[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73013-73015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29645]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-808]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 2010-2011

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order 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. (AS Belgium). The period of review (POR) 
is May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 
32517 (June 1, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to the Preliminary Results. For the final dumping weighted-
average dumping margin, see the ``Final Results of Review'' section 
below.

DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska at 202-482-8362; Office 
of AD/CVD Operations 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 1, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to comment on 
the Preliminary Results. On September 17, 2012, the Department received 
case briefs from AS Belgium and the petitioners.\2\ On September 24, 
2012, the Department received rebuttal briefs from AS Belgium and the 
petitioners. No party requested a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners are Alleghany Ludlum Corporation, North 
American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Arco 
Independent Organization, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union (AFL-CIO/CLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2012, the Department issued a memorandum extending the 
time period for issuing the final results of the administrative review 
from September 27, 2012, to November 28, 2012.\3\ As explained in the 
memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the 
Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the 
duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 29, 
through October 30, 2012. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the 
proceeding have been extended by two days. The revised deadline for the 
final results of this review is now November 30, 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, to 
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations titled ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium. 
Extension of Deadline for Final Results,'' (June 29, 2012).
    \4\ See Memorandum from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadline 
as Result of the Government Closure during Hurricane Sandy,'' dated 
October 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 22, 2012, the Department issued a post-preliminary 
analysis memorandum in which addressed the petitioners' targeted 
dumping allegations.\5\ On October 29, 2012, AS Belgium submitted its 
case brief on the post-preliminary analysis memorandum. On November 2, 
2012, the petitioners submitted their rebuttal brief to AS Belgium's 
case brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul 
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 2010/2011 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils (Steel Plate) from Belgium: Post-Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum, dated October 22, 2012 (Post-Preliminary Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain stainless steel 
plate in coils. The product is currently classified under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 
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, available in the order, remains dispositive.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate 
in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South 
Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and post-
preliminary comments by parties to this administrative review are 
addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results 
of the Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Belgium from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Decision 
Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby 
adopted by this notice.
    A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this 
notice as Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and 
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main 
Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Import 
Administration'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 Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed 
Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received for AS Belgium, we have 
recalculated AS Belgium's weighted-average dumping margin. AS Belgium's 
adjustments are discussed in detail in the accompanying final 
calculation memorandum.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to the File from Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst 
entitled ``Calculation Memorandum for Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. 
(AS Belgium) for the Final Results of the 10th Administrative Review 
of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium,'' dated November 30, 
2012.

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

[[Page 73014]]

Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) and Selling Expense Ratios

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we based normal value (NV) 
for AS Belgium on CV because there were no above-cost sales for 
comparison purposes. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
which provides for the use of ``any reasonable method'' to determine an 
amount for CV selling expenses and profit in the absence of actual 
data, we relied on the CV selling expense and profit ratio calculated 
for ASB in the 2007-2008 review, the most recently completed review in 
this case. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 62520.
    The respondent and the petitioners raised several issues in their 
case and rebuttal briefs regarding the Department's use of the 2007-
2008 CV selling expense and profit ratios. As discussed in detail in 
the Decision Memorandum, after considering the comments by interested 
parties, we have determined for these final results that the 2010 
audited financial statements of Aperam S.A. (AS Belgium's parent) 
represent the most reasonable data available on the record for 
determining CV profit.
    With respect to selling expenses for the final results the 
Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to rely on AS 
Belgium's 2007/2008 financial data for calculating a selling expense 
ratio. For the final results, the Department finds that it is more 
appropriate to use AS Belgium's information from the current review to 
derive the selling expense ratio. For further information, see the 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

Bundled Sales

    For these final results, the Department has not found that the 
record supports the petitioners' allegations of bundling. Because our 
analysis includes business-proprietary information, for a full 
discussion, see Memorandum to the File through Eric B. Greynolds from 
Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst, entitled, ``Calculation Memorandum for 
Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V. (AS Belgium) for the Final Results of the 
10th Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Belgium,'' dated November 30, 2012.

Targeted Dumping

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, the petitioners requested that 
the Department use an alternative comparison method, making average-to-
transaction comparisons of normal value to constructed export price 
with respect to AS Belgium. The petitioners' request that the 
Department apply the average-to-transaction method for steel plate from 
Belgium in this administrative review was based on an allegation of 
targeted dumping. After publication of the Preliminary Results, the 
petitioners urged the Department to conduct the targeted-dumping 
analysis, as currently applied in antidumping investigations, in this 
administrative review to ascertain whether AS Belgium engaged in 
targeted dumping.\8\ The Department issued a post-preliminary analysis 
regarding targeted dumping on October 22, 2012.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    \9\ See Post-Preliminary Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of the case and rebuttal briefs from interested 
parties, the Department has continued to address the petitioner's 
targeted dumping allegation in these final results. As a result of the 
application of its targeted dumping analysis, the Department continues 
to find a pattern of constructed export prices for comparable 
merchandise that differs significantly among certain purchasers, 
regions, and time periods. See the Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. We 
further find that the observed price differences cannot be taken into 
account using the average-to-average method. Specifically, the average-
to-average methodology yields a weighted-average dumping margin that is 
meaningfully different than the weighted-average dumping calculated 
using the average-to-transaction methodology. As a result, the 
Department has used the average-to-transaction method to calculate AS 
Belgium's weighted-average dumping margin on steel plate from Belgium 
for the period May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. Using the average-
to-transaction method we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin 
of 0.82 percent for AS Belgium.

Verification

    The petitioners requested that the Department conduct verification 
of AS Belgium's home market and U.S. market sales databases in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv). See the Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 3. The Department has conducted verification of AS Belgium 
in the most recently completed administrative review. Further, we find 
that no good cause for verification exists within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.307(b)(1)(iv). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1), 
we determined not to verify AS Belgium in this administrative review. 
Id.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determined that the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2010, 
through April 30, 2011.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                  Manufacturer/exporter                       dumping
                                                              margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aperam Stainless Belgium N.V............................           0.82%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antidumping Duty Assessment

    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).\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In these final results, the Department applied the 
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping 
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final 
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 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 id.

[[Page 73015]]

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 
AS Belgium, 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 ``all-others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation.\11\ These deposit rates, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. See 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3).

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.
    These final results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Comments

Comment 1: Bundled Pricing
Comment 2: Targeted Dumping
Comment 3: Constructed Value (CV) Profit and Selling Expense Ratios
Comment 4: Verification
Comment 5: Customs Instructions


[FR Doc. 2012-29645 Filed 12-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P