in accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 

deducted from the starting price, credit 

expenses, warranty expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses, including 

inventory carrying costs, incurred in the 

United States and Belgium and 

associated with economic activities in 

the United States. 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based 

NV on the price at which the foreign 

like product was first sold for 

consumption in the home market, in the 

usual commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade. In addition, 

because the NV level of trade (LOT) is 

at a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the CEP LOT, and available data 

provide no appropriate basis to 

determine an LOT adjustment between 

NV and CEP, we made a CEP offset 

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 

Act. See ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section, 

below. 

We used sales to affiliated customers 

only where we determined such sales 

were made at arm’s–length prices (i.e., 

at prices comparable to the prices at 

which the respondent sold identical 

merchandise to unaffiliated customers). 

Arm’s–Length Test 

Sales to affiliated customers in the 

home market not made at arm’s length 

were excluded from our analysis. To test 

whether these sales were made at arm’s 

length, we compared the starting prices 

of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 

customers net of all movement charges, 

direct selling expenses, discounts, and 

packing. In accordance with the 

Department’s current practice, if the 

prices charged to an affiliated party 

were, on average, between 98 and 102 

percent of the prices charged to 

unaffiliated parties for merchandise 

identical or most similar to that sold to 

the affiliated party, we consider the 

sales to be at arm’s–length prices. See 19 

CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where the 

affiliated party did not pass the arm’s– 

length test, all sales to that affiliated 

party have been excluded from the NV 

calculation. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002). 

Calculation of COP 

The Department disregarded sales 

below the cost of production (COP) in 

the last completed review. See Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 

(December 11, 2008). We therefore have 

reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of 

the foreign like product under 

consideration for the determination of 

NV in this review may have been made 

at prices below COP. Thus, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 

examined whether AMS Belgium’s sales 

in the home market were made at prices 

below the COP. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus an amount for selling, general and 

administrative expenses (SG&A), 

interest expenses, and home market 

packing costs. We relied on the COP 

data submitted by AMS Belgium, except 

for the following: 

1. Consistent with recent cases,3 we 

have evaluated whether a shorter cost 

averaging period methodology is 

appropriate in this case due to the 

occurrence of significant cost changes 

through the POR, rather than our 

established practice of using annual cost 

averages. In determining whether 

distortions result from significant cost 

fluctuations in the context of our 

antidumping duty calculations, we 

considered record evidence using two 

primary factors: (1) whether the cost 

changes throughout the POR were 

significant; and 2) whether sales during 

the shorter averaging period could be 

reasonably linked with the COP or CV 

during the same averaging period. 

Record evidence indicates that AMS 

Belgium experienced significant 

changes in the total cost of 

manufacturing (COM) during the POR, 

and that these changes are primarily 

attributable to the price volatility for 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27101 

4Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive SG&A expenses, and profit for CV, where 

possible. 

nickel, a major input consumed in the 

production of the merchandise under 

consideration. AMS Belgium also 

showed that through its alloy surcharge 

levied on sales during the POR there is 

a reasonable level of correlation 

between falling direct material costs and 

final sale prices. Thus, we preliminarily 

find that the change in COM for AMS 

Belgium is significant enough to warrant 

a departure from our standard annual 

costing approach and that these 

significant cost changes would create 

distortions in the Department’s sales– 

below-cost test as well as the overall 

margin calculation in the preliminary 

results. Therefore, for the preliminary 

results, we have applied an alternative 

cost calculation method where we used 

indexed quarterly average direct 

material costs and annual weighted– 

average conversion costs in the COP and 

CV calculations. See Memorandum from 

Ernest Gziryan, Senior Accountant, to 

Neal Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, titled ‘‘Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium,’’ dated 

June 1, 2009. (Cost Calculation 

Memorandum) 

2. We increased the reported per–unit 

COM to include an unreconciled 

difference which represents additional 

production costs per books that were 

not reflected in the reported costs. 

3. We revised AMS Belgium’s 

reported general and administrative 

(G&A) expenses to include certain items 

recorded on the company’s 2007 

financial statements that relate to the 

general operations of the company. 

We compared the weighted–average 

model–specific COPs to home market 

sales of the foreign like product, as 

required under section 773(b) of the Act, 

in order to determine whether these 

sales had been made at prices below the 

COP. In determining whether to 

disregard home market sales made at 

prices below the COP, we examined 

whether such sales were made (1) 

within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities, and (2) at prices 

which did not permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time 

in the normal course of trade, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. On a product– 

specific basis, we compared the COP to 

home market prices, less any movement 

charges, discounts, and direct and 

indirect selling expenses. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices which represent less than 

the COP, we did not disregard any 

below–cost sales of that product because 

the below–cost sales were not made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time. Where 20 

percent or more of the respondent’s 

sales of a given product were at prices 

which represented less than the COP, 

we determined that they were made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. 

Because we compared prices to POR– 

average costs, we also determined that 

the below–cost prices did not permit the 

recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 

Therefore, we disregarded the below– 

cost sales and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

CEP to NV Comparison 

For those sales at prices above COP, 

we based NV on home market prices to 

affiliated (when made at prices 

determined to be at arm’s length) or 

unaffiliated parties, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.403. Home market starting 

prices were based on packed prices to 

affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in 

the home market, net of discounts. We 

made adjustments, where applicable, for 

packing and movement expenses, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. We also made 

adjustments for differences in costs 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act. For comparison to CEP, we 

deducted home market direct selling 

expenses pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410(c). 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison–market sales, NV may be 

based on constructed value (CV). 

Accordingly, for those products for 

which we could not determine the NV 

based on comparison–market sales, 

either because there were no useable 

sales of a comparable product or all 

sales of the comparable products failed 

the COP test, we based NV on CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

CV shall be based on the sum of the cost 

of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

for SG&A and interest expenses, profit, 

and U.S. packing costs. We calculated 

the cost of materials and fabrication 

based on the methodology described in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section, above. We based SG&A and 

interest expenses and profit on the 

actual amounts incurred and realized by 

respondent in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the home market, in 

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

We made adjustments to CV for 

differences in circumstances of sale in 

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 

comparisons to CEP, we made 

circumstance–of-sale adjustments by 

deducting comparison market direct 

selling expenses from CV. See 19 CFR 

351.410(c). 

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 or CEP. 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. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997) (Plate from South Africa). 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), including selling 

functions, 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 export 

price (EP) and comparison–market sales 

(i.e., NV based on either home market or 

third–country prices),4 we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and CEP 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). Where NV is based on CV, 

we determine the NV LOT based on the 

LOT of the sales from which we derive 

SG&A expenses, and profit for CV, 

where possible. 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27102 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison–market. In comparing EP or 

CEP 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. Finally, for CEP 

sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from the 

respondent, AMS Belgium, regarding 

the marketing stages involved in making 

the reported foreign market and U.S. 

sales, including a description of the 

selling activities performed by AMS 

Belgium for each channel of 

distribution. The Department’s LOT 

findings are summarized below. 

AMS Belgium reported two channels 

of distribution and two LOTs in the U.S. 

market. AMS Belgium’s two U.S. 

channels of distribution are: 1) direct 

shipment sales in which the 

merchandise was shipped directly from 

AMS Belgium to the final customer; and 

(2) sales from inventory maintained by 

ArcelorMittal Stainless International 

USA (AMSI USA). See October 3, 2008, 

Section C Questionnaire Response at 13. 

AMS Belgium reported several selling 

functions for its sales to the United 

States. See selling functions chart 

included at AMSI USA CEP Verification 

Report, dated June 1, 2009, at VE 3. 

During the sales verification, AMS 

Belgium provided a detailed 

explanation of its selling activities and 

indicated that its selling activities for 

U.S. sales are performed in support of 

AMSI USA. 

Our analysis of these selling functions 

performed by AMS Belgium in the 

United States shows that the selling 

activities and services do not vary 

according to the channel of distribution. 

Id. We find that there is no variation in 

type or level of services provided by 

AMS Belgium for the channels of 

distribution in the United States. AMS 

Belgium provides comparable services 

for the two channels of distribution in 

the United States, which only differ 

based on whether the sale is shipped 

directly to the final customer or to AMSI 

USA’s inventory. Therefore, based on 

the lack of differentiation between the 

type and level of activities associated 

with AMS Belgium’s sales into the two 

distribution channels, we preliminarily 

determine that there is only one LOT in 

the U.S. market. See Sales Calculation 

Memorandum. 

With respect to the Belgian market, 

AMS Belgium reported five customer 

categories in a single channel of 

distribution. Specifically, AMS Belgium 

reported that it sells SSPC to customers 

in the home market in a single LOT 

through its affiliated sales agent, 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Europe S.A 

(AMSE S.A.). AMS Belgium performs 

the following selling functions in the 

home market: strategic and economic 

planning, market research, technical 

advice regarding product characteristics 

and use of product, visiting customers, 

product information and training 

sessions, advertising, sales negotiations, 

communication with mill, scheduling 

production and freight arrangements, 

packing, after sales servicing support or 

claims, and personnel training, 

personnel exchange and manpower 

assistance. See Sales Verification Report 

at CEP VE 3. We examined the selling 

functions performed for the five 

customer categories and found that the 

selling activities and services do not 

vary by customer category. See Sales 

Calculation Memorandum. Therefore, 

we preliminarily conclude that AMS 

Belgium’s sales in the home market 

constitute one LOT. 

AMS Belgium performed the twelve 

aforementioned selling activities in the 

home market. The selling functions for 

the U.S. market are primarily performed 

by AMSI USA with the exception of the 

packing selling function, which is 

handled solely by AMS Belgium. As 

indicated above, AMS Belgium’s selling 

activities for its U.S. sales are performed 

in support of AMSI USA. We analyzed 

the differences among the reported 

selling activities which demonstrated 

that AMS Belgium’s sales in the home 

market were at different stages in the 

marketing process than the U.S. sales. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. and 

home market LOTs. In our comparison 

of the U.S. and home market LOTs, we 

eliminated from consideration selling 

functions performed by AMSI USA and 

only considered the portion of the 

selling functions performed by AMS 

Belgium after making adjustments under 

section 772(d) of the Act. As a result of 

our comparison, we preliminarily 

determined that AMS Belgium’s home 

market LOT is at a more advanced stage 

of distribution than the CEP LOT. 

We then considered whether we 

could make an LOT adjustment. In this 

case, AMS Belgium only sold at one 

LOT in the comparison market; 

therefore, there is no information 

available to determine a pattern of 

consistent price differences between the 

sales on which NV is based and the 

comparison market sales at the LOT of 

the export transaction, in accordance 

with the Department’s normal 

methodology as described above. See 19 

CFR 351.412(d). Further, we do not have 

record information which would allow 

us to examine pricing patterns based on 

the respondent’s sales of other products, 

and there are no other respondents or 

other record information on which such 

an analysis could be based. 

Accordingly, because only one LOT 

exists in the home market we could not 

make an LOT adjustment. However, 

because the LOT in the comparison 

market is at a more advanced stage of 

distribution than the LOT of the CEP 

transactions, we made a CEP offset 

adjustment in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.412(f). This offset is equal to the 

amount of indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the comparison market not 

exceeding the amount of indirect selling 

expenses and commissions deducted 

from the U.S. price in accordance with 

section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. For a 

detailed discussion, see Sales 

Calculation Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 based on 

the exchange rates certified by the 

Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that for 

the period May 1, 2007, through April 

30, 2008, the following dumping margin 

exists: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium 

(AMS Belgium) ........................ 6.70 

Duty Assessment and Cash Deposit 

Requirements 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b), the Department 

calculates an assessment rate for each 

importer of the subject merchandise for 

each respondent. The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

Furthermore, the following cash 

deposit rates will be effective with 

respect to all shipments of SSPC from 

Belgium entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of the final results, 

as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of 

the Act: (1) for U&A Belgium, the cash 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27103 

deposit rate will be the rate established 

in the final results of this review; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will 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 less–than-fair–value 

(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 shall 

be the all–others rate established in the 

LTFV investigation, which is 9.86 

percent. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

From Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 

1999). These deposit rates, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless extended by 

the Department, case briefs are to be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice, and 

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, are to be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs. Parties who 

submit arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Case 

and rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). 

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice, interested parties may 

request a public hearing on arguments 

to be raised in the case and rebuttal 

briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies 

otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will 

be held two days after the date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties 

will be notified of the time and location. 

The Department will publish the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal 

brief, no later than 120 days after 

publication of these preliminary results, 

unless extended. See 19 CFR 351.213(h). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

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. 

These preliminary results of this 

administrative review and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated June 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13343 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–803] 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, With or 

Without Handles From the People’s 

Republic of China (Axes and Adzes): 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is rescinding an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on heavy forged 

hand tools, with or without handles 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’), with respect to axes and adzes, 

for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

February 1, 2008 through January 31, 

2009. This rescission is based on the 

timely withdrawal of request for review 

by the party that requested the review, 

Fiskars Brands Inc. (‘‘Fiskars’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Ray, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5403. 

Background 

On February 4, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order heavy forged 

hand tools (‘‘HFHTs’’), with or without 

handles from the PRC with respect to 

axes and adzes. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 74 

CFR 6013 (February 4, 2009). On 

February 27, 2009, Fiskars requested an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on HFHTs, 

with or without handles from the PRC 

with respect to axes and adzes. On 

March 24, 2009, the Department 

initiated an antidumping duty 

administrative review on HFHTs, with 

or without handles from the PRC with 

respect to axes and adzes. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 

12310 (March 24, 2009). On May 18, 

2009, Fiskars timely withdrew its 

request for review. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are HFHTs comprising the following 

classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) 

Hammers and sledges with heads over 

1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) (‘‘hammers/ 

sledges’’); (2) bars over 18 inches in 

length, track tools and wedges (‘‘bars/ 

wedges’’); (3) picks and mattocks 

(‘‘picks/mattocks’’); and (4) axes, adzes 

and similar hewing tools (‘‘axes/adzes’’). 

HFHTs include heads for drilling 

hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks 

and mattocks, which may or may not be 

painted, which may or may not be 

finished, or which may or may not be 

imported with handles; assorted bar 

products and track tools including 

wrecking bars, digging bars and 

tampers; and steel woodsplitting 

wedges. HFHTs are manufactured 

through a hot forge operation in which 

steel is sheared to required length, 

heated to forging temperature and 

formed to final shape on forging 

equipment using dies specific to the 

desired product shape and size. 

Depending on the product, finishing 

operations may include shot blasting, 

grinding, polishing and painting, and 

the insertion of handles for handled 

products. HFHTs are currently provided 

for under the following Harmonized 

Tariff System of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 

8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. 

Specifically excluded from these 

investigations are hammers and sledges 

with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in 

weight and under, hoes and rakes, and 

bars 18 inches in length and under. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES