[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73013-73015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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