[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19712-19714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10415]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of new shipper antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 23, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the new shipper administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. We gave
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes for the final results.
This review covers two producers/exporters of stainless steel bar
to the United States during the period February 1, 1996, through
January 31, 1997. The review indicates no dumping margins during the
review period.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or James Breeden, Import
Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-1279 or 482-1174, respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting this
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Unless otherwise indicated, all
citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to those
codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1997).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 23, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the new shipper administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India (63 FR 3536)
(``preliminary results''). The manufacturers/exporters in this review
are Panchmahal Steel Limited (``Panchmahal'') and Ferro Alloys
Corporation Limited (``Facor''). We received comments from Panchmahal
and rebuttal comments from the petitioners 1 (see,
Interested Party Comments, below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp.,
Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corp.,
Electralloy Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels Corp.,
Talley Metals Technology, Inc. and the United Steelworkers of
America (AFL-CIO/CLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel
bar. The term ``stainless steel bar'' means articles of stainless steel
in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned,
cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a
uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of
circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares),
triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless
steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned
or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness or if 4.75 mm or more
in thickness have a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least
twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any
uniform solid
[[Page 19713]]
cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the
definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections.
The stainless steel bar subject to these orders is currently
classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,
7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Interested Party Comments
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we invited interested parties to
comment on our preliminary results. We received written comments from
Panchmahal and rebuttal comments from the petitioners.
Comment 1: Model Matches
Panchmahal disagrees with the Department's preliminary decision to
compare its U.S. sales of 304L grade bar to its home market sales of
316 grade bar. Rather, Panchmahal argues that the Department should
compare the U.S. sales of 304L grade bar to its home market sales of
304 grade bar.
The petitioners rebut that hot-rolled 304 grade bar and cold-
finished 304L grade bar are not comparable because of differences in
these grades' production costs. Furthermore, the petitioners assert
that the differences in variable costs between 304 grade bar and 304L
grade bar reported by Panchmahal are too low and thus must be flawed,
given the different production processes of the two grades.
Accordingly, the Department should use constructed value (``CV'') as
the basis for normal value.
Department's Position
We agree with Panchmahal. Based on its chemical composition, we
have determined that grade 304L bar is more appropriately matched to
grade 304 bar than grade 316 bar. Specifically, grade 304L bar and 304
bar are more comparable based on their chrome and nickel content.
Moreover, grade 316 bar contains molybdenum, while grades 304L and 304
bar do not.
In regard to petitioners' argument to use CV as a basis of normal
value, it is the Department's normal practice to use contemporaneous
home market sales of the foreign like product, before resorting to CV,
as a basis for normal value unless those sales fail the difference in
merchandise test. Because the home market bar sales are sales of
foreign like product that do not fail the difference in merchandise
test and that match to U.S. sales, use of constructed value would be
inappropriate. Based on our general knowledge of the production
processes involved, the reported differences in variable costs are not
unreasonable.
Comment 2: Duty Drawback
Panchmahal asserts that the Department, in Certain Welded Carbon
Standard Steel Pipes and Tubes from India (62 FR 47632 (September 10,
1997)) (``Pipes and Tubes''), has found that the Indian Passbook Scheme
is a proper duty drawback program. Thus, in this case, the Department
should allow an upward adjustment to U.S. price in the amount of the
duty drawback received on exports of the subject merchandise. The
respondent also states that it fully answered the Department's
supplemental questions regarding the duty drawback benefit under this
scheme; therefore, the Department's rejection of the adjustment in the
preliminary results is groundless. In particular, Panchmahal argues
that the Indian Passbook Scheme meets the criteria used by the
Department when analyzing duty drawback programs because the duty
drawback is based on duties paid with respect to imported inputs
actually used in the production of the subject merchandise.
The petitioners maintain that the Panchmahal's use of the Indian
Passbook Scheme fails the Department's two-part test for drawback
claims because the respondent did not provide documentation
establishing: (1) A direct link between the duties imposed and those
rebated, and (2) that the company imported a sufficient amount of raw
materials to account for the drawback received. The petitioners assert
that the evidence on the record supports the Department's decision to
reject Panchmahal's claimed duty drawback adjustment. Specifically,
petitioners argue that Panchmahal's claim for a duty drawback
adjustment is based merely on the existence of the Indian Passbook
Scheme. They state that the existence of a drawback program does not
guarantee acceptance of the adjustment by the Department; rather, the
company's specific utilization of the scheme must be examined.
According to the petitioners, the lack of a direct link between duties
paid on imported inputs and duties rebated on exported finished
products under the program, and the failure by Panchmahal to provide
any details on its imports should compel the Department to reject the
company's request for an upward adjustment to U.S. price.
Department's Position
When evaluating a duty drawback program, the Department considers
whether the import duty and duty drawback are directly linked to, and
dependent upon, one another and whether the company claiming the
adjustment can show that there were sufficient imports of the imported
raw materials to account for the drawback received on the exported
product (see, Pipes and Tubes, at 47634).
Panchmahal has not provided adequate documentation establishing a
sufficient link between import duties paid and duty drawbacks generally
received under the program. Moreover, there is no indication that
Panchmahal imported inputs in sufficient quantities to account for
rebates received under the program. Accordingly, as in the preliminary
results, no adjustment to the U.S. price for duty drawback has been
made.
Comment 3: Duty Drawback Adjustment to Material Costs
Panchmahal argues that its material costs should be reduced by the
amount of reported duty drawback. Panchmahal refers to Stainless Steel
Bar from India (62 FR 60482 (November 10, 1997)), in support of its
position.
Petitioners contend that since the Passbook Scheme does not require
direct linkage between import duties paid and rebates received on
exported products, the rebates cannot be linked to the material costs
incurred. Petitioners further argue that since Panchmahal has failed to
report the actual amount of import duties paid, the Department is
unable to ensure that the claimed adjustment to material input costs
does not exceed the amount of import duties paid.
Petitioners also assert that Panchmahal mischaracterized the
Department's determination in Stainless Steel Bar from India (62 FR
60482 (November 10, 1997)) (``Bar from India''), which states that the
Department offset the per unit direct materials cost to account for the
rebates received only on those sales where constructed value was the
basis for normal value. The petitioners maintain that since normal
value was not based on constructed value for Panchmahal, no adjustment
should be made to the reported materials costs.
Department's Position
Respondent's comment is moot because we did not use constructed
value as the basis for normal value.
[[Page 19714]]
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we find that the following margins
exist for the period February 1, 1996, through January 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panchmahal................................. 2/1/96-1/31/97 0
Facor...................................... 2/1/96-1/31/97 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. The results of this review
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries
of merchandise covered by the review and for future deposits of
estimated duties for the manufacturers/exporters subject to this
review. We have calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated
for the examined sales made during the period of review (``POR'') to
the total value of subject merchandise entered during the POR. The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs
Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results of this new shipper administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results
of this new shipper review; (2) for companies not covered in this
review, but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-
value investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the most recent rate established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous review or the original
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of
12.45 percent established in the final determination of sales at less
than fair value (59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994).
These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: April 13, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-10415 Filed 4-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P